The last several months have seen more than a little interest in the beliefs and activities of political figures, an occurrence that frankly stymies me. The first flap was over whether President Barack Obama is Christian or Muslim, the second around Delaware Republican Senate candidate’s 1999 admission that she “dabbled” in witchcraft in high school.
For the purposes of clarity and disclosure, I consider myself politically neutral. I don’t support any particular political party and I don’t participate in political activities — including voting — but I respect your right to do so if you choose and won’t interfere with your choice.
Maybe it’s my position as an “outsider” to the political process that’s leaving me confused. But I seem to remember learning in school about this crazy thing called separation between church and state, and this other thing called freedom of religion. And since I seem to remember those things being kind of fundamental to the founding of the country, I’m a bit baffled as to why anyone cares about the religious beliefs of political figures. As a general rule in this country, we seem to expect that our most of our politicians have association with some faith or organized religion. Does it really matter which one?
Presumably, Obama was elected by a population that supported his political views and thought he would be a good political leader for the nation. Unless I missed something really important in Mrs. Jensen’s class in seventh grade, I don’t think his job is to provide religious or otherwise spiritual guidance or direction. His job is to oversee the running of the country. Where and whether he worships aren’t part of the job description, right? So who cares? And WHY?
As far as O’Donnell goes, most Americans seem to think of The Craft, Blair Witch Project, and maybe Harry Potter when they think of witches. But regardless of how you may feel about it, witchcraft is legitimately a religion. Wicca, the religion with which modern practitioners of witchcraft largely identify, has a specific theology, symbology, and practice. (A number of practitioners have pointed out in the media that what O’Donnell described in her 1999 Politically Incorrect clip doesn’t match up with Wicca, but that’s another conversation entirely, and one that doesn’t belong on this blog.)
Whether O’Donnell was “dabbling” in Wicca, Satanism (which, incidentally, does also have a theology, symbology, etc.), or something else entirely isn’t really relevant. What matters is that like anyone else in this country, she has the right to practice or explore whatever religion she chooses. She’s been variously identified as a Protestant and a Catholic — generally conservative either way — and no one seemed to have an issue with that. But this witchcraft thing, well, it’s a big controversy. Said one publication, “It is one thing to be against masturbation, it is quite another to admit that you took part in pagan rituals and attended a picnic on a Satanic altar.” It’s religion either way, so again, who cares? And why?
Political viewpoints causing strife and controversy in a political setting makes sense to me, but religious viewpoints having the same effect is beyond me — at least, for a country that professes freedom of religion and separation between church and state.
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
Kristen,
These are very reasonable questions. I am someone who follows politics as best I can and only believe 10% of what I follow.
However, I could care less what you believed 11 years ago. I’m more concerned what you believe today in regards to who your filter your decision making process.
We get such superficial glimpse of those we vote for that I need to use the best indicators given. I’m just not sure that their stated religion matters, since they’ll typically state whatever gets them elected and the definition of reach religion varies.
Exactly. It’s religious freedom. But then you get those who argue what constitutes religion. If I practice it and believe it to be a religious experience, it’s religion.
devil’s advocate.
maybe this isn’t an issue of religion and politics, but an issue of
1. being frightened. maybe it isn’t the abstract constitutional principles that first entered our minds in third grade that need review, but the concrete what-happens-when-the-lights-go-out principles that probably entered our minds around the same time. does the pile of laundry STAY a pile of laundry, or does it become a monster, a ghost, a thing that will, the moment we close our eyes, attack?
have the lights gone out in america? does financial crisis and the possibility of universal healthcare threaten us to such a degree that we have to “convert” one object to another object in order to make sense of our inner feelings of peril?
of course, this doesn’t begin to address the fact that the feared “object” here is the muslim identity.
2. being afraid of muslims. of course we should care what religion our leaders practice. (wait, did i just say that?) yes. i did. for the same reason that we should care how they will vote on issues that are important to us. a person’s religious values and the values they are likely to express in their governance are likely to be linked.
should we be afraid of muslims? no. we should not be afraid of muslims.
should we be asking ourselves if people are off for asking what religion obama has? or should we be asking ourselves if people are off for being SCARED that he COULD BE a muslim?
i vote for option two.
americans and religion go together like bagels and cream cheese. separation of church and state is, frankly, a myth. we shouldn’t refuse to look at religion in the public sphere – in the world of politics – because in the very concrete happenings of our political world, we HAVE to consider it. religion not only figures in our personal lives, but in our rights in the sight of the LAW. marriage equality is a prime example of this issue.
but, while we’re looking at religion, i propose we have a better look at ourselves… our propensity to be afraid, as individuals, and as communities – and our ability – one i truly have faith in – to rediscover what it feels like to trust our neighbors, and to ask them to trust us in return. if we can start there, i think we can mitigate many of the “religious” issues that have recently popped up in the media – and return our attention to more just and appropriate causes.
As one who is “politically neutral”, trying to look at the big picture of what is said/meant versus what is done, I have often wondered why so called religion DOESN’T play more of a part in the political process. Example: If a candidate is running to “represent the people” and is a devout ‘believer’ that, say, abortion is wrong even though the “laws of the land” support a woman’s rights, can or should those who believe it to be fundementally evil not vote for him/her for that reason? IF, on the other hand, althought believing it to be evil, they ignor their beliefs and convictions in order to apease the people they represent, could they ever be trusted in such an office? Or is THIS type scenario what makes them a politician? Just thinking out loud….. There are sooo many more situations where what someone has claimes to believe, based on their religious affiliation, really should come into play when they are claiming to represent the turbulent masses. Reverse the cards and what would a religion be worth if a memeber who choses to be an adhearant lives a life not in harmony with the teachings? Wow… The questions pile up! No wonder I’m neutral…… ;o)