Posted on 06/20/2004 8:14:28 AM PDT by ejdrapes
One of the many ways in which America has always been exceptional is in the role of religion. It has far higher rates of church attendance than other developed countries, constant religious references in public life, an enormous network of religious charities that do amazing work and a perpetual churning of spiritual frenzy. If you are a person of faith, as I am, it’s impressive. But it’s also fraught with danger and occasional excess. American religion justified the enslavement of African-Americans and their emancipation; it fuelled the Great Awakening of the 18th century (a mass kindling of religious fervour among the working class), the anti-evolution Scopes trial early last century and the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. It has propelled activists of right and left, of reaction and revolution. What’s interesting about the current moment in American history is therefore not that it’s particularly religious. It is that religion has become such a partisan affair. The current upsurge in Protestant fundamentalism and, to a much lesser degree, Catholic orthodoxy, is finding its expression almost exclusively in the Republican party. Not so long ago, observant Christians could be found across the political arena: the Democrats were the natural home for Catholics (as well as a hefty proportion of conservative Southerners); the Republicans drew strength from mainstream Protestant denominations. Nobody dreamt of one party representing religious devotion and the other becoming the home for secularists and more easy-going faith seekers. But that is what is now happening. It’s part accident — a function of the Republican party reaching out to disaffected white Southerners at the same time as a religious revival — but also part design. The Republicans are now consciously organising their re-election campaign on a church-by-church basis, targeting groups according to their religiosity and church-going habits, while the Democrats are receiving more and more voters alienated by the piety and alleged intolerance of the new religious right. You saw a dry run of this divide during the fight over The Passion of the Christ, Mel Gibson’s film treatment of the last day of Jesus. The new Republican alliance — conservative Catholics and born-again Protestants — swooned over the movie. Jews, moderate believers, atheists and secularists were appalled. The polls tell the story. Should a president be guided by religious faith in making political decisions? A Time poll last week found that 70% of Republicans said yes while 63% of Democrats said no. Sixty per cent of Republicans attend church once a week; only 35% of Democrats do. Do George W Bush’s religious views make him too closed-minded? A full 65% of Democrats said yes compared with only 5% of Republicans. Among white evangelicals (about 17% of the vote) Bush is ahead of John Kerry, his Democratic challenger, by a staggering 50 percentage points. Among people who identify themselves as “secular” (about 15% of the vote), Kerry has a lead of about 40%. Devout Catholics are far more likely to vote Republican than nominal or less-committed Catholics — which is why they have become a critical group for Bush to target. So there is an uncomfortably sectarian aspect to this election. There was Republican pressure on the Catholic bishops meeting last week to criticise Kerry for his permissive stand on abortion. In Massachusetts, Catholic bishops have sent letters to parishioners urging them not to vote for state legislators who support marriage rights for gay couples. Various other Catholic bishops have said they will not give communion to politicians who support the right to an abortion — forcing the governor of New Jersey, for one, to withdraw from the communion rail. Some bishops have even said that communion should not be given to lay Catholics who vote for such politicians — ruling out a whole swathe of the Democratic party from the Catholic Church. Last week, President Bush addressed by satellite the annual convention of the Southern Baptists. The same week they pulled out of the international Baptist organisation because they feared it was becoming too liberal. And they returned Bush’s favour by promising to rally support for his proposed constitutional amendment to deny gay couples any legal protections for their relationships. They also began a new “I Vote Values” voter registration campaign designed to deliver the 16m Baptist voters for Bush. The Texas Republican party recently agreed a policy that would make it a felony for anyone to perform a same-sex marriage in the state, and it was addressed by a pastor who said: “Give us Christians in America who are more wholehearted, more committed and more militant for you and your kingdom than any fanatical Islamic terrorists are for death and destruction.” Virginia recently passed a law invalidating even private contracts between two people of the same sex — an attempt to strip gay couples of even the most basic protections for their relationships. And the National Catholic Reporter informed its readers last week that Bush, in his recent meeting with the Pope, had complained that some American Catholic bishops were “not with me” on social issues. By that he was understood to mean they had not condemned Kerry for being a bad Catholic for his support of legal abortion. The stances are hardening. Last week, Bill Clinton remarked that “what separates us is that we haven’t tried to have our politics driven by religion”. In a recent interview with religious-right journalists, Bush struck a different note. “A person’s faith helps you keep vision. As a matter of fact, helps clear your vision, is a vision,” he said. “In one of the prayers I ask is that God’s light shines through me as best as possible, no matter how opaque the window.” (My apologies for the president’s grammar.) In Plan of Attack, the recent Bob Woodward book, Bush famously denied that his father was a source of political advice. What mattered was the advice of his “heavenly father”. Bush knows not to push this too far. “The best way for faith to operate in somebody is, as I said, to let the light shine as opposed to trying to defend or alter or get my job mixed up with a preacher’s job. And the only way you can do that is just be yourself, without crossing any lines of politics and religion,” he said. “Separation of church and state (is) important in America. And by that I mean the people of faith should participate in the state, and there’s a difference.” That difference may not be so apparent in the White House. David Frum, the former speech writer, observed that one of the first things he was asked when he got his job was whether he was going to Bible study. He’s Jewish. Will religion determine this election? I hope not. As an admirer of the extraordinary energy, diversity and social commitment of American faith, I’d hate to see it become used in a political mud-fight. But Karl Rove, Bush’s political strategist, has other ideas. He knows how religious sentiment can be a political tool — and recently gave the commencement address at Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University, the largest religious university in the country. He and Bush have delegated social policy entirely to the religious right: trying to divert federal funds to religious charities, opposing legal abortion, most stem cell research and any gay rights. Kerry knows his Catholic past — he got an annulment from his first wife rather than a divorce — is an asset to be used defensively. He also must know that his abortion position — supporting even the horrific practice of partial birth abortion — is morally hard to square with respect for human life. But he is also ambivalent about being targeted by the bishops. It could help him with liberal Catholics and secularists but hurt him among older, more orthodox Catholic voters. Either way, I hope he never has to face the dilemma of being turned away at the communion rail. The partisan fusion of politics with religion in this campaign is poisoning an already toxic cultural atmosphere. God help us if it makes its way on to the altar itself.Andrew Sullivan: God help us: a holy war for the White House
(Note to self. Keep in mind this guy is a queer and has no business telling me about religion or culture.)
"Not so long ago, observant Christians could be found across the political arena: the Democrats were the natural home for Catholics (as well as a hefty proportion of conservative Southerners); the Republicans drew strength from mainstream Protestant denominations. Nobody dreamt of one party representing religious devotion and the other becoming the home for secularists and more easy-going faith seekers"
Until the DemonRat party decided to embrace child buggerers, athiests, traitors, radical feminists, pro- abortion fanatics, and philanderers.
"Virginia recently passed a law invalidating even private contracts between two people of the same sex...."
He must certainly be ill describing this, how on earth could you pass such a law as it is described in this sentance.
Oh baloney.
Now if he had said "a perpetual state of Marxist frenzy "then he would have described the blue counties pretty well.
Andrew Sullivan is a man of faith?
This ex-editor of The New Republic, and writer for the NY Slimes (fired by both) is an intellectual?
I think being HIV positive has gone into his brain.
RIP Mr. / Ms Sullivan.
That is only true of recent history. Catholics were not Democrats in the 1800s.
Try as he might, Andrew Sullivan has an incredibly shallow understanding of our culture. And why is it that he is so distrustful of Republican outreach to Christians but silent on the Democrats who actually campaign in black churches or clutch their bibles in political photo ops?
Indeed the perfect question; one that should be posed as often as possible.
Liberals are so damn predictable!
Drudge is also gay and he talks about religion.
And how on earth, Mr. Sullivan, would they do this? How would any bishop or priest know who someone voted for? This is beyond silly.
While Kerry applied for an annulment there is no record that he received one, Andrew. His marriage to the Mozambique Betty: self described African-American, was a civil one not a sacramental one performed in the Church. Check your daily cocktail dosage, Sully.
Drudge is a queer? How do you know this? Is that first hand knowledge?
FMCDH(BITS)
AndrewSodomist is free to get on the next scow back to Merrie Olde where he can do Prince Charles to his heart's content.
The only thing in a frenzy is Sullivan's panties.
So, in reality, he becomes part of the anonymous article out simultaneously as this London Times piece.
The thing is to look at the twisting and distorting of the facts and the record, when Sullivan is on the polemical warpath. From reading his blog, it is clear that he knows beter than the various "hits" and slurs in this article, but he feels empowered to lie like this in furtherance of his wacky hope to legitimize homosexual "marriage".
I really am amazed at how craven a person like Sullivan can be. This "gayness" issue consumes his entire mind.
this is basis for him to distort all of W's record and fight against terror.
sorry, I don't know what happened here, perhaps it was the caps lock.
Andrew Sullivan has finally jumped the shark.
The issue of same-sex marriage has become a litmus test for Sullivan. If you are agin it you are no different than the gay-bashers that beat Matthew Sheppard to death. You *are* a homophobe.
Feh. I believe that SSM is one more nail in the coffin of marriage as an institution. I also believe that the narcissism implicit in the "Sex in the City" lifestyle is another nail, and that celebrity serial marriages are another. If affirming this belief makes me a homophobe, I'll wear that label. By acting the the sterotype of a gay drama queen Sullivan is affirming every dark stereotype of gays and setting gays back 10 years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.