“Americans Wary of Church Involvement in Partisan Politics” discusses at length church’s participation in partisan politics, particularly the endorsement of a candidate. The article opens with a challenge to tax code by over twenty four pastors which eliminates churches being involved in political activities. At the forefront is the church’s involvement begins vague statements against involvement. Following these vague statements are polls which effectively back the author’s points. These polls also show that religious traditions and level of religious commitment do not affect the poll result: we are tired of our church’s involvement in partisan politics.
In With God on Our Side: The Rise of the Religious Right in America, William Martin references the Reagan campaign of 1980 and its pertinence to this issue. At the National Affairs Briefing in Dallas, Reagan opened up his speech to the New Evangelical Right, with the statement “You can’t endorse me, but I endorse you” (Martin 217). This quote acknowledges the fears of evangelicals then and today: churches endorsing candidates. Martin’s use of this example, and the fact the Reagan opened up his speech with these words, shows the significance of this fear. Martin also touches upon this issue, in reference to when Paul Weyrich worked vehemently to convince pastors to get involved in the political process. The pastors didn’t believe their congregations wanted them to get involved, but Weyrich had a study performed which “revealed that not only was the evangelical community anxious for their leadership to come forth on these issues, but they were sort of angry at them for not having come forth” (Martin 172). But where do church leaders draw the line? When have pastors and priests gone too far?
Not much has changed since 1980: we do not want our churches to endorse candidates. One additional thing that has not changed is the fact that we need help from our churches on unclear issues. For example, Evangelicals in the late 1970’s did not know where to stand on the abortion issue. Those individuals needed help, mainly because their denominations had not taken a stand, along with their pastors; specifically, Evangelicals were hesitant to stand against abortion especially after Catholic churches immediate opposition, following the court decision. Also, Falwell did not take a stance on the issue until five years after the Roe v. Wade decision. These factors put the Evangelical in a precarious position and in need of assistance. Churches have provided help when needed in the past, to the great benefit of the parishioners; “Biblical Scorecards” are a perfect example of Church assistance. What parishioners really want is direction, not being told who to vote for. We do not live in a theocracy, and as such we are entitled to vote however we wish, regardless of denomination. If the leader of your denomination came out and endorsed a candidate that you otherwise wouldn’t have voted for, would that affect your vote? Should an endorsement by your denomination affect your vote?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
I'm sorry but I forgot to add the URL. Here it is http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=358
To answer the questions at the end of Jeff's post: a religious endorsement should not affect your political decisions. This is not the case with a large percentage of voters, so the possibility of endorsement should be prevented. The original article shows that 66% of the population does not support religions supporting a particular candidate. Voters should be able to decide for themselves who best represents their beliefs and political views. Someone should not feel obligated to abandon their political views to vote with their religion.
A religious leader should not be allowed to preach from the pulpit. Religions are given tax exemptions so as to separate church and state. If religious institutions are taxed, then that money would be supporting the state. This is a slippery slope to call into question. For this reason, politics should remain separate from church. Religious leaders should not express their views on candidates or issues while preaching to their congregation. Voters should be able to investigate the candidates enough to decide who represents their views without a denomination explicitly spelling it out.
I disagree that evangelicals have historically feared to endorse political candidates, but at the same time, I feel that this endorsement is fully constitutional. Billy Graham, probably the most famous American evangelical theologian of the twentieth century, had no qualms about overtly supporting candidates, though he was careful to limit his public involvement. Today, evangelical ministries such as that of Rick Warren continue to preach politics to their congregations, in order to mobilize evangelicals as a powerful voting body. For instance, Warren’s Saddleback Church sent thousands of pamphlets to parishioners urging them to let certain moral issues decide their vote. Although preaching politics blurs the distinction between secular and religious issues, I believe that it should be protected as free speech under the Constitution. Preachers can have as much or as little influence on electoral politics as the media or any other organization with sway over the public. Voters with strong political beliefs will not be turned and those in need of direction will be given one. In a democracy, everything is ultimately dependent on the choice of the voter.
Post a Comment