# Politicians and religion



## Gwan

A few weeks ago I saw clips on the news of John McCain and Barack Obama addressing an evangelical conference. In my country (New Zealand) I think most people would be surprised or even horrified to see their political leaders expressing strong religious beliefs. 

It is known that some politicians hold religious beliefs (although our current Prime Minister is a self-proclaimed agnostic), and that's not a problem, but it would be basically unheard of for a politician here to stand up and talk extensively about their faith or claim that their policies are informed by their faith, as George Bush has done. (That is, unless they were a member of an explicitly religious party, which tend to do very badly in the polls.) If politicians want to appeal to religious people, they would talk about 'family' and 'values' (and of course 'family values'  ) rather than God or Christianity. 

This is probably in large part because NZ is a pretty secular country although the historical (and for that matter, current) majority religion is Christianity.

My questions are: do politicians in your country talk about their religion? What is (or would be) the reaction of people if they did do this? I realise America is a much more religious country than NZ, but do people in America think politicians discussing religion is consistent with the constitutional separation of church and state?


----------



## ernest_

In here, politicians may say that they have faith that there is a god and what particular branch of Christianity they edhere to (other religions so far aren't extremely popular amongst the political elite). However, going further than that would be politically suicidal.


----------



## cuchuflete

Gwan said:


> My questions are: do politicians in your country talk about their religion? What is (or would be) the reaction of people if they did do this? I realise America is a much more religious country than NZ, *but do people in America think politicians discussing religion is consistent with the constitutional separation of church and state?*




Most people in the U.S., like most people elsewhere, have not read or understood the very simple first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

It begins with these words:  

_Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;_
​That clear statement of the separation of church and state does nothing to discourage a candidate for political office, or an office holder, from discussing their personal beliefs.
Many candidates and elected officials make much of such beliefs, _whether or not they truly hold them or really act in accord with them._  So long as they don't attempt to embody such beliefs in laws, there is no conflict with the Constitution.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Italy is a Catholic country and there are still many people who would not vote for a non-Catholic politician.
What happens here (and not only here, I guess) is that many politicians find it convenient to publicly flaunt their being Catholic.
By doing that they kill two birds with one stone: they get the Catholics' votes and please the Church.
How important pleasing the Pope can be is clear by reading this article.


----------



## berndf

cuchuflete said:


> That clear statement of the separation of church and state does nothing to discourage a candidate for political office, or an office holder, from discussing their personal beliefs.


Indeed! I think there is a cultural misunderstanding between large parts of Europe (probably NZ as well, as Gwan's comment suggests) and the US. For many of us (Europeans) _freedom *of* religion_ means first and foremost _freedom *from* religion_, i.e. is a right of individual vis-à-vis an intolerant religious establishment (overly publicized religious declarations of representatives of the state would therefore be met with distrust). In the US _freedom of religion_ means is mainly seen a right of believers to exercise their religion(s).


----------



## MissIngalls

Agreed. I also think that the Electoral College is a big reason why you see U.S. presidential candidates highlighting their religious practice. There are some states where the number of voters who vote only for candidates who have similar religious beliefs is so substantial that presidential candidates have to attract that group or else give up on the state altogether.

In my area, on the other hand, there is great diversity of religious beliefs and practices, considerable tolerance of such, and little curiosity about candidates' religious identities. Talking about religion can't hurt them at the polls here, though, because we're used to it at this point... and in any case, we never have a choice of a candidate who keeps his/her religious practices private!


----------



## JamesM

berndf said:


> Indeed! I think there is a cultural misunderstanding between large parts of Europe (probably NZ as well, as Gwan's comment suggests) and the US. For many of us (Europeans) _freedom *of* religion_ means first and foremost _freedom *from* religion_, i.e. is a right of individual vis-à-vis an intolerant religious establishment (overly publicized religious declarations of representatives of the state would therefore be met with distrust).


 
I think it is important to keep in mind that our histories are very different. We do not have a period where the Church effectively ruled in conjunction with the State, so we have no real experience of "an intolerent religious establishment" being able to influence, or even control the actions of, the State.  For one thing, we have never had just one "Church."

I don't think it's unusual, therefore, that we have less of a reaction to religious declarations.


----------



## berndf

Yes, James. I always suspected this to be the reason for the different attitudes in the US and in Europe. The same is true for the attitude of people towards government. In the US "leadership" is a positive quality for a politician while in Germany (the other extreme in terms of people's experience with their own government) "leadership" and "leader" are rather negatively tainted words.


----------



## Meeracat

The UK, I believe, is now a fundamentally secular society and most people would look with great suspicion upon a politician who displayed his/her religion too readily in their political discourse. As Tony Blair said when he was PM (being a a man of religious faith) "We don't do God". There is of course the example of Margaret Thatcher using the prayer of St Francis on the door of No.10 Downing Street on the day of her first election to PM. I think most people would have considered it more cringeworthy than profound. I think that many in the UK look upon US political/religious discourse with some dismay, not least of all because it often appears to be a kind of religion that becomes expressed as quite right wing policies.


----------



## alexacohen

Gwan said:


> My questions are: do politicians in your country talk about their religion? What is (or would be) the reaction of people if they did do this?


 
In Spain they don´t. Of course some of them are photographed going into a Church, or hearing Mass, but it is not something they talk about in public, least of all when there is a wide audience.

If they did, they would get a very negative response from everyone (except four voters and a half). They would very effectively kill their chances of winning any election.

It may be due to the fact that for almost forty years the Roman Catholic faith was imposed on everyone.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

alexacohen said:


> If they did, they would get a very negative response from everyone (except four voters and a half). They would very effectively kill their chances of winning any election.



How funny!
Italy and Spain are so close (and not geographically), but with regard to this issue things are totally different in Italy, i.e. the more you flaunt your being a good Catholic the more chances to be elected you have.


----------



## berndf

Paul, you didn't have Franco, you had Mussolini who was anticlerical. This fits very well the explanation given before.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

berndf said:


> Paul, you didn't have Franco, you had Mussolini who was anticlerical. This fits very well the explanation given before.


I don't know..
I believe it's more about the goody-goody, kowtowing attitude some Italian politicians have towards the Church and the Pope.


----------



## berndf

I think this is rather about the attitude of the voters than about that of the politicians. The question is why do Italian voters tolerate this while Spanish voters do not.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

berndf said:


> I think this is rather about the attitude of the voters than about that of the politicians. The question is why do Italian voters tolerate this while Spanish voters do not.


Good point.
Too many Italians still don't know or understand the concept of secular state.


----------



## cubaMania

In recent years, fundamentalist Christianity has grown in power in the United States and has largely taken over one of the two major political parties (Republicans) and pushed hard to undermine the principle of the secular state. I think this voting block is now perceived as so powerful that the second major party (Democrats) is feeling pressure to try to woo them by flaunting their own candidates' Christian beliefs. The proportion of our citizens who now express the belief that the United States is or should be a "Christian Nation" is astonishing to those of us who honor the constitutional principle of separation of church and state.


----------



## sokol

Paulfromitaly said:


> Italy is a Catholic country and there are still many people who would not vote for a non-Catholic politician. (...)



This was the case in the Austrian First Republic from 1918 onwards till 1933 when the "Catholic" party took over power and founded our Austrofascist regime (1933-1938); later came Nacism and after the war most people weren't very keen any more on bringing in religion into politics. Still in rural regions up until the 1970ies many people in rural regions voted for the party they thought of as the "Catholic" one, but even that is almost nonexistant now.

Nowadays Austria truly is "mostly secular"; in Austria there soon is to be held a general election and there even is a new party called the "Christians" (which is very pronounced Catholic - conservative wing, goes without saying) but their chances of being elected to parliament (for which they would need 5% of the electoral) are practically zero:*) which means yes, there _is _a segment of society not wanting a secular regime, but it is very small and insignificant.
*) All media and surveys agree here; their position is much too extreme to be accepted even by a significant minority.

For politicians it would be not bad for their campaign to say that they were religious - it only would be bad if they stated that their religion is their political manifesto.

I think that Italy indeed is an exception in Europe (that is, mainly in the EU, _probably _with some exceptions - what about Ireland, and what about Poland?) where in most nations surely it would not be advantageous at all to put religion above political aims.


I guess I should add something to what I said above previously: today is a TV confrontation where one politician (which is to be expected to get 10-20% of the electorate) definitely said that the "Christianity" of the fatherland is an important point for him (I won't mention the name, it is of no concern to the discussion which should be kept strictly cultural). This is not completely unexpected but nevertheless a new facette to Austrian politics; however it is very unlikely that an anti-secular movement will come of it - the whole thing has much more to do with anti-immigration politics of said politician than anything else (and certainly hasn't got to do anything with Catholicism as such).


----------



## ernest_

berndf said:


> I think this is rather about the attitude of the voters than about that of the politicians. The question is why do Italian voters tolerate this while Spanish voters do not.



I want to clarify that the Spanish conservative party is a strong ally with the Catholic church, and they share the same political views in many respects. This is not exactly a secret, as they even organise massive demonstrations together, for all to see. But somehow, they do not boast about being Catholic, if they go to a Catholic demonstration against the government they won't mention religion at all, they will say they are "pro-family", or "pro-life" or whatever. I don't fully understand why they do that, but may be because otherwise they know the opposition would fulminate against them. And, also, there's a certain tradition of anti-clericalism, since in Spain the Church has always been allied with the most reactionary factions in the country, so it is not precisely popular in the left.


----------



## berndf

ernest_ said:


> ... in Spain the Church has always been allied with the most reactionary factions in the country...


That is what I understand. Any clericalism is therefore unacceptable not only to people on the left but also to people in the political centre who usually decide elections. And politicians are very well aware which groups decide elections.


----------



## federicoft

Paulfromitaly said:


> Good point.
> Too many Italians still don't know or understand the concept of secular state.





Paulfromitaly said:


> How funny!
> Italy and Spain are so close (and not geographically), but with regard to this issue things are totally different in Italy, i.e. the more you flaunt your being a good Catholic the more chances to be elected you have.



I think this is a bit over-simplified and that, in fact, we are much closer to Spain, Germany or any other European country than the US. Surely we are not some sort of exception in Europe.

In the last general elections we had just one expressly Christian party, and it got some 5% of votes. The losing candidate (Walter Veltroni) is a confirmed atheist, as well as other former PMs (such as Spadolini). 

In fact religion has little to none role in everyday political debate. We never hear one of the main candidates talking about its faith or its beliefs as they do in the US; we rather hear them talking about taxes, salaries, justice, communism, fascism, immigration, family etc. 

This doesn't mean of course that some parties, especially the centre-right ones, are very close to the Catholic Church in some respects (family, school, same sex marriages etc.). But it is still a political stance. No politician boast its faith or its being Catholic, which are perceived by most people as personal matters. And never mind left parties which are proudly anti-clerical, or the long Liberal and Socialist traditions which are widespread even in today's centre-right.


----------



## Outsider

Portugal has always been a rather homogeneous Catholic country, and throughout a large part of its history, until a few decades ago, this was achieved through force. Nowadays, I feel that religion is a dormant but still somewhat sensitive issue.

Most politicians do not talk about their religion, or use religious language to gain electoral support. Of course, some in the right wing are tempted to do so, but they normally don't go beyond slipping the occasional "God willing" or "praise God" into their speeches. If they don’t go any further than this, perhaps we may be justified in concluding that it’s because they know that more openly religious rhetoric would not sit well with the Portuguese electorate. My impression is that even many genuine Catholics would regard such behavior as distasteful and transparent political pandering.

The long and short of it is that, at present, I do not see in Portugal the same kind of social climate as seems to exist in the U.S., where top government officials are _expected_ to be religious, and to prove it. Among Portugal’s last three presidents, the current one is Catholic, the previous one was an agnostic, and I think the one before considers himself an atheist. This was never an issue when they were running for office. 

I would note, however, that the "signs" that politicians give out and their actual policies are two different things. In spite of all the vote-fishing rhetoric, the U.S. remains a thoroughly secular country. In Portugal, while there is usually not much religious rhetoric, there have been occasional outburtsts of less-than-secular behavior by our governments, in the last decades.


----------



## tvdxer

Gwan said:


> A few weeks ago I saw clips on the news of John McCain and Barack Obama addressing an evangelical conference. In my country (New Zealand) I think most people would be surprised or even horrified to see their political leaders expressing strong religious beliefs.
> 
> It is known that some politicians hold religious beliefs (although our current Prime Minister is a self-proclaimed agnostic), and that's not a problem, but it would be basically unheard of for a politician here to stand up and talk extensively about their faith or claim that their policies are informed by their faith, as George Bush has done. (That is, unless they were a member of an explicitly religious party, which tend to do very badly in the polls.) If politicians want to appeal to religious people, they would talk about 'family' and 'values' (and of course 'family values'  ) rather than God or Christianity.
> 
> This is probably in large part because NZ is a pretty secular country although the historical (and for that matter, current) majority religion is Christianity.
> 
> My questions are: do politicians in your country talk about their religion? What is (or would be) the reaction of people if they did do this? I realise America is a much more religious country than NZ, but do people in America think politicians discussing religion is consistent with the constitutional separation of church and state?



Well, this is "America" and I think you already know the answer for my country.  Though you are misled on one point: the constitution nowhere prohibits politicians from discussing, expressing, or flaunting their religious beliefs.  It only prohibits (Cuchuflete posted the amendment) the federal government from enacting a law in favor of some church (or religion?) or prohibiting others from practicing their own.  

As far as WHY American politicians are so willing to discuss their religion and make religious references, I would provide three explanations:

1) To court more religious (especially "Evangelical", a term which has a different meaning in the U.S. than some other countries) voters;

2) Because most Americans at least possess a religion, usually Christianity (about 75%), to begin with;

3) Because Americans seem not only to pay attention to the stances and experience of politicians, but also their character.

Some Americans do complain about this, or perhaps are even embarrassed over it.  But most of us are used to it or even perhaps appreciate it.


----------



## berndf

tvdxer said:


> 2) Because most Americans at least possess a religion, usually Christianity (about 75%), to begin with;


That is not the point. Many of the people in Europe who wouldn't accept religious arguments in politics are religious themselves. Demanding strict separation of state and religion doesn't make you an atheist.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

berndf said:


> That is not the point. Many of the people in Europe who wouldn't accept religious arguments in politics are religious themselves. Demanding strict separation of state and religion doesn't make you an atheist.


Exactly.
Most of the left party politicians are catholic too, they simply believe in the concept of secular state.


----------



## cuchuflete

Gwan opened this discussion with a straightforward set of questions:



> My questions are: do politicians in your country talk about their religion? What is (or would be) the reaction of people if they did do this? I realise America is a much more religious country than NZ, but do people in America think politicians discussing religion is consistent with the constitutional separation of church and state?



Politicians say lots of ridiculous things, among which are a few regarding their real and imaginary religious beliefs.  Americans tend to swallow such stuff as a normal part of the political hot air generation that becomes a Santa Ana windstorm when a national election is in sight.  I recall similar religious spoutings when I lived under the Franco dictatorship in Spain, and during Salazar's regime in Portugal.  "God", as understood by the politicians, was the justification given for many constraints of civil liberties.  In that regard, the U.S. and those southern European countries during periods of dictatorship have something in common.  

The reaction of the people in all three countries was or is broadly divided into two groups:
1– Those who shared (at least nominal) religious beliefs with the politicians were pleased with the ostensible basis of policy;
2– Those who didn't like the policies found the attempts to tie them to religion cynical and dishonest.


----------



## Sepia

Since our present German government is partly Christian Democrat it would be odd if politicians couldn't claim to be Christians without getting strange glances.

Well, they can, but they do in fact talk more about social values based on Christianity than they talk about their God. 

Even one of the EU-parliamentarians - a CDU-man - who is in favor of the mentioning of God in the EU-constitution told me that his actual issue was stress the social values and less the religion as such.


----------



## Gwan

tvdxer said:


> Well, this is "America" and I think you already know the answer for my country. Though you are misled on one point: the constitution nowhere prohibits politicians from discussing, expressing, or flaunting their religious beliefs. It only prohibits (Cuchuflete posted the amendment) the federal government from enacting a law in favor of some church (or religion?) or prohibiting others from practicing their own.


 
Thanks for clearing that up. I wasn't under the impression that the constitution prevented anyone, including politicians, from discussing their religious beliefs, I was more trying to get a sense whether those who believe that church and state should be kept miles apart were comfortable with politicians making blatantly (Christian) faith-based pronouncements and decisions.


----------



## tvdxer

berndf said:


> That is not the point. Many of the people in Europe who wouldn't accept religious arguments in politics are religious themselves. Demanding strict separation of state and religion doesn't make you an atheist.



But that's your idea of "strict separation of church and state".  Surely the government collecting taxes for churches (as is done in Germany) would not be seen as separation of church and state in the U.S.

And religious arguments...I think there is confusion here.  Rarely do I hear politicians making "religious arguments" to justify their policies.  At least not alone to justify their policies.  Even with issues where there is a strong connection between religious belief and political views, e.g. abortion, same-sex marriage, it seems much more common to hear of "respect for life" or "traditional family" in the political arena than "respecting God's creation" or "God's plan for the family".  Religious language tends to be more along the lines of "God bless America" or "my belief in God", etc. - language that lets the audience know the politician is Christian, or has faith, which Americans can identify with.


----------



## berndf

tvdxer said:


> But that's your idea of "strict separation of church and state". Surely the government collecting taxes for churches (as is done in





tvdxer said:


> Germany) would not be seen as separation of church and state in the U.S.


You are right there. It is one of the oddities carried forward from the 1919 constitution nobody dares to touch. As it is part of the constitution it would require the heavy process of a constitutional change to do anything about it.




tvdxer said:


> And religious arguments...I think there is confusion here. Rarely do I hear politicians making "religious arguments" to justify their policies. At least not alone to justify their policies. Even with issues where there is a strong connection between religious belief and political views, e.g. abortion, same-sex marriage, it seems much more common to hear of "respect for life" or "traditional family" in the political arena than "respecting God's creation" or "God's plan for the family". Religious language tends to be more along the lines of "God bless America" or "my belief in God", etc. - language that lets the audience know the politician is Christian, or has faith, which Americans can identify with.


I sincerely hope you are right. During the 2004 presidential campaign I remember having heard quite different things, not from Bush and Cheney themselves, tough.


----------



## Kevin Beach

Politicians will always talk about anything that they believe will win them votes, and they will avoid talking about issues that voters don't like.

If they think that they can tap into a stream of religious sentiment in the electorate, they will do it, as they so often do in the USA.

If they think there would be a backlash against religious views, they will avoid doing it. That is what happens in the UK. There has been a strong and (I suspect) deliberate secularisation of this country in the past 60+ years, to the extent that atheism is now frequently preached with a vehemence that once marked out religious fanatics.

There are several reasons for this and I think they are all reactionary ones. One is the rebelliousness of the 1960's, when young people rejected the political and religious establishments. Another is the 30-year war in Northern Ireland from the late 1960's, and its overspill by way of terrorism in Britain. The third is the rise of Islam in the past 20 years and the violence that has been associated with it. Many people blame the terrorism and violence on religious sectarianism and, by extension, on religion as a phenomenon.

It is now unsafe for a politician to make anything of his/her religious beliefs in British politics. For example, although it was always known that Tony Blair leant towards Catholicism (his wife and children being Catholics), he waited until he had resigned the premiership before being formally received into the Catholic Church.

Oddly, the feelings don't seem to be so strong against politicians of non-Christian faiths. I suspect this is because they are still seen as cultural minorities who have to be brought into political representation process. Political correctness isn't always universal.


----------



## Etcetera

Gwan said:


> My questions are: do politicians in your country talk about their religion? What is (or would be) the reaction of people if they did do this?


If you turn the TV on on a major Orthodox holiday, you'll see some major politicians standing in a church with most solemn expressions on their faces. It would be quite unusual to hear any of them to talk about their faith, though. 

This practice of standing in the church on major holidays isn't very popular among the people: most people say (and they may well be right) that the politicians just want to "show off", and if this or that politician were a truly religious person, they would go to some local church, not to the cathedral.


----------



## AngelEyes

All of our politicians talk about their religion in the United States. It's one way for people to know their belief system and what they base their life upon.

Whether or not it's actually true and valid in that politician's life is really something only they can know for certain.

But most Americans see nothing wrong with knowing because, for the most part, we aren't atheists. We all believe (most of us) in some sort of Higher Power and we expect to discover those we give earthly power to to share their own spiritual opinions.

And, of course, we use this knowledge to accept or reject that politician.

Our political leaders make judgments that affect our lives. They make laws that govern our day to day existence. How they vote depends very much on how they think and what they believe. 

So we want to know as much as we can about this side of their personalities. That's what most responsible voters do. It's a combination of many, many things that we put together and come to a conclusion of who we want to give our vote to.

A person's faith in something or nothing at all is a huge part of who they are. It would be really, really...well, dumb not to want to know this about them, as well as their secular thoughts, too.

I'm not saying what we find out is the truth, but that shouldn't stop us from seeking it, anyway.

Politicians know this. We're giving them the mightiest power in the world - running the government of the biggest Super Power on this planet. 

Nothing should be off-limits when a human being seeks this position.

Nothing.

*AngelEyes*


----------



## deGerlaise

In Canada, thankfully no. Not generally, it's not helpful, nor is it considered appropriate.
From my point of view, I consider it pandering & I think a fair number of Canadians would agree with this. There is a fringe party in Canada called the _Christian Heritage Party_.  If ever they were elected they would do things like eliminate same-sex marriage, remove all pro-choice legislation, close businesses on Sunday and so on. They are an outer fringe party. It's doubtful they will be anything more than this.


----------



## Meeracat

AngelEyes said:


> .
> 
> Our political leaders make judgments that affect our lives. They make laws that govern our day to day existence. How they vote depends very much on how they think and what they believe.
> 
> So we want to know as much as we can about this side of their personalities. That's what most responsible voters do. It's a combination of many, many things that we put together and come to a conclusion of who we want to give our vote to.
> 
> *AngelEyes*


 Absolutely. From this side of the Atlantic it would seem to be very important to know that one of the vice-presidential candidates believes that the world was created 6,000 years ago.


----------



## Sepia

tvdxer said:


> But that's your idea of "strict separation of church and state". Surely the government collecting taxes for churches (as is done in Germany) would not be seen as separation of church and state in the U.S.
> 
> ...


 
That is probably a greyzone because some would still argue that the state takes no direct influence on the policy of the churches. 
Personally, I don't agree, but some countries take it even further and still claim this would have no negative effect on democratic processes: In Denmark the priests of the protestant church are civil servants under the Ministry of the Church.


----------



## AngelEyes

Meeracat said:


> Absolutely. From this side of the Atlantic it would seem to be very important to know that one of the vice-presidential candidates believes that the world was created 6,000 years ago.


 
Wait just a minute. 

This is not the thread to trash one of our decent, dedicated Vice-Presidential choices. 

If you want to do that - personally attack a specific woman - start a new thread. And Sarah Palin's father is/was a science teacher. She believes evolution should be taught in school. 

But this brings up an interesting point. If Americans didn't ask these questions - if, as all of you from other countries or even here in the United States who believe religion isn't relevant and should be kept separate from secular elections, how would we ever know this "fact" about Sarah Palin? 

If we aren't supposed to take into account someone's religious beliefs because all of this must be kept separate, then this is an issue none of us Americans should even know about.

Or want to.

It's not important because God isn't important. 

But maybe God isn't really the central issue to this discussion. Maybe _He's_ just another part of a bigger whole that's included in disclosing the entire person each candidate is. We as voters have a long list of checkpoints we go down to help us decide who we'll vote for. 

Certainly a belief or non-belief in a Supreme Being is a very important aspect in that deliberation.


*AngelEyes*


----------



## Meeracat

Trash? Attack? Sarah? Palin? Not me Gov. Still, now that you mention her, it is of some interest to know what her religious beliefs are. Whether she is a 'creationist' or a believer in 'intelligent design' is a highly relevant piece of information about someone who is a heartbeat away from the nuclear button. So it is essential to have as much discussion about the religious beliefs of the candidates as possible.


----------



## berndf

I think we are getting closer to the core of the cultural differences here. 
 
In America, the ideas of democracy and free society have been political mainstream much longer than in Europe. On this side of the pond, those were minority views of intellectual avant-gardes for most of the 19th century and in some countries until 1945. Consequently, the very concept of democracy is much more closely linked to philosophical concepts of enlightenment where superstitious and also religious beliefs must concede to science as scientific explanations emerge.
 
*For the purpose of clarifying the point, let me grossly overstate it:* Following this logic, believing that the earth is 6000 years old would be acceptable in pre-Darwinian times but not today and having a political leader who believes this would be a direct assault on the foundations of democracy and free society. As religion has space only in areas where we don't "know better", religious beliefs should not affect political decisions. A political leader may or may not believe in a supreme being but it should not matter.


----------



## AngelEyes

> So it is essential to have as much discussion about the religious beliefs of the candidates as possible.


 
Meeracat,

While I don't think you and I are on the same page politically, I do agree with your statement.

This thread's subject really is interesting because if we keep religion totally out of the political process, then we miss full disclosure of a candidate's persona.

For those who don't think a person's religious beliefs should even be relevant in an election - and you mean in this particular instance, keeping church and state totally separate - then those voters should logically just tune out anything having to do with religion. It's not important. Indeed, it shouldn't even be thrown into the mix.

The problem is we *all* are interested in the religious side of any human being who wants the power to run our lives. Whether it's because we think it's important to know and so we listen and learn, or whether we hate it that a candidate tosses in his religion to garner votes - either of these actions affect our political process.

I think it's an issue we can't escape.

And separation of church and state is really in place to prevent any candidate from using their religion to promote policy and make laws. At least I think that's what it means. A candidate's personal religious views aren't off-limits. Just whether or not he will use those beliefs to affect the law.

By the way, Meeracat, I'm sorry I misunderstood you. I thought you were directing your sentence to Sarah Palin. Which political candidate were you referring to?


*AngelEyes*


----------



## Kevin Beach

Taking a candidate's religious (and moral, ethical, social, cultural and political) beliefs into consideration is always valid because they may signify what (s)he is likely to do when the chips are down/(s)he's up against the wall/the smelly stuff hits the fan/the enemy's nuclear missiles have been launched.

For example, a member of the Catholic organisation _Opus Dei_ (we have one in the British government) is likely to be absolutely opposed to any moves to extend the availability of abortion and euthanasia, whether (s)he expresses any opinions on the issues or not. But an avowed secularist isn't. A member of the Society of Friends (Quakers) is likely to be opposed to any military expansion because Quakers tend to be pacifists. Jewish and Muslim candidates are likely to have opposite views about the country's relationship with Israel...... and so on.

The problem with most political punditry is that commentators tend to base their opinions on what candidates have said and done in the past instead of what their background and loyalties might lead them to say and do in the future.


----------



## Meeracat

AngelEyes said:


> Meeracat,
> 
> For those who don't think a person's religious beliefs should even be relevant in an election - and you mean in this particular instance, keeping church and state totally separate - then those voters should logically just tune out anything having to do with religion. It's not important. Indeed, it shouldn't even be thrown into the mix.
> 
> The problem is we *all* are interested in the religious side of any human being who wants the power to run our lives. Whether it's because we think it's important to know and so we listen and learn, or whether we hate it that a candidate tosses in his religion to garner votes - either of these actions affect our political process.
> 
> I think it's an issue we can't escape.
> 
> And separation of church and state is really in place to prevent any candidate from using their religion to promote policy and make laws. At least I think that's what it means. A candidate's personal religious views aren't off-limits. Just whether or not he will use those beliefs to affect the law.
> 
> By the way, Meeracat, I'm sorry I misunderstood you. I thought you were directing your sentence to Sarah Palin. Which political candidate were you referring to?
> 
> 
> *AngelEyes*


 
Of course Religious belief is important in the political arena. On that I think we agree AngelEyes. It is better to have the information out in the open than hidden behind closed doors (as in the example of the _Opus Dei_ representative in the midst of the present UK Government as Kevin Beach points out). 

Religion, in whatever culture one might live in, is a treasure chest of metaphor and myth which creates all kinds of (interdependent)worlds that people can inhabit. It can provide languages of aspiration and hope, it can address the problems of evil both at a social and a psychological (spiritual )level. There can be no harm in people using the images and beliefs that move them at their deepest level to inform their politics, which after all is the practical arm of our hopes and visions for society (or at least should be).

Religion in this sense is at its best when it is acting as a moral compass, pointing us away from selfishness and greed and towards goodness and compassion (and I say this as a non-theist). However, in recent times it seems that a different kind of religious voice is in the ascendency (because of the silence of more moderate religious believers I assume) more hectoring, strident and right wing. This is a ccause for concern, at least it is from where I sit on this side of the pond.

p.s. AngelEyes, I have a confession. I did mean Palin, I was just being facetious.


----------



## AngelEyes

Meeracat said:


> p.s. AngelEyes, I have a confession. I did mean Palin, I was just being facetious.


 
I know. I was just being pissy. 

*AngelEyes*


----------



## cyberpedant

To return to the original question: *Politicians and religion, *I took the time to watch most of the convention speeches this year and was so amazed by John Kerry's*  neglect of the god reference that I had to review his speech on YouTube. As far as I was able to determine, his was the _*only*_ performance that left that bit out.
By the way, I've read many blogs and commentaries on such topics as this and I have to congratulate all my fellow forer@s on the level of intelligence and linguistic competence you have shown here.*Mr. Kerry is a senator from Massachusetts.


----------



## AngelEyes

cyberpedant said:


> As far as I was able to determine, his was the _*only*_ performance that left that bit out.
> *Mr. Kerry is a senator from Massachusetts.


 
I missed Kerry's presentation. I wonder if that was deliberate or just the way it happened?

I know when he was running for president, he had no qualms about bringing his Catholic religion into his candidacy.

Here in this debate, he spoke many times - and in great, intimate detail -what his belief in God meant to him and his political positions.

JOHN KERRY


This is a perfect example, I think, why most Americans just expect religion of a candidate to come into play in some way. It's always been done this way in the United States.

*AngelEyes*


----------



## Paulfromitaly

Meeracat said:


> Absolutely. From this side of the Atlantic it would seem to be very important to know that one of the vice-presidential candidates believes that the world was created 6,000 years ago.



I can't see any connection between the above mentioned statement and politics or religion. 
To me that's only an unbelievable (to the extent of being even funny) display of gross ignorance.


----------



## cyberpedant

Paulfromitaly said:


> I can't see any connection between the above mentioned statement and politics or religion.
> To me that's only an unbelievable (to the extent of being even funny) display of gross ignorance.



It is not very funny here. There is a substantial portion of the populace who believe in the literal truth of the Bible and wish to have everyone else conform. Have you seen "Jesus Camp"? It's terrifying.
 I will refrain from going on here. New thread?


----------



## Sepia

cyberpedant said:


> It is not very funny here. There is a substantial portion of the populace who believe in the literal truth of the Bible and wish to have everyone else conform. Have ... New thread?


 
If at least they could mention the names of the persons who re-edited the Bible into its present state or tell us if the literal truth is to be taken from that which is to be found left of the original texts. In my experience they that usually cannot.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Moderator note:  Please return to the original question.  Thanks.



Gwan said:


> My questions are: do politicians in your country talk about their religion? What is (or would be) the reaction of people if they did do this? I realise America is a much more religious country than NZ, but do people in America think politicians discussing religion is consistent with the constitutional separation of church and state?


----------



## Cheesee = Madness

deGerlaise said:


> In Canada, thankfully no. Not generally, it's not helpful, nor is it considered appropriate.
> From my point of view, I consider it pandering & I think a fair number of Canadians would agree with this. There is a fringe party in Canada called the _Christian Heritage Party_.  If ever they were elected they would do things like eliminate same-sex marriage, remove all pro-choice legislation, close businesses on Sunday and so on. They are an outer fringe party. It's doubtful they will be anything more than this.


I've never heard of any of our politicians (With the exception of the CHP who didn't have anyone get elected in the election yesterday) mention it. I believe because its a VERY touchy subject in a certain Province (Whoopsie now its called a "Nation within a United Canada") Nation, who has had a different um... "Subsect?" of Christianity than the other part. I think that has led to no one talking about religion so as not to allianate a large portion of the voters, but that is just my personal opinion. Seperation of Church and State is strong here, and looks to continue being so for a long time.


----------



## Hillbilly

Regarding the meeting between the US presidential candidates and Rick Warren:   I think it was both a good and a bad thing.  It is good to recognize that one’s religious beliefs affect every aspect of life.  It was bad to the extent that it felt like a religious test for public office.


    The relationships between politics and religion are quite complex and full of paradoxes.   This seems to be true in all countries.  

  The United States was actually a pioneer in the idea and practice of separation of church and state.  An unlikely coalition of deists, agnostics, and Baptists in Virginia joined forces to pass the Virginia Act to Establish Religious Freedom in 1779.

  Religious groups in America that were once persecuted sects have thrived and prospered precisely because of the absence of an established church.  Ironically, as these groups have grown powerful, many of their members have forgotten their heritage.   Some even oppose the very idea of separation of church and state.

  Small religious minorities understand the ways, both small and large, that the majority can tread on their rights and sensibilities.  My non-Catholic friends in Italy understand ideals of religious freedom much better than their American counterparts.

  An interesting dynamic occurred in the 2008 American election.   Some American evangelicals became afraid of Barack Obama because his middle name is “Hussein” and his father was Muslim.  Rumors abounded that he is secretly a Muslim, possibly with ties to radical elements.  

  Many people voted against Obama because of these fears.  However, the rumors backfired, and  many other people voted for Obama in reaction to this paranoia.  Colin Powell expressed the sentiments of Americans who are disgusted with religious bigotry.


----------



## AngelEyes

> Many people voted against Obama because of these fears. However, the rumors backfired, and many other people voted for Obama in reaction to this paranoia. Colin Powell expressed the sentiments of Americans who are disgusted with religious bigotry.


 
This is very true. This past election is a strong example of how Americans really find it impossible to keep religion out of the political arena.

Depending on your personal stance on abortion and gay issues, for instance, you either voted for or against Obama because of these issues.

And Obama's personal pastor, Jeremiah Wright, certainly was a focal point in many voters' minds when they went to the polls and cast their vote.

*AngelEyes*


----------



## ampurdan

Gwan said:


> My questions are: do politicians in your country talk about their religion? What is (or would be) the reaction of people if they did do this? (...) do people (...) think politicians discussing religion is consistent with the constitutional separation of church and state?



As others have said, politicians do not talk about their religion in this country. People do not think it's important. As others have said, we've had a long history of imposed religion and many people would feel nausea hearing the word "God" come out from a Spanish politician's lips. 

However, I don't know what Spain would be like now in this respect if we had enjoyed religious freedom since the same time other European nations had it, though. I mean, I don't know if that history explains everything about our current general stance towards religion.

I think our statesmen historical love affair with the Catholic Faith accounts for our long history of anticlericalism, which also show nowadays when our left-wing Government uses bigoted bishops as scapegoats for their mistakes. They do not talk about religion, of course, but they talk about the bishops. Not only the Government, but also all the left-wing media. In my opinion, talking about separation of state and religion every day does make religion become a political issue (especially when in the end of the day you keep funding the Catholic Faith, _*and no other one*_, with public money). And what's worse, it only reinforces the clerical-anticlerical somewhat irrational pendulum.

However, all this does not explain why people do not want to hear politicians talk about a God, transcendence or call it what you like. It's quite obvious that "God" does not need to be the God of the Catholic Faith. Anything religious is seen however as irrational, not subject to prove, something private, not common, and so, a political non-issue. Even religious people here are not interested in the religion of their political leaders, they are interested to know if they are going to support their religious-political views. Viceversa, people here in general do not fear Opus Dei ministers if they are not able to put forward anything that would be uttermost unpopular. Granted, it's something we should know (and in fact, we do know), but that's all. We do not expect them to step forward and enlighten us about their religious life.

I think that if we ignore anticlerical and hard-core Catholic components in Spanish society, Spain is very much like any other European country. So, Franco is not the explanation of all this.

I wonder if different tendencies in European and American 18th Century Enlightenment and how the former and the latter regarded atheism and theism could explain better our different democratic traditions in this field.


----------



## Lugubert

The Swedish Christian Democratic Party is close to falling below the limit that will even get one Parliament seat.

Any politician publicly claiming that (s)he adheres to a religion would probably lose more votes than gaining some.


----------



## aspar

berndf said:


> Indeed! I think there is a cultural misunderstanding between large parts of Europe (probably NZ as well, as Gwan's comment suggests) and the US. For many of us (Europeans) _freedom *of* religion_ means first and foremost _freedom *from* religion_, i.e. is a right of individual vis-à-vis an intolerant religious establishment (overly publicized religious declarations of representatives of the state would therefore be met with distrust). In the US _freedom of religion_ means is mainly seen a right of believers to exercise their religion(s).


 
This is a delicate subject but from my experience in France, I would say that historical context has very much shaped the negative attitude of French society to public expression of religious affiliation or opinion. 
One has often the impression that there is a kind of obsession with what the French call "laïque" or secular principles and attitudes. They seem to have gone to the other extreme - making a religion out of promoting secular arguments. 
This also has a suffocating effect on general debate and education. The average individual (let alone the average politician) certainly shouldn't talk about his religious convictions. This is strictly a private (family) matter. Even friends feel uncomfortable if, at the dinner table, you say that you are religious. 
The French have an interesting way of neutralising possible debate by saying - "je suis croyant mais pas pratiquant", ie. I believe but I don't practice. I suppose the average American would hesitate to admit openly that he is religious but doesn't go to church.
Here (as elsewhere I suppose) politicians mostly talk about religious questions when it has a strategic use for them.


----------



## Wilma_Sweden

Lugubert said:


> The Swedish Christian Democratic Party is close to falling below the limit that will even get one Parliament seat.
> 
> Any politician publicly claiming that (s)he adheres to a religion would probably lose more votes than gaining some.


Yup, and they adapt their rhetoric to euphemisms such as family values etc. If they started propagating a stricter abortion law, for example, it would be political suicide. Generally speaking, the situation is much the same as in NZ.

One important difference in Sweden is that at election time, the policies of the parties are usually more important than the politicians themselves, i.e. we still vote, essentially, for a party's policies rather than for a certain individual. Of course the personality of a politician affects us too, but we measure their trustworthiness not in terms of what religion they have, but rather through their respect for taxpayers' money, or lack thereof. 

Poland is an interesting case in terms of religion affecting legislation: In the 60s and early 70s, Poland's abortion laws were more liberal than Sweden's, so Swedish women often went to Poland to have an abortion. Nowadays, Polish women come to Sweden because abortion in Poland was severely restricted in post-communist Poland, as a result of religion returning to the political arena.

/Wilma


----------



## Hulalessar

The fact that Spain and Poland are moving in opposite directions is in each case a classic case of the political law of action breeds reaction.

In Spain the Church hierarchy (and what is the Church if it is not its hierarchy?) supported Franco; the Pope congratulated Franco on his victory. All this happened within living memory. Any advantage the Church gained in the short term it has more than lost in the long term. The Church is not exactly fighting a rearguard action, but it is on the back foot. As someone put it: "Spain is no longer a Catholic country; it is a country of Catholics."

The opposite has happened in Poland. It has gone from being a country of Catholics to a Catholic country. The Church is too triumphalistic. It needs to be careful it does not overdo it.


----------

