Increased presence of religion is dividing politics
The rift between Democrats and Republicans has been growing. This problem is simply the cause of heated politics and divisive policies — or so the media tells us.
Actually, the real issue is the increased presence of religion in American politics and the incredibly dangerous and closed-minded world it is leading us toward.
The Ground Zero Mosque and Obama’s religious affiliation are simplified, eye-catching topics, but the conflict they represent is more complicated than left vs. right. It is clearly about the role of religion in American politics.
If America has separation of church and state, how, when and why did religion become a left-right issue?
Stories where politics, religion and culture clashed have become enormous media and political events. Take, for example, plans for an Islamic cultural center to be built within blocks of the World Trade Center site.
The Cordoba House became a point for debate about how the rest of post-Sept. 11 America engaged with Muslim-Americans.
A small-time pastor from Florida incited everyone when he announced “International Burn-A-Quran Day.”
The public did not celebrate, reaffirming a national sense of religious nonviolence.
But other recent headlines, and our collective focus on them, suggest that some fear still bubbles underneath the cultural surface — and that it’s boiling over the political hotpot.
The United States is in conflict with religiously motivated extremist groups overseas, but what religiously motivated conflicts are happening within its borders and among its citizens?
Is it possible to separate religion from politics?
As the battle for the Republican nomination for president heats up, more attention is being paid to Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) and Gov. Rick Perry (R-Texas). These two presidential hopefuls are using their religious inclination to garner support.
Bachmann and Perry aren’t just devout; both supposedly have ties to a fringe fundamentalist movement known as Dominionism, which states that Christians have the God-given right to rule institutions. Both Bachmann and Perry have taken beliefs from Dominionism, according to a Daily Beast article, and put into action the idea that the American government should be a Christian theocracy based around a fundamentalist interpretation of Scripture.
If either one of these candidates is elected, they could transform America into a country that emphasizes religion even more than it does now.
Fundamentalist Christians share a belief that this country’s problems are rooted in secularism and have resorted to scare tactics and religious fervor that set the nation on a course of oppression and imposition of their religious passion.
Religious fundamentalism of any kind is dangerous.
America could easily slip into a theocracy and all the players are nearly in place to make it a reality.
For years, most Americans maintained the belief that Christian fundamentalists as harmless, despite somewhat radical religious beliefs. As they become more powerful politically, that belief has slightly changed.
Views such as Creationism, the outlawing of contraception and gay marriage could become more widespread.
It has led to an increasing divide, and unless those who disagree with the Evangelists choose to voice their opinion, they could eventually live in an even more religious America — one that they might not be happy with.
Kelly Speca is a junior majoring in narrative studies.
Stopped reading at, “If America has separation of church and state, how, when and why did religion become a left-right issue?
America has separation of church and state?, or America does not have separation of church and state??. I can’t get past the poor writing, but in any event, I have some suggestions.
First of all, “If America has separation of church and state…” does not make sense. But beyond that poor writing, I believe you should look in the Constitution and find the separation of church and state clause and show us. You made a statement based on a non-fact.
The fact is that America does not have separation of church and state, (as much as I hate your sentence fragment) because it is not in the Constitution.
It is obvious you did not look it up before you wrote this, which explains why you staked your opinion based on a falsehood.
What America has is freedom of religion. What that means is that the state cannot make you adhere to any one religion. It prevents an establishment of religion by the state, which was extremely important to Americans who knew that England and other countries forced it’s people to abide by certain religions. They could not worship freely. It also means that it is unconstitutional to forbid others to freely express their religion.
Separation of church and state, is a phrase used in a letter written by Jefferson to a Baptist group. Look it up, then try writing with authority on the subject.
Here, I’ll help you… http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html
Please rewrite with some EVIDENCE. Citing speculation from a website is not EVIDENCE.
I agree. Less hyperbole and fewer childish statements.
For example:
“America could easily slip into a theocracy and all the players are nearly in place to make it a reality.”
By far one of the most perversely and embarrassingly uninformed lines I have ever read in the Daily Trojan.
Perhaps the author, with her lofty yet inaccurate statements about the role of religion in politics, is too young to remember or understand the role faith has played in our country’s history, including our civil rights movement. I’m sure Martin Luther King Jr. would take offense to this piece.
I agree with the author’s sentiments that it is important to consider Bachman and Perry’s religious stances as they want religion to govern politics. The author is saying that these EXTREME beliefs are dangerous to any democratic society, point in case Iran and Saudi Arabia.
That is exactly what the author is saying. Extremist views of any kind is the issue,and she was commenting on what has been in the news.
Yes, Stephanie! Extreme beliefs are dangerous, and Christian beliefs are just as scary! Because in all those countries where Christians are stoning women for going out in public without a burqa and hanging gays and… oh, wait… that’s not Christians. My bad.
This is an opinion piece. That said isn’t the point here to identify how people bring their belief system into their decision making. The writer isn’t making a value judgement about fundamentalism but pointing out that any politician must be vetted in all areas so we can have some idea about how they turn their beliefs into actions. I’d like to know more about Dominionism before I made any decision about the candidates mentioned in the article. Zealotry is the enemy,it seems that’s what the author is suggesting.
Duncan,
Opinion piece it may be, but opinions about whether religion ought to be in politics or not is a worthwhile topic, and a view on it needs to be defended if it’s to amount to anything worth reading. Among these is the author’s claim that, “the increased presence of religion in American politics and the incredibly dangerous and closed-minded world it is leading us toward.” (This is certainly a value judgment, by the way, but one should have no problem with value judgments, as long as they’re true.) The real problem is that, with respect to her claim, she’s given us no reason to think it is true.
Thanks Duncan! Finally, someone who saw this as an opinion piece. I applaud the author.
I am a Christian, and though I am by no means perfect, our country was founded on Christian principles, and the word “God” is mentioned and inferred within the constitution. I am NOT aware of anywhere in the Bible which says that we are RUL:E over countries…….. God is the ultimate ruler, NOT us! and we(Crhistians) RESPECT other viewpoints of religiion, we don’t chastise them. We can disagree with ways to salvation, but when a country, like ours, deviates away from certain God-led principles which our founding fathers envsiioned, then we are going down a slippery-slope with cultueral views/mores which only lead to more downward-spiraling moral values and beliefs. I am hard-pressed to believe that either Michelle Bachmann or Rick Perry are of the belief that it is their right/manifest destiny to “rule” our country….. there is no pride here, for as Jesus taught, He came here to serve, and likewise, people in authority are to serve with humility, knowing that the privilege is given to them by God, and the ultimate judge of their governing ability is God himself, and to govern fairly, with integrity, and with rspect for others. This to me, is what fundamentalism implies, where the BIble, God’s word , is taken for what it is, God’s revelation to man, and not deviating from it’s teachings………. as opposed to looking at Biblical priniciples and viewing it as changeable based upon the political climate and/or social situation. LAS 1977
‘Excellent article based on what is happening in the news. The author is not imposing her personal opioion. I applaud USC for publishing this well written un-biased opinion. This article did as it was intended, to get a discussion about the affect of religion on politics and the people who discredit it, seem not to understand at all. Chosing to worship is a choice we all have as long as government is not involved. That is the constitution. “Make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.” Jefferson reflected his frequent speaking theme that the government is not to interfere with religion or the converse of that religion should not dictate people’s political/secular beliefs.
Do you really think the writers of our Constitution did not use their somewhat various ” religious ” backgrounds to influence what they put down?
Think a moment how America was founded and what was happening in England at the time and what people here wanted for their lives?
I think you are wrong.
PS ” not interfering with religion” also means the government will not proscribe ” a” particular religion as the only religion.
Wow, this is an all time low for the Daily Trojan.
This person just discredited the religious motivation for the the birthing of this nation (The Declaration of Independence), Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Movement, and William Wilberforce and the end of slavery in Britain.
I think the writer should in fact thank Christianity for fighting for humans rights and equality.
The United States Constitution rules out a theocracy. And Christian doctrine has never permitted a theocracy. So what exactly is the problem supposed to be with one’s knowledge (including religious knowledge) informing one’s political commitments? We’re not told (never are), but one gets the sense the problem is merely that there are people who disagree with those political commitments–particularly those of pro-life and pro-traditional marriage. But so what? This is why we vote, after all. Religious, non-religious, and atheist candidates are free to do the same, and more power to them. But it’s hardly the case that the non-religious view is somehow more politically neutral or objective than the “religious” one. This is why, in America, all sides are permitted in the public square, and can argue their views, and can even persuade others to make policy decisions based on those views.
It seems that USC must really be hurting for journalists these days to post something like this.
If you have to scrape the bottom of the barrel, please discard the waste instead of letting it pretend it has the ability to write.
I agree. Quality over quantity DT!!!
Highly uninformed piece, bordering on hysterical, and a discredit to USC students in general. What the hell is narrative studies, anyway? Something that causes one’s critical thinking skills to shrivel up and die?
“America could easily slip into a theocracy and all the players are nearly in place to make it a reality.”
Uh – WTF. As another commenter pointed out, we have a CONSTITUTION, honey.
It’s honestly an embarrassment to our school. It’s one thing to make the case that politicians shouldn’t flaunt their religious beliefs, but this is borderline idiotic. Theocracy? Is the writer even in college?
Someone help enlighten me, over all my political science courses I have ever taken I never realized a religious president could turn our country into a theocracy. In all seriousness, a theocracy would never be created as it would need the help of Congress. The president could be a child of a Cardinal, a Rabbi or an Imam and he or she could not make it a theocracy if he or she tried. I’m concerned by the dominionism beliefs but only so far as the ethics of it on a personal level. America will be fine, regardless of the religious preferences or tendencies of the President.
Religion and politics are strange bed fellows. Religion should be kept out of politics. How many politicians are influenced by their religious beliefs rather than look at issues objectively.
we are all influenced by external events not just religion and politics. The sum of our thinking is based upon internal and external thought.
Objectiveness is based on whom we choose to believe, and when it comes to politics, politicians have a bad track record. With religious thought we have a past record of infallibility to start with an any failing is more than suspect.
God has claimed certain promises about himself, His nature and His power to do what ever He purposes.
You cannot take religion and politics separately with out dumbing down your brain or in the worst case lying to yourself.
My Bibles first statement says.. ” In the beginning God”. So to have a true discussion of all that follows one should determine and decide, is there a God, How do we find out about Him, and why did He create us? What follows is determining why would He want a relationship with us and what are consequences of not having a relationship.
It’s not the case that holding a religious view somehow robs someone of objectivity, nor is it the case that denying or withholding judgment on a religious belief is necessary for maintaining objectivity. The content of one’s belief and the ability to think objectively stand in no logical relationship to one another.
So can I assume this writer also deplores the mixture of religion and politics that led to the civil rights movement?
The writer is not learned enough to know that connection.
If the intro had featured, e.g., reactions to Gov. Perry or ex-Gov. Palin, instead of “The Ground Zero Mosque and Obama’s religious affiliation . . .” the referenced incidents might possibly have been construed as being “about the role of religion in American politics”.
Manifestations of the Muslim culture and Islamic symbols are perceived negatively because they represent events and tendencies that are, indeed, nothing but negative. .
You all have it wrong.
The divisiveness of using religion as an argument is the problem. I will assume ( sorry) most people who think if they go to church or synagogue they have religion. ( I have left mosques out on purpose as I am not versed in Islam) ,
Going to a house of worship does not make you a Jew or Christian any more than sitting in a garage makes you an
automobile.
The Bible ( old and new testament) talks about faith, especially points out as ” having the faith of Abraham” which simplistically put is ” believing in the promises of God.
What politicians have done is to TAKE GOD OUT OF EVERY DAY LIFE. to please some small minority, which has left our country a Godless country.
For those who care, I suggest you read 2nd Chronicles 7:14 to see what needs to be done.
Dont blame religion, blame people.
We send our children to schools, but we lock God out.
James’ “comment” actually makes her case. It’s the arrogant self-righteousness, rather than engagement in discussion and reason, that is the point of the piece. And “offensive”? Why is everybody “offended” by an argument? And which part is “uninformed”? I actually do not agree with the second sentence, including the “generalization” about “the media.” If it mattered to her point — and I’m not sure it does — we might have a discussion about that. But it seems NOT a coincidence that the most zealous religious believers are also the most belligerent, intolerant and uninformed political advocates. Kelly’s piece made you think about that, agree or not. James response was just, um, pretentious and uninformative and amounts to one big generalization.
Neil, wake up,
Self righteousness is the opposite of what is called fundamentalism. Self righteousness means we can do it ourselves thru our good works.
Try Ephesians 2:8-9 and tell me that a person can be self righteous and godly at the same time.
You are dead wrong.
As far as being politically informed, that is a matter of choice, sometimes education, and sometimes disgust.
Listen to MSNBC and FOX and its like being on two different planets, I find it almost ludicrous.
Lastly you generalize about groups, with out showing any facts to back up your statements which loses credulity in my opinion.
What a pretentious, presumptuous, and uninformed piece. It’s actually disturbing how offensive this is.
Why? Why would you make such broad generalities and assumptions?