United We Stand?

Although the Democratic Party has recently been able to attract an unusually high percentage of Evangelical support for President Obama and his platform, this support may prove rather ephemeral with the passing of the new $787 billion economic stimulus package. According to Tom Strode of the Southern Baptist Convention, evangelicals oppose this act on many fronts – particularly in claims that it will promote rationed healthcare, discriminate against faith on school campuses, and spend too much in areas that will not immediately stimulate the economy. Granted, this last point is a view that certainly isn’t unique to Evangelicals – many people believe that the stimulus will not do what it’s intended – but it’s not a surprise that a plan that expands the reach of the federal government would be opposed by this group. The preoccupations about healthcare and schooling are voiced stronger in this article: ethics leader Richard Land contends that, “there are a lot of things that are disturbing in this bill… but if I were to single out one thing that is most disturbing it would be the $1.1 billion to create a superstructure of rationed health care to the sick and elderly.” His worries are lodged in the new Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research that is to be organized, which, like the (socialized) British system, is designed to promote healthcare treatments that are cost-effective over those proven to be superior methods of medical treatment. Basically the new council will either “grant or deny healthcare based on whether it is cost effective” and, “kill health care… as far as quality.”

One encounters an uncanny feeling of déjà vu when reviewing the opposition to educational provisions: the stimulus allows funding to go to private colleges and universities, but prohibits funding for facilities used for sectarian instruction or religious worship. While this isn’t actually a change in policy since the Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963, the sentiments being harvested in Evangelical groups now mirror those that brought about the rise of the Religious Right in the late 1960s. William Martin explains in his book, With God on Our Side, that the Religious Right originated as a response from conservative Christians to new government policies removing the tax-exempt status that many private Christian schools enjoyed. The threat of higher tuition and school closures with the new burden of taxation manifested itself to conservative Christians as a threat to their ability to practice their way of life, and so, desperate for a return to the old status quo, this group saw no other choice but to involve itself in politics by becoming what is known as the Religious Right. This translates to a modern-day concern that schools without financial aid from the government will prove unable to maintain themselves, and Christians will need to send their children to secular schools. History suggests here that the rallying points that Evangelicals have found within the economic stimulus may be enough for a strong revival of the Religious Right and a return of religious value-voters to the Republican Party.

Speaking of expanding government influence, I can foresee the $500,000 cap on executive salaries causing outrage among Evangelicals as well. While the number of impacted families is small, this provision puts America on track to becoming a more socialized nation, and could rekindle a certain paranoia that Jerry Falwell, cofounder of the Moral Majority, explained the Christian Right once maintained about Communism inflicting American families. With a cap on the amount some Americans will be able to spend and more controls over schooling and healthcare, some may begin to feel that they are rapidly losing control of the ability to make their own life choices or teach principles unlike those off of which our government acts to their children.

A dichotomy has already manifested itself in the distribution of votes on the stimulus. The House voted 246-183 in favor, but no Republicans approved. In the Senate, the stimulus passed 60-38; with 3 Republicans and 55 Democrats supporting it and no Democrats in opposition. As the stimulus is implemented, outcry will only become louder; surely change won’t be visible immediately, so widespread panic and desperation will lead to more extreme activism. James Morone, author of Hellfire Nation, outlines the pattern of widespread panic unifying the masses under morality to raise opposition to the status quo. It appears that this is already beginning to take place over faster forms of communication like the internet. Several sources have also indicated recently that Christian Churches have seen swelling attendance rates due to recent economic disparity. According to Life Christian Church in New Jersey, “prayer requests have doubled – almost all of them aimed at getting or keeping jobs.” If people can be coerced into attending church in hopes of reviving their finances, it’s likely that they’ll listen to Evangelicals’ opinions about the economic stimulus and follow suit.

The pocketbook, as William Martin points out, is a fierce motivator in politics, as is the need for security. An economic crisis is one of the best things that could happen for the Religious Right seeking support for their political agenda. My prediction is that history will repeat itself; the Religious Right will not wane in the near future as some have predicted from the outcome of the election, it will utilize the economic stimulus as a rallying point for Evangelical involvement in politics. Can Obama's call for unity and cooperation prevail over the prevalent feelings of panic and desperation that our economic crisis invokes? I think it would take too much for one man – even the President – to get people to override their nature in favor of cooperation.

Abortion, Obama, and Evangelicals

Postings on this blog have often focused on abortion, as well as the irreparable divide between Republicans and Democrats on this issue. However, I think most of these posts have overlooked an interesting phenomenon: the rise of young evangelicals, most of whom are the products of the Christian Right. These evangelicals have grown up in Sunday school. Some have gone to Christian schools or were even homeschooled. This voting bloc is the first generation to grow up during the rise of the Christian Right, and their voting patterns, especially on the issue of abortion, are interesting to study as a result.

As this article makes clear, Barack Obama was extremely successful, compared to previous Democratic presidential candidates, in gaining votes among self-described evangelicals. During his presidential campaign, Obama worked hard to court evangelicals, talking about issues they care about: social justice, caring for the poor, the need to end the war in Iraq. He won 42 percent of evangelical votes. However, this so-called “narrowing of the God gap” could be very tenuous.

As Martin shows in his book With God on Our Side, the Republican Party has deliberately lined itself up with evangelical values, particularly on the sanctity of the family and abortion issues (213). This has provided them with a strong and loyal base for the past thirty years. And even now, when it appears that many evangelicals might break ranks with the Republicans, they can still be won back.

While I agree with the authors of the article that the GOP has a very good chance of bringing the young people ‘back into the fold’, I don’t think it will be as easy as they make it sound. The policy changes they call for will require a dramatic shift in the party’s platform, a change that won’t happen overnight. Besides, older Republicans might resist the need to expand their ideals to gain a bigger audience. However, it is crucial for Republicans to realize that a strong stance on abortion, and even other social issues, such as homosexuality, gay marriage, the sanctity of the family, and the evolution debate, while still important, won’t hold as much sway over younger voters.

Changing Religious Voters

There have been a number of articles over the past week detailing Barack Obama’s success with winning votes from a variety of religious people. In her article from Newsweek, A Post Evangelical America, Lisa Miller describes Obama supporters as “a wild diversity of the American religious experience, including mainline protestants, church-shoppers, the curious, the spiritual but not religious, the heterodox, the intermarried, the community minded.” Obama also did well with Jewish people, Catholics and religious African Americans.

Another article, which is from the LA Times, looks at the differences in demographics between the people who voted for John Kerry in 2004 and the people who voted for Barack Obama. Cathleen Decker highlights the fact that “Obama did better than Kerry among pretty much every religious group.” Obama did surprisingly well with Catholics even made a little bit of progress with white evangelicals.

Miller asserts, “For at least four decades, white evangelicals have been the religion-and-politics story in this country.” Ever since Billy Graham became a national figure, decrying communism and spreading the gospel, the evangelical right has been one of the essential voting blocs needed to win an election. This idea was solidified with Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority and his efforts to get Ronald Reagan elected. However, this election demonstrated that simply winning the white evangelical vote is not enough. Candidates must appeal to a variety of religious voters.

This shift in the voting patterns of religious voters can be explained in two connected ways. Miller argues, “The religious vote for Obama did not reflect a massive shift in ideology and priorities among Evangelicals but rather muscle-flexing by a coalition of others of faith.” With higher voter turn out among Latinos and African Americans, who mostly supported Obama, voter demographics were quite different. Furthermore, social issues, such as abortion and gay marriage, where not the most important issues for a number of voters. More pressing problems, especially the economy, influenced many voters to chose one candidate or the other.

The question that I am left is will these shifts be permanent? Are religious voters becoming more liberal, or at least more willing to support more liberal candidates? Or were certain issues simply prioritized during this election? I think that the current state of our nation definitely influenced voters’ decisions, but I also do not think that the “religious” vote is guaranteed to the republicans. Candidates need to learn to not take any votes for granted.

"To serve Allah and my country"

In his op-ed article, The Push to ‘Otherize’ Obama, Nicholas Kristof delivers the disheartening results of a Pew Research Center survey of which 13% of voters identified Obama as Muslim, while another 16% remained unconvinced that he was Christian. Even more alarming, these percentages have risen since June! Theories of Obama as the Anti-Christ do not seem to help; the online Red State Shop sells products tarnishing an “O” with horns. While the most conservative Christians are not all too fond of McCain, they would rather vote for him than Satan. Never mind that Obama is more active in church than his opponent.

Kristof will suggest that “religious prejudice is becoming a proxy for racial prejudice.” He goes on to support his claim: “In public at least, it’s not acceptable to express reservations about a candidate’s skin color, so discomfort about race is sublimated into concerns about whether Mr. Obama is sufficiently Christian.” To justify, excuse, or otherwise mask racism, certain voters have taken a religious discrepancy (largely based on his middle name, Hussein, and his childhood in Islamic Indonesia) and run with it, well beyond its boundaries. It is to say Obama is “other,” or specifically un-American.

I could not agree more with Mr. Kristof, my only critique on his claim: he is not harsh enough! These voters are cowards. Although he does a great job of reprimanding his fellow journalists who choose to promulgate falsehoods at the disservice of politics. In reading his article I was reminded of another, (I was pleased to see Rachel used this piece on the 22^nd) in which it is written: “One parishioner ruled out voting for Mr. Obama explicitly because he is black. ‘Are they going to make it the Black House?’” It is possible had I not read this article, I would have had a harder time buying Kristof’s argument. I wish I did not know of such ignorance.

Having studied abroad in South Africa last semester I was alarmed, terrified and saddened to witness the “xenophobic” attacks directed on foreigners – particularly refugees or immigrants from other African nations. Some of you may have heard of this in the news back in May. At the time I struggled to put the violence into an American context. But what makes us any different? Unless we are of Native American descent, we are all immigrants of this country. I see now that I was getting hung up on the PHYSICAL violence. There is no denying that killings, especially motivated by differences, occur in America. But in our capitalistic society, it is the malice in wanting the “other” to fail that is most dangerous. We see intentional sabotage on the personal and professional levels all too often. How Christian is that?

All said, shame on any Christian who pulls the wool over their own eyes allowing him or herself to be blinded by ignorance. It’s a cowardly way out…

Head of State, Not of Church

In an opinion piece posted on the “About Faith” forum, a group managed by Newsweek and the Washington Post, Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, an influential seminary in the Southern Baptist Convention, defends the position that it is not hypocritical to believe that “a woman could lead a nation, and not a congregation”. This question was raised by the fact that the Southern Baptist Convention asserts:

"A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ. She, being in the image of God as is her husband and thus equal to him, has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation".

Additionally, the SBC asserts that only “qualified men” are called to serve as church pastors: “This conviction was not invented by Southern Baptists. It was, and now remains, the honest conviction held by most Christians around the world, and for good reason.”

Which begs the question: if SBC members believe that it is not a woman’s place to lead a church or to be head of a household, why then would they support a woman in a bid for the (Vice) Presidency? Is an exception being made for Gov. Sarah Palin because her politics are in line with theirs, or could they wholeheartedly endorse any woman’s decision to run for office?

Mohler defends the SBC statements on wifely submission, and on women’s inability to serve as church leaders, by stating that they are drawn from the Bible and are widely accepted among Christians. Because the Bible gives explicit teachings on the issues of women’s roles in the home and church, evangelicals support these positions. However, according to Mohler:

“Our confession of faith does not speak to the appropriateness of women serving in political office. The reason for this is simple -- the New Testament does not speak to this question in any direct sense.”

This line of reasoning seems to make sense within the framework of the SBC assertions, but I don’t believe that it is strong enough to hold up against outside arguments. There are too many logical gaps and questions which remain unaddressed for Mohler’s statement to be accepted at face value. For example, if Palin were to become the President, and thus the head of the nation, under the SBC guidelines, wouldn’t she be ultimately accountable to her husband, and under his leadership? Isn’t the office of President a post with moral and ethical dimensions, similar to a pastor, on a much larger scale?

Additionally, drawing such a distinct line between the role of women in church and in politics seems a bit crass given the religious right’s fervent interest in policy and the national moral agenda; they rally voters around hot-button moral issues with religious implications (and thus are attempting to violate church/state separation). It is opportunistic to embrace Palin because she can (a) further their agenda, and (b) put a compassionate face on a movement which is frequently viewed as patriarchal and in favor of strict gender roles. If there is a public showing of support for Palin, it makes the right seem progressive and stereotype-shattering for embracing a woman in power.

While Mohler’s arguments for supporting a female candidate for the White House are logical within his framework, I do not believe that the support for Palin is motivated by any larger purpose or great desire to see a woman in office. It still seems very hypocritical to deny so much power to women in other aspects of their lives, and then to make a public show of rallying around one particular female candidate who can help to further their interests.

The Right Rage

Most Americans would probably agree that rage is generally unfavorable. But these days, someone brand new to the national spotlight is all the rage, and she finds her bandwagon a bit fuller with every passing day. Not that Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin minds the rampant characterizations or barbs about inexperience that are being thrown her way; she’s happy to be raging against Barack Obama’s well-oiled political machine of astronomical fundraising and registering unprecedented numbers of new voters. McCain may claim to be the Maverick himself, but it’s Sarah Palin who is inspiring as much rage from the other half of America as we all felt when sweet ole’ Goose died. Now that’s saying something.

Newsweek columnist Lisa Miller is saying something, too. The selection of Palin, she claims, flies in the face of recent evidence that evangelicals have been turning from their hard-line socially conservative obsessions and “divisive religious rhetoric” toward things like “global warming, Darfur, illiteracy, human trafficking, preventable disease.” Had the change been made in earnest, these “softened” evangelicals could make political hay, potentially altering the identity of the Republican Party or swaying in large numbers toward Obama’s camp. But what Palin lacks in experience, she makes up for in zeal and focused ideology. She was raised Pentecostal and, if her politics are any indication, still espouses a strict moral code of behavior. Most importantly, though McCain struggled early on with the Republican Party’s evangelical base, Palin has announced her presence with the loud, angry beat of a very familiar drum: a rigid, aggressive pro-life platform.

Many of the young, reform-minded evangelicals might have been able to look beyond this utterly polarizing debate this election year – or at least see and clearly evaluate the issues surrounding it. It nearly goes without saying that evangelicals are pro-life, but it seems they were ready to turn the corner on their evaluation of its importance. After all, McCain doesn’t exactly stoke the spiritual fires that keep his base warm and active. Now, with the focus squarely back on a debate that essentially posits one candidate against the entire corpus of old-time religious values, abortion is returning to its status as the great wedge. While it may be true that change is coming no matter what ticket is elected come November, Sarah Palin aims to use one tried and true method to boost McCain into office: just the right amount of that same old, pro-life, right-wing rage.

Ave Sarah, Dominus tecum

The American public’s fascination with the intersection of sex, politics and gender has found a new expression during this election with the vice-presidential candidacy of Sarah Palin. In this editorial by Anthony Stevens-Arroyo, he presents the Catholic counterpoint to the Evangelical’s warm acceptance of her candidacy. Stevens-Arroyo warns his readers not to indulge in the canonization of Palin, and contrasts her actions, particularly those involving sex, marriage and children, with the Blessed Virgin Mary, whom he considers to be the true role model for American women. Stevens-Arroyo’s accusations against Sarah Palin indicate that neither debates between Catholics and Protestants, nor disputes concerning sex, gender and women’s roles have changed significantly in over a century.

Stevens-Arroyo brackets his article by contrasting the Evangelical and Catholic viewpoints. He begins by noting that Palin left the Catholic church when she was twelve, and argues that her “conversion” from Catholicism to the evangelical tradition may “contribute to the favorable frenzy” surrounding Palin’s nomination. Contrasting the Catholic “natural law” with the Evangelical emphasis on private revelation, Stevens-Arroyo concludes his article by forwarding the argument that Palin’s religious views are dangerous to the American political system.

His comment that “Evangelicals like to boast of an ex-Catholic who renounces our faith” is a reflection on America’s anti-Romanism which began in the late 1800s. At that time, Josiah Strong, a Congregationalist minister, denounced Catholicism for the “irreconcilable difference between papal principles and the fundamental principles of our free institutions.” Over one hundred years and one beloved Catholic president later, a blatant distrust of Catholics is no longer tolerated in the mainstream media. However, as Stevens-Arroyo points out, many Evangelicals still privately maintain the belief that Catholics are not truly Christians, and therefore warmly welcome those who renounce their allegiance to papal authority. In a reversal of Protestant claims about Catholicism, notably Strong’s comment that “the Pope has ‘full and supreme power’ over politics as one of the ‘things which belong to faith and morals,’ ” Stevens-Arroyo argues that today it is Palin’s uninformed version of Christianity which threatens American government.

Continuing his critique of Palin’s “canonization” by Evangelicals, Stevens-Arroyo notes that Evangelicals seems to place more emphasis on repentance after sexual sin than on continuous purity. Moreover, he argues that “the Evangelical fascination with forbidden sexual fruit” has led to more support for Palin because she is considered attractive. He concludes his critique of the evangelical attitude towards gender and sexuality by pointing to Palin’s decision to give a political speech in Seattle after her water had broken as an indication that she values her own prestige more than the health and safety of her child.

A century ago, Stevens-Arroyo’s critiques would not have been unusual coming from the lips of a Protestant minister. The same themes, including lax sexual morals and permitting women to engage in activities which compromised their families, were fiery issues in Victorian era. Morone notes that throughout American history, “there was hell to pay whenever women ventured from the private sphere into the public (or male) realm.” The only difference between Stevens-Arroyo’s arguments and those made in the Victorian era is that Victorians cited Catholics as part of the immorality problem. Stevens-Arroyo reverses that claim, instead blaming Evangelicals for being too lenient on the moral failings of their beloved saint and denigrating the family by holding Palin up as a model for motherhood.

In addition to the long-standing conflict between Catholic and Protestant traditions, Stevens-Arroyo’s opinion reflects genuine concerns about sexual behavior, women’s roles and gender issues. Although his attitude is not reflected as broadly in mainstream culture today, Stevens-Arroyo draws on a historical undercurrent of American society to forward his arguments against Sarah Palin.

Securing the Votes

An article in the New York Times, "Obama Wants to Expand Role of Religious Groups" reported on Senator Obama’s commitment to expand the role of religious groups in charity-based projects, which includes increasing federal support for them. As the article demonstrates, Obama has a strong stance on the role of religious groups in helping society because he believes the government alone cannot solve the problems of America, and that “we need all hands on deck.” (For the actual speech: Obama ).

The authors of the article are quick to point out Obama’s defense against the criticism that the program, started by the Bush administration, “blurs the constitutional separation of church and state.” Through careful supervision, Obama promises that groups would not use funds for proselytizing or that groups could not discriminate against “potential recipients or employees” based on their religious choice.

While the article focuses on Obama’s support of this program for religious groups, the underlying message is a clear example of the influence of religion or religious people on the current election: Obama is trying to court evangelical voters. When a candidate supports government programs that fund a religious group’s endeavor, religious people in those groups are more likely to vote for him. The article states, Obama is “trying to take advantage of signs that some conservative Christians are rethinking their politics, [who are] concerned about issues including climate change, genocide, AIDS and poverty.” The article even notes how McCain also showed his support for the same program, and that McCain is struggling to gain favor from evangelicals too.

When comparing the current role of religion in politics to its role in the early years of America, the concerns of separation of church and state are similar, but the issue of politicians purposely bringing religion into politics to secure votes is slightly different. Despite the belief often held by conservative Christians that the Founding Fathers were radical Christians who built this nation upon the principles of God, most of the early leaders did not use their religion to persuade the people. Rather the people questioned the beliefs of their leaders, and the leaders responded with a balanced answer that acknowledged God’s importance, but focused more on God not being a determinant in their governmental position. Even though there are examples like George Washington and his use of Christian allusions in public addresses (Meacham, 78), the majority of political leaders focused on avoiding direct religious commentary for political purposes. When some, like Benjamin Rush and Benjamin Franklin, did allude to religious contexts, they were highly criticized (Meacham, 91).

Today, the answers provided to questions about personal religious choices are different because religion plays a more vital role in securing voters. If a candidate does not state his religious beliefs, he risks losing a set of voters because for some people, a candidate’s religion is more important than other views. In addition, current candidates’ answers are less concerned with the balance of personal choice with church and state separation, but more emphatic in stating their belief because it is something certain voters want to hear. A good example of this is McCain’s unhesitating and succinct profession of his beliefs, when questioned by pastor Rick Warren's Saddleback Forum. For the founders, ensuring that Americans understood religious freedom as a natural right was key, and for current politicians, ensuring that Americans can relate to their specific religious identity is highly important.