Many have and will argue that religion is a splendid basis for determining a person’s character. It quickly divulges a stance upon several key issues and illuminates the person as containing moral character. For some, such as Obama, things said by their church reflect personally upon them. For others, such as Palin, things said by them in a church dictate public decision. But it appears that for all of us, religion matters.
At the
How’s that for religious character? It is no secret that many religious leaders have been charged with child molestation, statutory rape, embezzlement, murder and drug distribution. The Catholic Church is just as notorious as Michael Jackson in that way and evangelicals are common for jokes regarding stealing a congregation’s money. We all know these evils have invaded the church system and yet we assume they are isolated- we turn the other cheek and make jokes instead of inquiries. Blame the messenger not the God- hold the man accountable and not the church.
My point is simply this; religion is not an all telling base for morality. In fact, is it not more frequently used as a smoke screen that deflects us from actually examining the moral character of a person because we either feel alienated by their different beliefs or we choose not to pry because we fear what it may reveal about ourselves and our religious choices? How can we base our definition of a candidate as being good or bad, right or wrong off of one aspect of their life? And in doing so, why do we selectively ignore the most detrimental actions of religious leaders while focusing on some harsh comments made by Obama’s pastor?
Religion holds no place in politics and an argument that its use is necessary to reveal a person’s moral standards can easily be destroyed through an examination of criminal activity within the structures by prominent figures.
Posts
6 comments:
While I understand the concern behind this post, I can't help but think that it is both misguided and poorly thought out. Brittanie's attempt to make the claim that "Religion holds no place in politics" based on the indiscretions of some church leaders seems to make the mistake of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. In other words, we cannot pass judgement on every person, every church, and every denomination simply because there are those who have made mistakes. Brittanie is making the same mistake that she is accusing others of making. It is just as ridiculous to assume that every church or church member has problems as it is to assume that every church or church member is perfect and we can completely understand their morals by konwing where they go to church. Obama is a perfect example of this: he is not a black extremist, but if we only were to look at his church we may be led to believe that he is. Religion can help us understand a candidate's motivations, but we must also be able to understand that the candidate is more than just their religion. I agree that religion should play a diminished roll in our political process, but I'm not willing to jump on the "abolish religion in politics" bandwagon just yet. A little less faith in religion by some and perhaps a little more faith in religion by others could put us in a place where we put all variables on the table and assess them equally.
I think Brittnie’s main point is a valid one, though she could certainly restructure and refine her argument to make it more convincing and effective. I agree that religion does not necessarily constitute “an all telling base for morality.” The examples Brittnie provides show that religious people (and leaders) are just as prone to corruption and immorality as those who do not consider themselves particularly religious. In addition, their actions are often overlooked or pardoned simply because they are part of a religious institution. However, Brittnie does not effectively explore both sides of the debate: religion can sometimes be a good way to judge a person’s character, though it is certainly not a sure method. She also lets her own opinions seep into her writing too much: “Why do we selectively ignore the most detrimental actions of religious leaders while focusing on some harsh comments made by Obama’s pastor?”). Therefore, it is difficult to give her much credibility, even though she makes some good arguments.
I think that Jonny and Brittanie both make valid points: religion is not an all-telling mark of a person's character, but it can be an indicator of it. Obviously an individual can assume and incorporate some aspects of their professed faith while ignoring others (think "cafeteria Catholics") and be no less sure in their faith. When it begins to mix with politics, I too am wary of dismissing it altogether, but I would be more inclined to see how their assumed religious views match up with their voting record. If there are clear links between the two (if a Catholic politician is anti-choice because that is the stance of the Catholic church and they are unwilling to deviate from that view) then I believe it can be discussed. However, I am aware that politicians make decisions that are not grounded in their faith (they could support or oppose something for secular/political reasons), so there seems to be no clear cut answer for determining whether or not a religious view can be used to evaluate a politician.
I agree with Brittanie's overall point. Religion is not an all telling base for morality and we definitely place too much importance on what church political figures attend, how often they show up, and every comment or view point somebody affiliated with that church makes. Although I see Jonny's point about the comparisons Brittanie uses, I think she was just attempting to support her argument that attendance at church does not necessarily give credibility to people when we often perceive that it does. I agree with Dana that a candidate's voting record might indicate how important viewing their religious background actually is.
I think Brittani makes it clear that religion isn’t the only way to judge people, however the judgment placed on religion itself hinders the argument slightly. Religion’s role in politics though unwelcome, is necessary for the public. It’s one of the cues needed for the common people who don’t know too much about politics. I don’t think it’s right, but I think it’s one of the reasons people vote the way they do.
At the same time we can’t judge one religion because of the mistakes of few prominent figures within the religion. Just because one priest may have raped children within the congregation doesn’t mean that all priest have done so. We can’t give credit where credit isn’t due. The mistakes of few doesn’t rightfully portray the morality of the rest.
Also, the decisions of politicians don’t always coincide with their own faith. For example, Obama is pro-choice, which is clearly against his own religious background. We can’t assume anything about candidates based on their religion.
I think Brittanie makes a good point that is often overlooked. It is very easy to assume that Religious faith is equal to morality but when it comes down to the facts people are fallible, even Christians. What religion does, is not so much verify the character of a politician and affirm his or her sense of morality and values, but assure that his or her moral code is similar to your own. People identify with things that are familiar, and religion is just another example. An Episcopalian would probably identify with another Episcopalian over a Baptist. This is not to say that one type of religion is more moral or ethical that the other, just more similar. I agree that religion should not be a part of politics. However, as long as people search for ways to identify politicians and classify them into categories, I’m afraid it will continue to play a role in our political world.
Post a Comment