In his article, “Races to Watch: Dole’s Hail-Mary Ad in North Carolina,” Massimo Calabresi says that Elizabeth Dole has a very real chance to lose a U.S. Senate seat that has been in Republican hands for quite some time (Jesse Helms used to hold the seat until 2002). Calabresi then goes into discussing Dole’s latest tactic which turned out fabricated Hagan as saying “There is no G-d!” Calabresi uses Republican consultant Alex Castellano to point out that “‘when your’re making ads that say [your opponent thinks] there is no G-d, it usually means your campaign doesn’t have a prayer’” (par. 3). Calabresi presents the facts in a mostly unbiased fashion. Though he seems to be much harder and goes more into depth on Doles ads than he does Hagan’s “successfully satirical” (par. 5) ones, this could easily be the result of the more repulsive nature of Dole’s tactic. Calabresi concludes that if Dole does win “it will be hard to argue that it wasn’t her attack on Hagan’s faith that put her over the top” (par. 11).
This is one example outside of the presidential election where religion has had a direct effect on politics. Hagan ended up beating Dole 53 to 44 the day after this article was published and many argued that the distasteful Dole ad probably added a good deal to her loss. But the question on my mind, is so what if she were an atheist? Perhaps Hagan and others were so deeply offended by the fact that the ad lied about her being an atheist when she is really a Christian. But I think being labeled an atheist (perhaps just like Obama being labeled a Muslim) has come to be an insult in this country. I think what we need to do now is heed that idea that Billy Graham put forth to Richard Nixon in 1960: he said he was “‘detaching [himself] from some of the cheap religious bigotry and diabolical whisperings that are going on’” (Martin, p. 53). The sad fact of the matter is that in this country you cannot win the presidency or most high-level political offices if you are anything but a Christian. I mean would Hagan, who is Presbyterian, have been as insulted had Dole insinuated that she was a Methodist or a Catholic? I have a sneaking suspicion that the answer is no. Hagan might have corrected her but no real fall out would have manifested itself. That is because in this day in age, an age where we can elect a black man as president and have women in serious contention for the presidency, we still cannot even fathom having an atheist in the Senate, much less the White House. And in this day in age when our president has been called a Muslim, he must purge the background of all of his speeches of people wearing headdresses.
Is there a time in the foreseeable future when the “cheap religious bigotry” can be left behind and we can recognize that it is the morals that people gather from their religion that matter and the not the religion itself? Will we ever elect a non-Christian president?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
We are often told that two topics of conversation to stay away from are religion and politics. But yet the two keep coming back around in a very prominent fashion. In an ideal world religion would not play a role in our politics, we would elect officials based solely on their qualifications and policies. However, we do look at the religion of our leaders. When Mit Romney was in the running for presidential candidacy everyone formed opinions of him based on a the mormon stereotype they had created in their head instead of considering his experience and credibility. Even Barack's pastor was drug through the mud and he wasn't even in the running! Americans have finally broken the racial and gender glass ceiling, but we can't seem to get past religious barriers.
Landon post expresses a reality of American politics. It seems that we can elect a black president, but are not able to overcome religious differences between the candidates and the majority of Americans. As both articles presented, the religious issue is undeniably relevant and plays a key role in American’s vote. I think the real danger here is that political strategists have come to understand this and have begun using it to their advantage. Both the Dole ads and Obama’s supposed Islamic background demonstrate that religious beliefs are being used as targets. Both articles demonstrate that these accusations serve a purpose and are effective; this explains the Obama campaign’s decision not to allow the two Muslim women to sit behind the candidate in order to avoid public scrutiny and criticism over religious concerns. Political strategists are continuing to use this tactic and have found new ways of bringing the issue to the voters. It seems that they no longer base their statements on factual information, instead they make up these facts, as evidenced by the Dole ads. So even if religion is not an issue, they make it one. It must be for a reason.
Even though the majority of the people seem to be Christian, and our country is founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs, there is supposed to be neutrality. Our founding fathers tried to make this clear be including the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses in the Constitution. So with all these freedoms and assumed neutrality, why then have most highly elected officials been Christian? It seems odd that it so unlikely that a Muslim, an Atheist, or even a Jew can be elected to and hold a high ranking office. Now that tremendous progress has been made by electing an African-American, it seems that religion might be an even larger obstacle than race.
Post a Comment