Billy Graham met with Mitt Romney this month, offering what some considered his approval of the campaign of a Mormon seeking the presidency. And earlier in the campaign, mostly during the primaries, there was discussion about the definition of religious freedom.
But, by and large, religion has not played a major role in this year?s election. There have been few religious-themed debates over issues such as gay marriage, abortion, the Middle East and Islamic extremism. And there has been little high-profile courting of pastors such as Rick Warren, Jim Wallis or T.D. Jakes.
At least not like in the last several election cycles, where candidates from George W. Bush to Bill Clinton to Barack Obama to John McCain to Sarah Palin talked openly about their religion or courted ?values voters? and their leaders from right, left and center.
With that in mind, the question for this week is this:
Do you agree with this assessment? If so, why do you think religion has played less of a role? And is that a healthy phenomenon?
If not, please make the case for why you think religion still has played a major role. And explain whether you think that has been a positive or negative contribution to the campaign.
JIM DENISON, Theologian-in-Residence, Texas Baptist Convention and President, Denison Forum on Truth and Culture
This is the first election in history with no Protestant on the Republican ballot. One in six Americans think the Democratic candidate is a Muslim; only one in four believe he is a Protestant. The Republican candidate embraces a religion that has historically been classified as a ?cult? by Christian theology. The vice-presidential candidates have provoked criticism from their Catholic church ? Mr. Biden for his pro-abortion stance, Mr. Ryan for his approach to poverty.
Is it any wonder that neither camp is invoking religion?
Another factor: Gone are the days when a single leader could claim to represent or mobilize evangelicals, or American Catholics, or mainline Protestants. I don?t expect another Moral Majority to organize religious constituents as a voting bloc.
The lessening of religious themes in this election is both positive and negative. I?m glad not to see the King of the universe used as an tool of political rhetoric. At the same time, I worry about the perceived irrelevance of religion in our culture.
Perhaps we?re returning to the world of the New Testament, a day when the church possessed little political influence. We were a movement ? now we?re an institution.
Every member was a minister ? now we?re a hierarchy of professionals. As a result, by Acts 17:6 the early church had ?turned the world upside down.? If we focus more on advancing God?s Kingdom than our political agendas, measuring success by service and significance by character, we will once again.
WILLIAM LAWRENCE, Dean and Professor of American Church History, Perkins School of Theology, Southern Methodist University
Religion is playing a role in the 2012 election campaign. But its effects are more subtle than in other years, primarily because neither party has chosen to use high-profile religious leaders or events as wedge issues in the campaign.
In 2008, forces within the Republican Party chose to wage political warfare against Barack Obama?s local church membership. Based on statements in sermons by his pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the opposition to Mr. Obama made such a huge issue of his church affiliation that he was forced to resign as a member of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. Whether there was any precedent for Americans? allowing such political intrusion in private and constitutionally protected religious freedom remains an unexamined question.
This year, Republicans have allowed their fringe friends to trumpet the lie that Mr. Obama is a Muslim. (Being an adherent of Islam is clearly not a constitutionally disqualifying factor in the race for the presidency, of course.) However, mainstream Republicans have chosen not to make an issue of the president?s faith or affiliation.
Likewise, Democrats have chosen not to make an issue of Mr. Romney?s deep devotion to Mormonism. It is constitutionally correct to leave Mr. Romney?s faith alone. But it may be politically unwise. Southern Baptists, it should be remembered, have resolved to evangelize among Mormons and save them from their false faith. And Mormons have escaped criticism for their official policies that subordinate and subjugate women. The Democrats, nevertheless, have avoided making Mormon beliefs a topic for discussion.
It seems that both parties, at least in their presidential campaigns, have decided that religion is potentially too ?hot? an issue to control. Would further attacks on Mr. Obama?s faith rile undecided voters among Jews, Muslims, and others to rally to his side? Would assaults on Mr. Romney?s faith backfire?
But perhaps there is another explanation. Younger Americans, according to one major study, have become very unhappy with religious organizations that tie themselves to specific political ideologies and parties. Perhaps the religious leaders of America have decided that it is in their organizations? own best interests to take a lower profile this political year. It may be that instead of the politicians? reducing their use of religion, religionists are resorting less to politics.
GEOFFREY DENNIS, Rabbi, Congregation Kol Ami in Flower Mound; faculty member, University of North Texas Jewish Studies Program
The primary reason there is less religion this year is because a progressive Christian vs. a Mormon does not a good wedge-issue make. The groups that spin religion as the big issue each election cycle are on the evangelical right. Virtually everyone else is simply reacting defensively to the ?us vs. the godless? posture of the Christian right.
Since there is no self-proclaimed ?true-believer? running for the highest office this year, the holier-than-thou shibboleths don?t resonate so well. Frankly, I find it a relief. The question of religion and the presidency in past cycles generated more heat than light, more than a little pharisaic grandstanding, and mostly interfered with, rather than improved, the discourse.
MATTHEW WILSON, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Southern Methodist University
I think we have reached the point where religion has become so ?baked in? to our politics that candidates don?t even have to talk about for it to matter for vote choice. Candidates almost never talk explicitly about race in presidential campaigns, but no one would argue that racial issues are irrelevant to American politics.
Despite the relative absence of religious discussion in the campaign, I guarantee that on Election Day religious commitment will be one of the biggest predictors of vote choice. The ?God gap,? or the difference in support for Republican candidates between those who attend church regularly and those who attend seldom or never, will dwarf the vaunted gender gap, and will be much greater than the partisan differences stemming from income.
In every election since 1980, the Democratic candidate has been unambiguously pro-choice and the Republican candidate has been pro-life. Beginning in 1972, elites in the Democratic Party moved sharply to the cultural left and away from the values of traditional Christianity. Voters know these things, and they have become so self-evidently true that they don?t really require talking about any more.
At the Democratic Convention in Charlotte, speaker after speaker fired up the crowd with references to abortion rights and gay marriage, and the party infamously struck all mention of God from its platform (something that it hastily and superficially corrected once the media noticed). Given this pattern, do Republicans really need to say much to win the lion?s share of support from religiously-committed voters?
All in all, I would argue that it?s a good thing that people bring their religious values to bear in the political process. To be sure, some do so in a shallow, unsophisticated way, but this is true of every sort of political reasoning that shapes partisanship and candidate choice. Robust religion cannot be a wholly private matter; it must shape how we act in the public sphere as well. When the two parties diverge on such fundamental questions as the nature of personhood and the meaning of marriage, how could voters not decide based on their most deeply held values?
DANIEL KANTER, Senior Minister, First Unitarian Church of Dallas
Religion has played a lesser role in this election because we have other things to think about. In the past it has been used as a weapon, a rally cry, and a way to focus voters away from substantial issues to so-called ?family values? concerns.
Those attempts to turn elections into a ?my religion is better than yours? event or to sway people to vote with one foot in a small circle of interest around a social issue have shown our ignorance more than our concern for real values that matter to Americans. Credit the Obama campaign for taking the high road by not highlighting the Mormon faith of Mitt Romney or asking him to explain his faith?s position on the lack of women in power within the faith or it?s support for anti-same gender marriage laws like in California.
Without these distractions we have avoided hearing how one must vote based on one?s personal faith or for or against a single issue. On the other hand let?s ask of both campaigns whether they are asking us to vote on serious issues, such as whether we are promoting a society that cares about mutual responsibility, the care and future of the elderly, access to health care for all, and poverty. I am uncertain we have really filled the gap left by the use of religion in elections with anything more substantial.
GORDON K. WRIGHT, Dallas attorney and a North Texas leader of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Faith and religion are important to many Americans. It has always been the right of American voters to exercise their franchise based on whatever issues may be important to them. As candidates seek office, they may choose to address those issues that they perceive are important to the public. If the perception of the candidates is that people wish to have the candidates? personal religiosity and faith discussed, then candidates have shown a willingness to raise those issues.
It is important that people of religion continue to have a place in public discussions ? that they not be discounted or ignored simply because their faith informs their choices. This election has raised some questions about religion ? although perhaps not so many as in the recent past.
The candidates have perhaps chosen to allow their positions on various issues ? moral, religious and otherwise ? to pass through each voter?s personal filters without being as overt in striving for a religion-based ?sound-bite? as candidates in the past may have done. If the effort is to allow voters to choose between candidates based on their values, goals, policies and perspectives without attacks on a candidate?s personal religious belief, such a goal may be laudable. If the goal is to minimize the voice of religious people in public debate or discourse simply because their motivations may be faith-based, then such a course is lamentable.
JOE CLIFFORD, Head of Staff and Senior Minister, First Presbyterian Church of Dallas
While religion has not played a major role in this year?s general election, it certainly was a factor in the Republican primary process. Rick Perry hosted last year?s ?Call to Prayer for a Nation in Crisis? in Houston. In January of this year 150 evangelical leaders gathered at a Texas ranch to determine the Republican candidate they would endorse. Prior to that gathering Bryan Fischer, the American Family Association?s director of issue analysis, predicted, ?If Romney gets the nomination, his support (from the Christian Right,) is going to be tepid, lukewarm, maybe even non-existent.? That meeting ended without consensus, so no candidate was embraced by the religious right. R
Robert P. Jones, director of the Public Religion Research Institute, suggests the influence of the Christian right in the Republican party is declining. He says, ?Focus on the Family has laid off hundreds of people. The Moral Majority is no more. The Christian Coalition is no more. So these groups that really were able to translate these decisions made in closed rooms by a group of men deciding who was going to be the next candidate really don?t exist in the way they did.?
This is the primary reason religion has played less of a role in this election. Thanks be to God! Aligning faith with any political party?s agenda ultimately distorts faith and co-opts religion to serve political purposes. I pray current trends continue.
(The source for both quotes was a 1/13/2012 story on NPR by Barbara Bradley Haggerty entitled, ?Evangelical Leaders Struggle to Crown a Candidate.?)
DARRELL BOCK, Executive Director of Cultural Engagement, Center for Christian Leadership, Senior Research Professor of New Testament Studies Dallas Theological Seminary
I think religion is playing a more subtle role because of the nature of the candidates. There certainly has been much discussion of evangelical support for a Mormon. There has been a focus on values of each of the candidates, but without a direct connection, the interaction has been of a different kind and at a different level. All of this is healthy for it shows our culture dealing with the diversity involved and thinking its way through this, in some cases out loud.
It also has come with less ideological rancor because the card deck has been shuffled in a way we are not used to considering. Issues tied to health care coverage and the moral choices involved in some situations have been on the table. So I think religion is there, just in a fresh configuration.
HOWARD COHEN, Lecturer in Jewish/Christian Relations and member of Congregation Shearith Israel and Congregation Beth Torah, Dallas
I think that Romney has been trying to keep his campaign focused on the economy for obvious reasons. That doesn?t mean he hasn?t gone hat-in-hand seeking the endorsement of high profile pastors in order to gain the votes of the conservative right who are more concerned with abortion, contraception, tax-supported charter schools, stem cell research, and the pseudo-threat of the Islamization of America. It has been reported that Romney?s senior staff has met with a dozen of the well-known representatives of the conservative, Christian organizations repeatedly.
Perhaps his pandering and reassuring of the conservative Christian right is not being played out in the media spotlight because of his ongoing attempt to be all things to all people. He?s against Pell grants until he?s for them. He dismisses the 47% until he is for the 100%. He?s for preserving Medicare but wants it to be a voucher system which in fact would end it. He doesn?t want to lose the middle-of-the-roaders who might be turned off by his promises to the Christian conservatives that ?there will always be a seat for you at my table,? as he promised them the last time around.
Maybe Obama has not talked as openly about his religion this time around because he has given up trying to convince the 30% of the Republicans that he isn?t a Muslim.
MIKE GHOUSE, President, Foundation for Pluralism, Dallas
Indeed, it is a relief to see the diminishing role of religion in the general election. No American has to live in apprehension, discomfort and fear of the other.
Religion has been used, abused and misused by the self-appointed protectors of religions. No one should privatize and impose their version on others.
Mormons, Muslims and gays are relieved. And all other Americans have welcomed this healthy change. We have come a long way from accepting each new tradition with suspicion. We still have a ways to go with race, but go, we will.
Women are still apprehensive. The evangelibans, as I call them, are bent on controlling women as to what they can do with abortion in extreme cases, and candidate Romney wishes to appoint judges who can repeal Roe V. Wade. As Americans, we need to stand with women to keep government out of their right to live without fear.
The religious right played havoc in the primaries. They ganged up on Romney. And some even called his religion a cult. Mormonism was not Christian enough to them. Finally, the moderate majority rejected other candidates for their extremist views and accepted Romney and Mormonism.
Muslim-Americans were hounded in the primaries. One candidate said he will not even hire them in his administration. The Sharia attackers did not have a clue of what they were attacking. For Muslim-Americans, it is a an alternate means of resolving dispute between two parties, just like the Jewish Halaqa, pastoral counseling or even mediation. A conference in Dallas with virulent Sharia opponents and Sharia scholars was canceled. The fear of putting one?s name to this educational conference prevented sponsors. As an alternate, a website www.ShariaLaws.com is created to dispel the myths of its role in America. Thank God the rhetoric dissipated after the primaries and Muslim-Americans are somewhat relieved.
Gays and lesbians were apprehensive about living their lives. Thanks to Shepherd Obama for taking the bold step and accepting the gay and lesbian community and delivering peace of mind to fellow Americans.
Religion is one of the most beautiful gifts from the creator to his creation. It is an expression of God?s love for his creation to live in peace and harmony with itself and with others through many beautiful pathways. Let the bad buys be villains, not God and religion.
CYNTHIA RIGBY, W.C. Brown Professor of Theology, Austin Presbyterian Theological Seminary
I agree that religion is not playing a big role in the presidential race, this time around. But I suspect this phenomenon does not represent as dramatic a shift in our cultural outlook as seems commonly to be touted.
Statistics from Pew and other religious surveys are being interpreted as indicating we care less about religion than we did before. I don?t think we really cared more about religion ?before?; I simply think it was more politically expedient in the last election, than it is in this one, to make use of religion.
In the last election, the Republican Party could make good use of Senator McCain?s Episopalian-turned-Baptist Protestant pedigree to woo more conservative evangelical voters. In the last election (before that huge round of speculation about whether he is actually Muslim), President Obama was viewed as a Christian committed to social justice. He garnered a great deal of support, by way of this perception, from progressive evangelicals (e.g., those who read ?Sojourners? magazine and appreciate Jim Wallis).
In this election, the majority of registered voters don?t resonate with the religious affiliations of Governor Romney and President Obama, and a good percentage don?t even know what religions they claim as their own. A July 2012 Pew study reports that a full 32 percent of voters don?t even know Gov. Romney is Mormon, and 31 percent don?t know President Obama is Christian. Just 41 percent say they are ?comfortable? with Romney?s faith commitments, and 45 percent with Obama?s.
When over 50 percent of voters do not say they are comfortable with a candidate?s faith, using a candidate?s faith to gain votes is not a good strategy. With questions about Romney?s Mormon commitments and Obama?s Islamic influences in play, it is clearly not politically expedient for either political party to be emphasizing religious affiliations.
As soon as emphasizing religion helps to win votes, and to the degree to which it works to gain votes, you can be sure talk about candidates? faith will be in the mix, again.
What I wish is that we would talk about religion not as a means to some other end, but as valuable for its own sake, because it promotes our well-being.
Source: http://religionblog.dallasnews.com/2012/10/texas-faith-is-religion-playing-a-shrinking-role-in-this-election.html/
baltimore ravens atlanta falcons space shuttle new york courtney upshaw russell wilson catch me if you can delmon young arrested
