Religious "centrists" may decide the election - PhillyBlog

peacemover · #1 (**permalink**) 11-02-2004, 12:37 PM

Here's a well-thought out recent article from Sojourners Magazine by a progessive Christian evangelical writer whom I deeply respect and admire for his stances on social justice issues- Jim Wallis. Check it out and please chime in with your thoughts:

Quote:

Religious "centrists" may decide the election

by Jim Wallis

Moderate Catholics and Evangelicals may help decide this election. They are what widely respected University of Akron researcher John Green calls "centrist" Catholic and Evangelical voters who comprise 19% of the electorate and are concentrated in some of the most important swing states.

I just finished a 15-city bus tour in those very states, trying to raise poverty as a "religious issue." After almost two weeks of grassroots dialogue with faith-based community leaders, civic officials, journalists, low-income families, and almost 40 audiences of Christian citizens in 12 days, I am convinced that the election may hang on what those "centrist" religious voters ultimately decide the most important "religious issues" are in this campaign.

Everywhere we went political conservatives said the only religious issues at stake in this election year are gay marriage and abortion. Right-wing Catholic bishops have successfully reduced broad Catholic social teaching - which also contains strong commitments against poverty, capital punishment, and unjust wars - down to just the two hot-button social issues. While those narrowed views are outside the mainstream of Catholic social teaching, the conservative bishops' views captured front-page coverage early in the campaign when they suggested that John Kerry be denied communion for his pro-choice stance. When a different and more prominent Catholic bishop's position was made clear and the Vatican itself spoke to counter such single-issue voting, the clarification was buried in the papers. The damage had been done to Kerry, seemingly with collusion between the conservative right-wing bishops and the Republican Party. These bishops don't point out that President George Bush defied church teachings by prosecuting a war of choice in Iraq, or that the Pope vigorously challenged him on his war policies when the two met at the Vatican. I heard more than one Catholic leader declare that "there is no consistent pro-life candidate running for president."

We also discovered that local newspaper ads and bumper stickers asserting that "God is Not a Republican or a Democrat" and challenging "single-issue voting" have sparked real debate at evangelical Christian colleges and churches throughout the Midwest battleground states. As John Green points out, most "centrist" evangelicals are conservative on abortion and family values but don't believe those are the only important moral issues. Compassion for the poor is a growing evangelical concern, as is good stewardship of the environment (especially among a younger generation of evangelicals), as are issues such as HIV/AIDS, and human rights violations and genocide in places such as Darfur in western Sudan.

Iraq is also an issue for many centrist evangelicals, as is America's conduct of the war on terrorism. A group of more than 200 theologians and ethicists from mostly conservative seminaries and Christian colleges has just issued a strong statement called "Confessing Christ in a World of Violence." It asserts that our very affirmation of Christ is being challenged by a "theology of war emanating from the highest circles of American government," by the "language of righteous empire" being employed by those same political leaders, and by the claim of "divine appointment" for a nation and its president in a new war on terrorism that deals much too simplistically with the moral issues of good and evil, and "dangerously confuses the roles of God, church, and nation."

All this could have consequences for the election. If the "religious issues" are successfully narrowed to just abortion and gay marriage, President Bush will carry most of the centrist Evangelicals and Catholics. But if the religious issues are defined more broadly to include poverty, the environment, human rights, the war in Iraq, and the White House's too-easy "good versus evil" theology in the war on terrorism, John Kerry will get serious consideration by those same moderate Christian voters.

Kerry has been playing catch-up on the religion question to Republicans more comfortable with the language and a president who touts his evangelical faith. It may be too little too late, but the more Kerry invokes the parable of the Good Samaritan who helped his needy neighbor on the road, while accusing Republicans of "passing by on the other side," the clearer the contrasts on issues such as jobs, health care, and economic fairness will be. And when Kerry quotes the New Testament epistle of James, asserting that "faith without works is dead," he indicts Bush's "compassionate conservatism" that was gutted by tax cuts for the rich while leaving little for poor and working families.

Centrist Catholics outnumber conservative Catholics by 2 to 1. And Green points out that only one third of Evangelicals are solidly in the Religious Right camp. How the moderates in each group decide to vote could clearly decide the election. So what are the religious values in this election? If there are only two, Bush will win enough religious votes to win the election. But if enough of those Evangelical and Catholic centrists decide that their religious and ethical values apply to more than just abortion and gay marriage, Kerry has a real chance to win this election.

Steve · #2 (**permalink**) 11-02-2004, 02:19 PM

This touches on what I've been thinking lately. In a previous life, I was an evangelical Christian - specifically a fundamentalist Baptist, and of course, it's hard to get that completely out of one's system.

I opened up my Bible the other night (which I don't do very often) and read the Sermon on the Mount , which talks about peacemakers, the meek, etc. Then, I turned to the book of James and read the faith vs. works stuff. The example given by James to prove that faith without works is dead was specifically about helping out people who are cold and hungry. If one says he/she has faith, but does not help those in need, James says your faith is dead. Not lukewarm, not deficient, not lacking....DEAD.

I concluded that, yes, there's a lot more to Christian values than just gay marriage and abortion and the religious "right" is missing a lot. It almost seems like ultra-capitalism is more important to them than the very clear social justice teachings of their very own Bible.

Anyway, thanks for posting this.

Dave · #3 (**permalink**) 11-02-2004, 02:25 PM

Steve, :great_po:

peacemover · #4 (**permalink**) 11-02-2004, 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

This touches on what I've been thinking lately. In a previous life, I was an evangelical Christian - specifically a fundamentalist Baptist, and of course, it's hard to get that completely out of one's system.
. . .

I concluded that, yes, there's a lot more to Christian values than just gay marriage and abortion and the religious "right" is missing a lot. It almost seems like ultra-capitalism is more important to them than the very clear social justice teachings of their very own Bible.

Steve, well said. I agree that the social justice message of scripture has been largely overlooked in this political campaign.

I also think there are a lot of people out there who are people of faith that support progressive values for positive change.

My reason, in part, for posting that article is because I believe it touched upon the important theme of voting based on the big picture rather than exclusively on one or two hot-button issues, while largely ignoring many other important issues.

Clearly voting exclusively based on a divisive moral issue such as abortion, for instance (which neither candidate will abolish), overlooks a vast array of key social justice issues such as healthcare, education, jobs, and economic justice.

While both candidates have frequently used religious language and mentioned their faiths, John Kerry is the only candidate that I have heard make reference to specific policy proposals that relate to the great commandment of loving God and our neighbors (i.e. through working to close the health insurance gap; assure fair wages and benefits, and turn the economy around without further ballooning the national deficit).

I strongly believe that John Kerry, both in the debates, and his policy proposals has exposed Mr. Bush's "compassionate conservativism" for what it really is- a fraud.

:what_is_:

seand · #5 (**permalink**) 11-02-2004, 03:09 PM

I have always hated the way people let Robertson, Falwell, and Co. claim the term "Christian" as wholy and unequivacably their own when so much of the policies of inequality and barely disguised hatred they so ardently support is so at odds to what seemed to me the core mesage of J.C.'s teachings.

Maybe its just me but when Bush kept repeating how he "believes in the culture of life" as code word for his oppostion to abortion during the debates it made my blood boil. Anybody who is famous for being the most execution happy governor in US history, famous for often proudly taking less than 5 minutes to weigh in on the life of another human being, neither is much of a "christian" or a believer in the "sanctity of life' in my book.

Dave · #6 (**permalink**) 11-02-2004, 03:10 PM

To be fair, I think a lot of the christians who are voting for Bush are of the mindset that people should be helping other people and not the government. Problem is, people really aren't helping other people and there's really nobody left to do it except the government. The predominant mindset appears to be "lets throw all the poor people in the ghetto and pretent they don't exist."

While I'm against depending on the government exclusively for social programs, I do think the gov can and should, to a certain extent, make a difference in that area.

Steve · #7 (**permalink**) 11-02-2004, 05:02 PM

I agree that dependency on the government is not to be desired.

But I look at it this way. If we believe that our government is "of the people, by the people and for the people" then government-based social programs could be considered "people help people". I look at it as the mechanism through which our help is funnelled.

It seems that a lot of charity consists of a turkey dinner at Thanksgiving and Christmas, maybe a few used clothes that may or may not fit well or maybe some disaster relief after your home is destroyed in a hurricane or fire. What about the rest of the year? Even a BIG turkey dinner only lasts for a day or so before the hunger returns.

I guess the trick is at what point do you wean people off the charity and help them to stand on their own.

wally · #8 (**permalink**) 11-02-2004, 05:20 PM

As a devout Catholic, I have been struggling with these very issues.

I have always been uneasy with how frequently most of the Republican party and especially George W. Bush have claimed the moral and religious high ground without providing evidence for such claims.

On issues such as capital punishment, the anti-gay marriange amendment, and the environment I find myself at odds with the party. If one is so concerned about life and the teachings of the bible, then the death penalty is clearly in violation of such beliefs. Regarding the proposed marriage amendment, I do not think that it is the government's business to limit civil rights in such a way. Religious denominations may choose who they can or will marry, but not the government. Finally, as the article mentions, environmental policies have always been an important issue for me (not even from a religious standpoint). In this category, the Bush administration has clearly failed.

All this being said, I made up my mind this morning to vote for Kerry. In general, I find both candidates to be less than appealing, but, of the two, Kerry was the better choice.

Dave · #9 (**permalink**) 11-02-2004, 05:43 PM

Yes, Steve, I agree. Many people have forgotten that the government's job is to administer resources that serve a common good. However, Americans have become so communist-phobic that even this much "community" is frowned upon. Everything from "let's not be communist" to "separation of church and state" have been blown way out of proportion by people who use such catch phrases to serve their own little group of sympathizers and and/or suppress others.

re: the death penalty, there's ample Biblical content to support the governments authority to exercise capital punishment. However, I don't think that, just because they have that authority, they should use it. There also appear to be enough social and economic reasons to make a case against capital punishment that is at least as good as the case for it.

peacemover · #10 (**permalink**) 11-04-2004, 04:06 PM

Here is a follow-up essay from Jim Wallis published by Sojourners after the election yesterday- I believe Wallis makes an excellent point- how many of the exit polls showed that many Bush (and some Kerry) voters cast their vote based on "moral values." Since when are social and economic justice not "moral values"?? I guess we don't have to be good neighbors as long as we talk a good talk and preserve the status quo, and seek to impose our religious and moral values on the nation via restrictive legislation... :what_is_:

Here's the article:

Quote:

Progressive faith did not lose this election
by Jim Wallis

Religion was a big factor in this election, and "moral values" were named as a key issue for voters in the exit polls. On the Republican side, George W. Bush talked comfortably and frequently about his personal faith and ran on what his conservative religious base called the "moral issues." On the Democratic side, Senator John Kerry invoked the New Testament story of the Good Samaritan, talked about the importance of loving our neighbors, and said that faith without works is dead - but only began talking that way at the very end of his campaign.

We've now begun a real debate in this country over what the most important "religious issues" are in politics, and that discussion will continue far beyond this election. The Religious Right fought to keep the focus on gay marriage and abortion and even said that good Christians and Jews could only vote for the president. But many moderate and progressive Christians disagreed. We insisted that poverty is also a religious issue, pointing to thousands of verses in the Bible on the poor. The environment - protection of God's creation - is also one of our religious concerns. And millions of Christians in America believe the war in Iraq was not a "just war."

So in this election, one side talked about the number of unborn lives lost each year, while the other pointed to the 100,000 civilian casualties in Iraq. But both are life issues - according to the Pope, for example, who opposes both John Kerry's views on abortion and George Bush's war policy. Some church leaders challenged both candidates on whether just killing terrorists would really end terrorism and called for a deeper approach. And 200 theologians, many from leading evangelical institutions, warned that a "theology of war emanating from the highest circles of government is also seeping into our churches."

Clearly, God is not a Republican or a Democrat, as we sought to point out, and the best contribution of religion is precisely not to be ideologically predictable or loyally partisan but to maintain the moral independence to critique both the left and the right.

It is now key to remember that our vision - a progressive and prophetic vision of faith and politics - was not running in this election. John Kerry was, and he lost. Kerry did not strongly champion the poor as a religious issue and "moral value," or make the war in Iraq a clearly religious matter. In his debates with George Bush, Kerry should have challenged the war in Iraq as an unjust war, as many religious leaders did - including Evangelicals and Catholics. And John Kerry certainly did not advocate a consistent ethic of human life as we do - opposing all the ways that life is threatened in our violent world.

We didn't lose the election, John Kerry did, and the ways in which both his vision and the Democratic Party's are morally and politically incomplete should continue to be taken up by progressive people of faith.

In a deeply polarized country, commentators reported that either political outcome would "crush" the hopes of almost half the population. So perhaps the most important role for the religious community will come now, when the need for some kind of political healing and reconciliation has become painfully clear. In the spirit of America's greatest religious leader, the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., the religious community could help a divided nation find common ground by moving to higher ground. And we should hold ourselves and both political parties accountable to the challenge of the biblical prophet Micah to "do justice, love kindness, and walk humbly with your God."

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Religous Freedom of Restoration Act	Duffman	Spirituality & Faith	39	11-29-2004 12:02 PM
G.O.P. Goons to be deployed en masse to intimidate voters	peacemover	The Nation	12	11-01-2004 10:18 PM
Lazy people could decide the election	Dave	The Nation	2	10-26-2004 03:22 PM
ACLU on the wrong side again, siding against parents	rlc	The Nation	16	05-07-2004 11:29 AM
Can you pass this drug test?	innovafire	The Nation	113	02-21-2004 07:56 PM