Fred Sneesby - Observations on Culture, Faith and Politics

Politicians and Their Beliefs

February 2, 2007

I remember this man who ran for the state legislature a few times in a row who was not a churchgoer but who would suddenly show up in church in the couple of months before Election Day. It was to his soul’s advantage that he was running for the legislature because that election was held every two years. If he had been an aspirant for a general state office, he would have only had the benefit of church services every four years. It was his custom to wait until the Communion line was almost finished. At that point he would, quite noticeably, stride up the middle aisle to the end of the line to receive.

He never did win an election. I don’t know if his display of faith won or lost him votes, but he never did win. In his mind, though, he must have seen a political advantage to being known as a religious person. I always thought that this local politician’s transparent ploy, that made him more laughable than electable, was almost a caricature of being politically unsophisticated. But then I lived long enough to hear John Kerry suddenly begin recounting his days as an altar boy once it became clear in 2004 that religiosity gained votes.

There are no atheists in foxholes. Apparently, there are few in elections. No atheist has ever been elected President of the United States as far as we know. Major political parties have wanted their candidates to be at least nominally religious. But not too religious or of the wrong “brand.” There exists a limited range of religiosity allowed by voters. Atheists and zealots need not apply; the candidate must be somewhere in-between. Someone who refers to God in public remarks is okay but not someone who speaks in tongues at rallies. Regular church-going is fine but insisting that his or her Cabinet be born-again would not be. Hosting Prayer Breakfasts is acceptable but going on a pilgrimage would raise some eyebrows.

There are already more presidential candidates than horses allowed in the Kentucky Derby. Wage-makers in Las Vegas have even placed odds on them (Clinton and McCain are the front-runners). As they proceed through the gauntlet of public scrutiny in the months ahead, please take notice of how religion is discussed in relation to each one. About whose beliefs will questions be raised? Whose beliefs will be looked upon suspiciously? If you want, you can place a wager that it will be, first of all, about anyone whose religious beliefs differ even slightly from the mainstream and, secondly, be about those who hold what the press have come to label “conservative” views. Scrutinizing the beliefs of those who are only nominally religious will come at the end of the election cycle if at all.

These observations have come true already. Mitt Romney is a Mormon and columns have been written about his electability because of this. While Mormonism is one of the fastest growing religions, it still has a fairly small number of adherents compared to say Catholicism or Presbyterianism. Some of its tenets are a little hard for the non-Mormon to accept and, perhaps more important to pundits, the social teaching of Mormonism is on the conservative side. It is generally accepted that his faith is a political liability.

Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas, is an ex-Baptist minister. Again, his religious beliefs will put him on the conservative side of social issues, an asset in some groupings of voters and a big minus for others. More of a negative for Mr. Huckabee, however, will be the unspoken suspicion that he is “overly religious,” an unarticulated fear among the Americans that such a person’s reason will be overwhelmed by beliefs bordering on superstition and that he or she will run the country by closing their eyes, opening the Bible randomly, and pointing to a verse. There is a prejudice held by many that the religious person is, to some degree, irrational.

Senator Sam Brownback is a Catholic. As I have said in previous columns, being a Catholic politician raises your degree of difficulty of getting elected a few notches. Anti-Catholicism, like anti-Semitism, is alive and well in the United States. Add in fears of allegiance to Rome and a Church that is very clear about what Catholics are to believe, and you have a ready-made prejudice against Catholic candidates. Again, Brownback is labeled a conservative and very few of his views on matters other than “social issues” will see the light of day in the media.

The overall prejudice against religion in our culture will be very evident in the public appraisal of candidates, as well as the biases held against particular faiths. Few questions will be asked about candidates who are not “religious.” This is wrong on two counts.

First of all, it is wrong because it operates from the assumption that religion has no place in the public arena, that is, that religion is a private matter that may help you have good character but that should never interfere in the business of the world.

Secondly, it is wrong because it reveals the American public’s blind spot when it comes to beliefs. The fact of the matter is that every politician and, indeed, every person has beliefs and lives according to them with varying degrees of faithfulness. Atheists have beliefs. Agnostics have beliefs. Call them “first principles”; call them axioms, or assumptions or values. Whatever term you might use, they are and function as beliefs. For some unknown reason, religious beliefs have been singled out for notice as if their influence on a person is different from non-religious beliefs which, in my estimation, are just as important, just as potentially beneficial or dangerous, as religious beliefs. The question to ask about politicians is not what religion is he or she, but what does this person believe in? What are this person’s beliefs – religious or non-religious?

Maybe it’s convenience or laziness, but the only beliefs that seem to get discussed are religious beliefs. They are only part of the story. There are a lot more beliefs out there that have nothing to do with a denomination or a creed. These are the beliefs we should be taking notice of and scrutinizing when we assess candidates and their positions.