On Politics and Religion: A Dialogue

Dear Abbot:

Is it fair game for a reporter to ask a politician about his religious beliefs?

Presbyter


Dear Presbyter:

No. It is not relevant, and it is not proper.

If a candidate chooses to run on his faith, as Jimmy Carter did, setting a modern trend in US politics, then it is a legitimate issue. Otherwise, it is a private matter, and encouraging people to vote on this basis is simply encouraging religious prejudice.

Of course, candidates have every right to run on their faith. And, of course, their faith will influence what they do in public life, and ought to. But we know enough if we know their public platform and their public record. We should not presume to know what they "really" think, because they are a Baptist or a Mormon or a Catholic. If this is not quite prejudice in itself, it at least gives free rein to any prejudices we might have.

This includes, to my mind, voting for a candidate because he nominally shares our religion. If this is not bigotry, it is at least naive.

Abbot


Dear Abbot:

Well, thank God at least that this has not been a problem in Canada yet. We alternate between Roman Catholic and Protestant prime ministers.

Presbyter


Dear Presbyter:

I wish that were still true. It has, sadly, become a problem in Canada, though you are right that it never used to be. It began with attacks on Stockwell Day, when he was leader of the Alliance, because he was an Evangelical. Remember Warren Kinsella pulling out a Barney doll on TV and declaring "The Flintstones is not a documentary!"?

Now Stephen Harper is getting the same treatment. I quote a recent correspondent:

“If you believe that Jesus is coming (as opposed to the belief that Jesus is here, and comes again and again in every challenge and opportunity); if you believe the end of the world as 'predicted' in improperly interpreted Scriptures is nigh; if you yourself, and those you love are 'saved' and will end up in heaven, and everyone else has been warned over and over to say the formula of words and join the club; if you believe there are dire problems in the world, but want only to accept the wisdom in your own group - then it is easy to be apathetic about real change. The [only] important thing is getting people 'saved'. If you're the Prime Minister, you can't say that officially, but it leaks out...'"

This is the sort of thing found in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion; and it has recently become common political discourse in Canada. It is more than sad; it is shocking.

As to her claim that believing that Jesus is coming [again] is reason to vote against a candidate, note that this would disqualify all Christians from holding office-for that claim is in both the Apostles' and the Nicene creeds.

As to believing that the end of the world is nigh, believing that the world will come to an end is a logical necessity. I presume her problem is specifically with those who think it is immanent and predictable.

If so, her strongest case is not against Christians, who generally believe that "no one knows the day or the hour," but with advocates of the doctrines of global warming, nuclear winter, environmentalism, or human overpopulation. As one recent environmentalist correspondent claimed, "we are spitting ourselves out... of existence."

Indeed. Perhaps, then, only serious Christians should be allowed to hold public office?

Abbot


Dear Abbot:

But still... in the U.S., presidents have typically come from a more limited spectrum of religious possibilities -- almost always white, Protestant, and moderately evangelical.

I'm old enough to remember that when John F. Kennedy ran for president, large numbers feared he would take his marching orders from the Vatican, not from the American people.

A particular brand of religion is so taken for granted in U.S. politics that hardly anyone expressed fears that George W. Bush might take his marching orders from Oral Roberts, Billy Sunday, or John of Patmos.

Presbyter


Dear Presbyter:

That's not so. A lot of people very openly expressed fear that George W. Bush was secretly "taking his marching orders from St. John of Patmos," in terms very much like those used by our correspondent regarding Stephen Harper.

The living religious prejudices in the US are also not quite what you say. Yes, there is probably a continuing prejudice against Catholics: although they are the single largest religious denomination in the USA, there has still not been a second Catholic president. And, though little noted, Joe Biden has the distinction of being the first Catholic US Vice-President.

But, next to Catholics, guess what religious group is most under-represented among US presidents?Baptists (http://www.adherents.com/adh_presidents.html). The largest Protestant denomination; yet it seems other Americans still do not find them socially acceptable. They wear their religiousity too much on their sleeve. Americans clearly do not prefer their presidents to be even "moderately evangelical," as the Baptists are. They prefer their presidents to have a religiosity that is emotionally lukewarm and light on dogma. Episcopalian, Methodist, Unitarian, Presbyterian.

This prejudice actually seems to be growing, not fading. When George Romney ran for the Presidency in 1968, his Mormonism was barely noticed, or mentioned. When his son Mitt ran last year, it was a central issue used openly against his candidacy.

Abbot


Dear Abbot:

At least, I am quite sure that Americans are not yet ready to elect an openly Muslim president. Or an avowed atheist, for that matter.

Presbyter


Dear Presbyter:

Probably right about Muslims. Since there are so few Muslims in the US anyway, this does not seem to be a major concern.

There are historically respectable arguments for not extending religious tolerance to atheists: Locke and Rousseau made them. But I'm not sure an atheist would have much of a problem these days, so long as he stayed low-key about it. When Ed Broadbent was once asked for his religious affiliation, he said, "non-practicing Druid." Did that ever become an issue with anyone? We can all think of politicians who faced public opposition because they were Catholic, or Fundamentalist, or Mormon. Can you name anyone at all in recent times who actually ran into electoral trouble because he was atheist-not "godless communist," but just atheist?

Britain, at least, has had two publicly atheist prime ministers: Clement Attlee, James Callaghan. Did anyone care? But we're still waiting for a Catholic one...

Abbot