Welton Gaddy: August 2008 Archives

I was fortunate enough to be invited to the Democratic National Convention to share my concerns about the misuse of religion during this election - from both parties. The following is remarks I shared at a Faith Caucus meeting just this afternoon:

An electoral process that culminates on Election Day with a high percentage of voter turn-out is to a celebration of democracy what observances of Rosh Hashanah, Eid al-Fitr, Diwali, and Christmas are to Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Christians respectively.

Voting is a sacred act in our civic religion.

But the grand promise of an American presidential campaign is fulfilled by the election not of a religious-leader-in-chief of the nation, but of the commander-in-chief who is the chief executive of our country.

The leader we choose may have a faith of his own, but he must lead members of all faiths present in the nation - as well as those with no faith at all. The Constitution forbids the legal enshrinement of anyone's religious beliefs, so voters need to know how candidates are prepared to translate their beliefs into policy statements based on universal values.

Those of us who speak of electoral guidelines and advocate adherence to boundaries between institutional religion and partisan politics do so not as stuffy legalists wishing to mute all religious language or pour cold water on the white hot excitement of devotees of a particular candidate.

We call for attentiveness to the proper role of religion in campaigns as thankful citizens who know the importance of religion in a society and recognize in democracy our best hope as a nation.

Insistence on the proper role of religion in the life of the nation is essential--a non-negotiable--for the good of religion, for the constitutional protection of non-religious people, and for the vitality of democracy.

American civil law governing relations between clergy and candidate is uneven. A candidate can turn the pulpit or bema of a house of worship into a political stump - ignoring the non-partisan nature of prayer, faith, worship, meditation, and religious identity - without incurring even as much as a civil reprimand.  The house of worship, however, could be threatened with the loss of tax-exempt status for allowing the candidate to campaign there.
Some of the rules that houses of worship must follow to keep their tax exempt status are clear:

• A member of the clergy cannot endorse a candidate in his or her official capacity.
• No institutional money or resources can be used for partisan work.
• Any benefit offered to one candidate - such as the chance to speak at an event - must be available to all candidates.

Wherever they campaign, candidates have certain responsibilities - more subtle, but equally important.  Candidates should:

• Provide evidence of their respect for people of all religions or no religion.
• Be sure people understand that they intend to serve all citizens, not just those who are committed to a religious tradition similar to their own.
• Candidates don't have to speak of their religion, but if they choose to do so, they have an obligation to let voters know how their religion will influence their decision-making and actions in their elected office.  Today, many people fear a politician's use of public office to promote private faith.  Tomorrow such fear should be gone.

My desire for the remainder of this election season is rather simple: houses of worship used for worship and meditation, campaign speeches that reflect appreciation for religion as they sketch a secular vision that embraces all Americans; religious leaders' examinations of sacred texts that interact with critical issues of our day not for the purpose of promoting a particular candidate but for seeking a discovery of truth and a dissemination of hope; candidates honest about their public policy priorities and strategic in their descriptions of how to alter our nation for the better; and neither candidates nor religious leaders wrongly manipulating religion, wrongly assuming that religious faith is a prerequisite for office, wrongly claiming that the concepts of "good, right and moral" are exclusive possessions of a few rather than values that all our nation shares.  I long for the backbone of our civil government to be strengthened by candidates who engage each other in civil debates, leave the electorate more informed than divided, and promise, as did John F. Kennedy before them, that they will resign the office of the presidency before they will place the teachings of any religion over the authority of the constitution.  

Though no law governs the words and actions of those entrusted with this precious balance between appreciation for religion and devotion to a secular government and no regulation punishes their misdeeds, let us demand that candidates mute their wrongheaded appeals to the misguided notion and theological heresy of "a Christian nation" and turn up the volume of rhetoric sensitive to the glorious complexity of the American faith picture and resolutely dedicated to freedom, rights, liberty and justice for all.

The Interfaith Alliance counsels houses of worship on how to "obey the rules", but we also challenge political candidates to meet the highest standard of what is right, not simply what is legal.

Winning an election is not worth weakening our constitution or threatening the dynamic of the so far peaceful relationship that has characterized institutional relations between religion and government in this nation.

Religion is strong in our nation, a reason for gratitude, a friend of freedom.

People of faith and goodwill should be among the most avid defenders of the constitution, especially during a national election, demanding that the relationship between religion, government, and politics not be altered so as to compromise religion's integrity or blunt democracy's vitality.

My colleagues and I will work tirelessly toward that end and we long to be involved in that work alongside all of you. 

The following is cross-posted at On Faith.

I approached Rick Warren's Saddleback Civil Forum with much anticipation, but without a clear idea of how he would handle the sensitive issues at the intersection of religion and politics.  I believe Pastor Warren set an example of civility that I hope others will follow, but at the same time some of his questions crossed a line that makes this election seem as if we are electing a pastor-in-chief rather than a commander-in-chief.

Pastor Warren's opening statement, if not his questions, reflected precisely the thought of the founders of our nation and explicitly conveyed the spirit of their intent in the religious liberty clauses of the Constitution.  Preventing institutional entanglements between religion and politics or the institutional subservience of one to the other is a necessity that differs dramatically from personal perspectives on politics and politicians influenced by an individual's faith or lack of faith.  From my point of view, the forum could not have started with a more important statement.
 
However, as the forum continued, primal distinctions between faith and politics became blurred and, in some instances, were erased.  A question about a candidate's commitment to Jesus seems of little relevance to a religiously pluralistic nation made strong by a secular government that appreciates religion but gives no preference to religion over non-religion.  For the most part, I found Pastor Warren's questions creative and helpful and his attitude a refreshing encouragement of all that is civil.  However, his inquiry about personal faith and his citations from the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures well could have left the wrong impression.  Many people in this nation do not turn to those scriptures for wisdom or to faith for guidance.  Questions essential in a church are not particularly helpful in a conversation a church sponsors to help educate diverse voters in the nation.
 
In response to Pastor Warren's questions on religion, both John McCain and Barack Obama seemed compelled to offer confessions of faith as a credential for their attractiveness as a candidate for the White House.  But, that should not be the case.  There is no religious test for public office according to our Constitution and we have no business trying to establish what the Constitution forbids.
 
As I said in email I sent to the members of the Interfaith Alliance: "After watching the Saddleback Forum on Saturday evening, I did not see a clear winner but I did see a clear loser - it was people like us. While I appreciate Pastor Rick Warren's civility, I believe questions like: 'What does it mean to trust in Christ?' have no place in a political forum."
 
The format on Saturday night was good as were many of the questions, especially those related to the Supreme Court, for example, but the strong religious foundation of the forum and the heavy religious slant obvious in its inquiries sent the wrong message about the rule of faith in the crucial decisions that must be made about our national leaders.  But, then, the forum was held in a church, a fact, which, in itself, raises some questions and presents some difficulties when you really think about it.

The Pew Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life have published a report that confirms my suspicions about the use of religion on the campaign trail. The study found that we are in the midst of an election for a Pastor-in-Chief rather than a Commander-in-Chief.

An analysis of over 13,000 news stories from January 2007 through April 2008 revealed that religion is playing a disproportionate role in this election.  Religion accounted for roughly ten percent of all stories that did not focus on political strategy or tactics.  By comparison, foreign policy issues garnered 14 percent of these stories, and stories about race and gender only made up 11 percent.

The United States is in the midst of two wars, one of which is costing our taxpayers $6 billion every month.  Terrorism represents the greatest foreign policy crisis of our generation.  At the same time, American society is being transformed as Senators Clinton and Obama challenged traditional stereotypes of who is best fit to be president.  And despite these profound changes and challenges, religion is receiving almost as attention in the media as foreign policy and race/gender issues.  And the scary thing is that George W. Bush, who revolutionized using religion for partisan gain, isn't even on the ballot.

There is much blame to go around that explains this troubling trend.  The presidential candidates on both sides of the aisle were more willing than ever to seek the endorsement of religious leaders, incorporate religious rhetoric into their speeches, and promote their religious affiliation as a misguided proxy for sound judgment and clear vision. 

Both Senators McCain and Obama had some buyer's remorse after seeking the support of controversial clergy. But candidates cannot have it both ways. They cannot continue to use clergy for political gain and then discard them when it no longer fits their agenda.

The media deserve much of the blame as well.  Last summer, CNN's Soledad O'Brien asked Senator John Edwards to name his biggest sin.  Multiple debate moderators asked various candidates to name their favorite Bible story. 

These types of questions have no bearing over a candidate's ability to serve as president.  The media are the staunchest supporters of the First Amendment's guarantees of free speech and press, yet it appears they have not read Article VI of the Constitution, which prohibits imposing a religious test for public office.

The problem is not that religion is being incorporated into the presidential campaign.  Rather the problem is that religion is being used as a divisive tool instead of a unifying power.  The candidates need be less concerned with appearing "holier than thou" and focus instead on explaining the role their values play in their political worldview.  The media needs to stop asking irrelevant (and irreverent) questions about the candidates' religion and start asking the candidates to outline their views on the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. 

If we can nurture a more positive relationship between religion and politics, a survey result like this one would be encouraging rather than lamentable.