William D’Antonio, author of American Catholics Today: Realities of Their Faith and Their Church (2007) and chair of WNDC’s Religion and Politics task force had this to say about the differences between Republicans and Democrats on what it means to be religious. “The Democrats have been voting “the Biblical tradition from Abraham down through the great Jewish prophets to reach out to the needy, the foreigner, and remember ‘To whom much is given, much is expected’… So it is no surprise that Democrats brought us Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the G.I. Bill, early child education, raising the minimum wage, and other efforts to promote the general welfare… Rep Nancy Pelosi, Democratic House Majority Leader, has one of if not the strongest record in support of legislation that reflects Jesus’s teachings that we have a moral responsibility to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and provide shelter for the homeless. In fact, she has voted for and supported legislation that clearly shows that her religion informs her political philosophy.”
Similarly the defeated Virginia congressman, Tom Periello, spent many years in Africa working for economic betterment of poor people. As with Pelosi, legislating for the general welfare as a US Congressman was a perfect fit for his religious belief in public service.
Many on the Republican Right bring faith convictions to Congress, but their faith convictions are inimical to the idea of public service, and to the basic premise of democracy, that we can elect and hold accountable leaders who will work actively for the betterment of the community. Rep John Simkus (R-Il) who is vying for chairmanship of the House Energy and Commerce Committee is a climate change denier on the grounds that “the Bible is the final word of God and that he has said the earth would not be destroyed by a flood…[Cap-and-trade legislation] is the largest assault on democracy and freedom in this country that I’ve ever experienced.”
Given beliefs such as these, the religious sources of public policy positions must be on the table as we fight to hold on to Obama’s legislative achievements and move them forward.
(Note: watch for D’Antonio’s full statement in the upcoming Political Dispatch)
November 17, 2010 at 11:21 am
Of course, people use religion to whatever ends suit their human needs.
Einstein thought of himself as religious, while making it very clear that he didn’t believe in any gods, as they are portrayed in the Bible or by other established religions.
In a study I’m working on now,* the word “God” can be interpreted very broadly, depending on personal beliefs. As one of our respondents, a United Church of Christ minister, said, “If not believing in a supernatural, theistic god is what distinguishes an atheist, then I am one too.”
But he also said, “I don’t consider myself an atheist” and, “I am not willing to abandon the symbol ‘God’ in my understanding of the human and the universe.”
He, along with the Democrats mentioned above, are people doing good works, with or without religion or God, however they are defined.
* http://www.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/fall2010/big-day/index.html
November 17, 2010 at 6:05 pm
oops – wrong link above — Here’s the correct one:
http://www.tufts.edu/alumni/magazine/fall2010/features/pastorssecret.html
November 18, 2010 at 10:56 am
Linda – Thank you for an important comment. I agree completely with your conclusion. My point is that some individuals in public office are motivated by strong religious convictions, some of which are compatible with democracy and some of which are not.
November 21, 2010 at 12:31 pm
Some individuals in public office may be motivated by genuine strong religious convictions; however, too many use religion to peddle the wares of corporate interests that put them in office. If God says something is true in the Bible, that settles it, and there is no room for debate. This is very convenient for the climate change “naysayers” when doing the bidding of the fossil fuel industry, for example.
As both a Christian and a Progressive Liberal, I look to organizations such as the Interfaith Alliance, which works to protect both religion and democracy and unite diverse voices to challenge extremism. Unfortunately, it all comes down to owning the airwaves and controlling the message. If Democrats truly want a competing voice to ensure religion informs our political philosophy, then we must have equal media access to do so.
Without a divine intervention from God, I don’t have any solutions. Does anyone else???
December 6, 2010 at 8:48 pm
I think that people’s political values are clearly colored by their beliefs, attitudes, backgrounds, and religious/spiritual alignments. But having said that, there are so many interweaving strands of influence that it’s hard to develop much of a theory about where a person will take a stand based on their social/demographic profile. That said, today’s Republican legislators are so much in lock step behind Mitch McConnell’s stated mission to oust President Obama that it is possible to know how they will vote on any current issue, regardless of their particular social characteristics.
December 7, 2010 at 4:24 pm
Amen to what Alice wrote! On another topic, I don’t know how the DC constiuency is reacting to Obama’s agreement with Republicans about the Bush tax cuts, but I can tell you that my worker-bee progressive friends here are fuming. One even told me she thought she’d sit out the next election that she is so disgusted. Alas, I fear that the president in his effort to reach independent voters is alienating his base. There has to be a better way. Sigh, Sandi