0
   

Churches, the central mobilising vehicle for policy in USA?

 
 
Reply Mon 25 Aug, 2003 01:52 am
An article in today's 'Guardian'
(Guardian: God help America)
led to this question.

Quote:

[...]
The US is at one and the same time one of the most fiercely secular and aggressively religious countries in the western world. The nation's two most sacred texts are the constitution and the Bible. And when those who interpret them disagree, the consequent confusion resonates way beyond Montgomery.

This is a country where 11 states, including Alabama, refuse to give government money to students who major in theology because it would violate the constitution, and where nativity plays are not allowed in primary schools. It is also a country where, a Harris poll showed, 94% of adults believe in God, 86% believe in miracles, 89% believe in heaven, and 73% believe in the devil and hell.

These two competing tendencies produce some striking contradictions. The supreme court and both houses of Congress all invoke God's blessing before they start work. But children are not allowed to say the words "under God" when they pledge allegiance to the flag at the start of school.

So while there is a constitutional, albeit contested, barrier between church and state, there is almost no distinction between church and politics. Indeed, when it comes to elections, religion is the primary galvanising force and the church the central mobilising vehicle.

This is one of the few truths that transcends both race and class. White evangelicals and black Protestants are the two groups most likely to say that their religion shapes their votes at least occasionally, according to a survey by the non-partisan Pew research centre. Since these two constituencies form the cornerstone of both major parties, it would be impossible for either to win an election without them and inconceivable that they could do so without the support of the church.

But the influence of religion goes beyond domestic politics or social issues such as abortion and gay rights to crucial areas of foreign policy. Another Pew poll revealed that 48% of Americans think the US has had special protection from God for most of its history. Moreover, 44% believe that God gave the land that is now Israel to the Jewish people, while 36% think that "the state of Israel is a fulfilment of the biblical prophecy about the second coming of Jesus".

At this point America's internal contradictions become an issue on the world stage: the nation that poses as the guardian of global secularity is itself dominated by strong fundamentalist instincts. There are two problems with this. The first is that, as became clear in Montgomery last week, there is no arguing with faith. Fundamentalists deal with absolutes. Their eternal certainties make them formidable campaigners and awful negotiators - it is difficult to cut a bargain with divine truth.

The second is that America's religiosity is not something it shares with even its few western allies, let alone the many countries that oppose its current path. Yet another poll shows that among countries where people believe religion to be very important, America's views are closer to Pakistan's and Nigeria's than to France's or Germany's.

These differences go all the way to the top and explain much of the reason why the tone, style, language and content of America's foreign policy has been so out of kilter with the rest of the developed world, particularly since September 11. For these fundamentalist tendencies in US diplomacy have rarely been stronger in the White House than they are today. Since George Bush gave up Jack Daniels for Jesus Christ, he has counted Jesus as his favourite philosopher. The first thing he reads in the morning is not a briefing paper but a book of evangelical mini- sermons. When it came to casting the morality play for the war on terror he went straight to the Bible and came out with evil. "He reached right into the psalms for that word," said his former speech writer, David Frum.

Bush speaks in the name of the founding fathers but believes he is doing the work of the holy father. He cannot do both and condemn fundamentalism. But if he feels he must try, he might start with the sixth commandment: "Thou shalt not kill".
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,427 • Replies: 29
No top replies

 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Aug, 2003 05:54 am
Walter- I think that Bush is the first president who has brought religion so blatantly to the forefront of American politics. He has enhanced the political power of the small group of Fundamentalist Christians who live in the US.

Over the years we have had many presidents, from non-believers to the deeply religious, but religion has not played such an important part in the political arena until Bush's tenure.

When John Kennedy was running for President, there was fear that his Catholicism would color the way he ran his office. It didn't. Jimmy Carter was an extremely devout individual, but his faith never affected his duty, which was to uphold the Constitution. Bush sadly, is an anomoly.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Aug, 2003 08:09 am
It's not (only) the presidential view, Phoenix, which makes me "wonder".
It's more passages like this
Quote:
Yet another poll shows that among countries where people believe religion to be very important, America's views are closer to Pakistan's and Nigeria's than to France's or Germany's.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Aug, 2003 08:49 am
Walter- Very true- You will find the vast majority of the Fundamentalist churches in the more deprived areas of the country. Up until now, the Fundamentalists were considered a "way out" branch from mainstream religion. Now that they are being taken more seriously, I think that Americans need to think about why that is happening.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Aug, 2003 09:00 am
Walter, As an old-fashioned, secular democrat (small d), I have been staggered -- appalled -- at the growth of religion in America. Yes, I take it as an indication of running under mommy's skirts, an indication of grandiosity, a symptom of narcissism in the body politic. (I'm using the term narcissism in its wider meaning, not the narrower meaning given by psychologists.) It doesn't seem to be about spiritual aspirations or social service or wisdom and understanding (though it uses these in its advertising!), it seems to be about the social divide. It seems to carry with it the avoidance of the responsibilities of maturity. Not everyone who goes to church suffers from these in equal measure, of course. I've been very struck lately by the visit of a good friend who's a priest and who is leaving the church. Why? I asked. "Completely irrelevant, a way of avoiding life, a side-track," was the response. The church of course, not god. The two should not be confused!!
0 Replies
 
husker
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Aug, 2003 09:10 am
Phoenix32890 wrote:

When John Kennedy was running for President, there was fear that his Catholicism would color the way he ran his office. It didn't. Jimmy Carter was an extremely devout individual, but his faith never affected his duty, which was to uphold the Constitution. Bush sadly, is an anomoly.


You believe his faith gets in the way of his duty? Or maybe it's the way he proclaims his faith in public as an official? Or you just don't approve of him as the President? Trying to understand.
0 Replies
 
husker
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Aug, 2003 09:14 am
Phoenix32890 wrote:
Walter- Very true- You will find the vast majority of the Fundamentalist churches in the more deprived areas of the country. Up until now, the Fundamentalists were considered a "way out" branch from mainstream religion. Now that they are being taken more seriously, I think that Americans need to think about why that is happening.


Is it Fundamentalism or Extreemist that should be taken more seriously? I'm not sure they are the same. IMO the Extreme folks of any faiths are the ones to be taken more seriously.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Aug, 2003 09:24 am
Quote:
You believe his faith gets in the way of his duty? Or maybe it's the way he proclaims his faith in public as an official? Or you just don't approve of him as the President? Trying to understand.




Yes, I think that his faith gets in the way of his duty. Don't have time to get into it now, but I think that many of the decisions that he has made as President looked to his faith rather than the Constitution.

No, I don't like the way he wears his faith on his sleeve. I think it is an insult to people who are not of his religious persuasion, and is totally inappropriate for a person who is leading a country made of of people of many faiths and non-faiths.

My feelings towards Bush as President is, shall we say, totally ambivalent. There are things that he has done of which I approve heartily, and others that I detest.
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Aug, 2003 09:40 am
The manner in which Bush articulates his religious beliefs suggests that religion structures his world view in a way that has not been seen in the country for a very long time, basically the 18th century. This is troublesome because the nation and the world is much to diverse and interconnected in terms of both beliefs and cultures to long tolerate a government that defines the world in terms of a particular religious framework rather that a more broadly based secular world view that will accommodate a diversity of world views
0 Replies
 
husker
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Aug, 2003 09:48 am
Acquiunk wrote:
The manner in which Bush articulates his religious beliefs suggests that religion structures his world view in a way that has not been seen in the country for a very long time, basically the 18th century. This is troublesome because the nation and the world is much to diverse and interconnected in terms of both beliefs and cultures to long tolerate a government that defines the world in terms of a particular religious framework rather that a more broadly based secular world view that will accommodate a diversity of world views



http://www.adherents.com/rel_pie.gif
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Aug, 2003 09:49 am
Re: Churches, the central mobilising vehicle for policy in U
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Quote:

The second is that America's religiosity is not something it shares with even its few western allies, let alone the many countries that oppose its current path. Yet another poll shows that among countries where people believe religion to be very important, America's views are closer to Pakistan's and Nigeria's than to France's or Germany's.


Just a quick note about the studies they are referencing in this article. One of the most prominent items in the studies was the difference between the views of religion in the US and the rest of the world and the item quoted above is one of the items that has been most heavily commented upon but people doing the commenting, as in this case, miss the entire point of the paragraph in the study.

Yes, the study does show a marked disparity between the views in the US and in Europe. But the study also showed that those most likely to hold those views in the US are over the age of 65. Those in the US under the age of 35 are less likely to see religion as important than the average European.

The striking part of this is that the exact opposite was found for Europeans. In Europe it is the younger generations that are more likely to have strong religious views.

The point of the Pew study is that religious veiws in the US are likely to decline in the future as those in the over 65 age group pass on and at the same time strong religious views across Europe are likely to become more prominent.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Aug, 2003 10:25 am
Quote:
The striking part of this is that the exact opposite was found for Europeans. In Europe it is the younger generations that are more likely to have strong religious views.


fishin'

Since churches here in Europe keep on saying, they are loosing the young generation, since this is repeated on and on in media, since polls show the same (at least for Germany) - could you please give me a link to that above quote?

(A European-wide study last year found that "Church membership among youth dropped in seven out of 12 European Union countries over the past 20 years, for example, and more young people now declare themselves non-religious, the survey found.

Yet overall, belief in God has remained about the same since 1981, in Western Europe. When results from Eastern Europe are added, faith in God among youth who identify themselves as "without religion" jumped, from 20 percent in 1981, to 29 percent in 1999"
.

Thanks.

Walter
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Aug, 2003 11:09 am
Very interesting Husker but what does that pie chart represent, world population, nations, number of sects? If it were world population I would expect the Traditional Chinese percentage to be larger.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Aug, 2003 11:14 am
Acquiunk

Major Religions of the World
0 Replies
 
husker
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Aug, 2003 11:49 am
Quote:
Classical World Religions Ranked by Internal Religious Similarity:
Most Unified to Most Diverse
Baha'i
Zoroastrianism
Sikhism
Islam
Jainism
Judaism
Taoism
Shinto
Christianity
Buddhism
Hinduism

http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html#Alternative

Quote:
China probably does have the largest number of actual atheists of any country in the world and many Russians clearly remain atheists. But at this point, it is impossible to accurately determine how many of those classified as atheists or nonreligious during Communist-era USSR and by the current Chinese government are actually atheists according to their personal beliefs, and how many are unregistered religious adherents or participants in less-organized traditional systems that are oriented around ancestors, animism, shamanism, etc. Many people are unaware, for instance, that China has one of the largest, most active Christian communities in the world, and that in many former Soviet nations religions such as shamanism, Islam and Russian Orthodoxy remained even while official government reports announced the elimination of religion in these regions.
0 Replies
 
Cephus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Aug, 2003 12:01 pm
husker wrote:
You believe his faith gets in the way of his duty? Or maybe it's the way he proclaims his faith in public as an official? Or you just don't approve of him as the President? Trying to understand.


All three of the above. Bush clearly puts his religious belief at the forefront when he makes policy, skirting the line very close between pushing fundamentalism on the American people and simply pushing religion. There is a concept of separation of church and state that he ignores, making comments about religion that don't have any place in the presidency. And as a policy-maker, he simply sucks.

Pretty simple, I'd say.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Aug, 2003 12:19 pm
Walter - You can find the full Pew Research report on their WWW site: http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=185

The full report file is pretty hefty. The info on religion that I commented on is one of the last questions/discussions in the main report. The report itself covers a lot of different areas.
0 Replies
 
Tartarin
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Aug, 2003 12:30 pm
Agree with Cephus.
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Aug, 2003 01:47 pm
The union of the Evangelical Christians with the far right political types in Israel is a recipe for disaster.To the Evangelicals, any chances of peace in the ME are hindrances to the vast war they "need" to beging armageddon. Couple this with the silly things they expect to happen, like flitting ballon-like into the air (because, everyone knows, heaven is "up".) and the sudden (and very brief) conversion of "144 000"Jews, followed by the slaughter of teh rest of them, and you can see a less than palatable picture emerging.
One thing that always amazes me is how otherwise intelligent people can take a bad English translation of bad Greek translations of Aramaic and older Greek texts,and say that they hold the absolute truth. When one brings up the fact that the decision of which books to include inthe canon was a decision by comittee, one can fairly see the steam rise from their ears. That the leader of the "free world" should belong to this category of self-deceiving loons is truly pathetic!
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Aug, 2003 01:51 pm
hobitbob

In Europe (especially in Germany), the Union of Evangelical Christians are really liberal churches. They have excellent contacts to the Palestinians (and good ones to israel).

The first evangelic bible translation was, btw, done by Luther: it was literally the birth of German. :wink:
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Churches, the central mobilising vehicle for policy in USA?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/04/2024 at 08:23:46