USA citizens, please explain

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Could anybody from the USA or who is familiar with the subject, explain to me what is going on here?:


http://news.yahoo.com/hot-issue-campaign-trail-theology-070610355.html

I think that there is something behind that I cannot catch and maybe a USA citizen may know how theology turns to be so important in USA politics.

Thanks for your time and patience.

 

[Road2Damascus]

I believe the article is self-explanatory but that is fine that you ask this. Afterall, I would not know how the politics works in Germany or some other European countries.

Texas Governor Rick Perry went to that Prayer Meeting a few weeks ago probably in part to bolster his image as showing he is a Christian and in so far as that goes, that is fine with me even if this Rev. John Hagee who seems to have made anti-Catholic remarks showed support of this conference as well, Hagee is but one person and unfortunately, one hears of his kind from time to time in the Bible belt meaning the geographic area more or less from Texas to the Atlantic coast of the Carolinas I would say.

 

[Marc_Aupiais]

Could anybody from the USA or who is familiar with the subject, explain to me what is going on here?:


http://news.yahoo.com/hot-issue-campaign-trail-theology-070610355.html

I think that there is something behind that I cannot catch and maybe a USA citizen may know how theology turns to be so important in USA politics.

Thanks for your time and patience.

Religion in America is important for some reason, more so than people’s policies, just as environmental ideals seem more important.

For instance at the VMA’s Canadian Justin Bieber thanked God and Jesus, clearly showing he didn’t know either. But to Americans, and Canadians, any endorsement of some form of suedo Christianity is something to be cherished.

What is more important is policy than claimed affirmation and religiousity, but in America token ideals: e.g. skin colour of a presidential candidate, or which celebrities endorse someone, or which city they come from, etc matter.

Here in South Africa, religion also counts for some. All the Apartheid politicians were dominies (pastors) of Protestant churches.

Its a way of getting support whether or not you can do the job.

Republicans try to appear religious whether they are or not.

Democrats try to support abortion, homosexual unions, etc also: both sides use support of issues that play on emotions to try get votes, even if the financial issues need be ignored.

Ultimately American politics tend to come down to background and personality.

That said, the Religious Right, tend to sometimes make more moral choices: WHEN THEY ARE NOT TOKEN RELIGIOUS. Religion is lived and American politicians should be judged by their lives, but with 24hr television propaganda, that is seldom how it plays out!

 

[GEddie]

While USA is a secular republic, the values held by the people and upheld historically in it’s governance stem to a large extent from the Biblical Christianity of ancestral generations; in the last generation, this is perceived as coming under attack from more “progressive” factors arising from secular culture.

The theological aspect of campaigning is somewhat of a regional phenomenon, most important in the southern and central states, rather than the North Atlantic states or California. In the former areas, theology is used as a measure for sounding out the core values a candidate would bring to the floors of governance.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Saburo]

Rev. John Hagee who seems to have made anti-Catholic remarks showed support of this conference as well, Hagee is but one person and unfortunately, one hears of his kind from time to time in the Bible belt meaning the geographic area more or less from Texas to the Atlantic coast of the Carolinas I would say.

To be fair, Hagee made what William Donahue (Catholic League guy) described as “a sincere apology” for his hurtful criticism of the Catholic Church. Could be political opportunism, but Donahue is pretty much of a bulldog and doesn’t roll over easily.

 

[JRKH]

Could anybody from the USA or who is familiar with the subject, explain to me what is going on here?:


http://news.yahoo.com/hot-issue-campaign-trail-theology-070610355.html

I think that there is something behind that I cannot catch and maybe a USA citizen may know how theology turns to be so important in USA politics.

Thanks for your time and patience.

It might be difficult to explain because, to us Americans the article seems pretty straight forward.
I wonder if part of the problem in “getting your head around” this might have to do with a fundamental difference in how the US and the European countries have evolved.
The European history has a very strong connection between Church and state. So much so that in most countries there was a “State Church”. Even though this is no longer the case in many places, there may be an underlying current of this history in the psyche of European politics.
The U.S. has never had a “State Religion” despite the claims of some that it is build on Christian values (largely true).
Also true is that for many decades, most of it’s history, the Majority of the US population and it’s representatives were Christian, or presumed Christian.

Today, with a more pluralistic society and a growing secular humanist view of politics and society, religious views have become less dominant. Instead of being the majority view, they are one of several views widely and loudly expressed.
This has led to the religious values of a candidate no longer being assumed. Likewise it has led to religious groups organizing themselves politically to a greater degree than in the past.
The result is that politicians are under greater and more active scrutiny for their religious views than they were in the past.

Peace
James

 

[exnihilo]

In America, particularly or mostly in the South, having proclaimed religious faith is very important. At the same time much of America is very anti-religion, particularly Christianity. Politicians being crafty people they want make sure the religious voters know they are religious while not turning off those who hate religion. Republicans tend to be more religious. Democrats tend to be less religious and even anti-religion.

“The voting public no longer believes, as they did as late as the 1950s, that religion was about what you thought and not what you did,” Flake said.

This quote seems at odds with reality to me. I think what matters most in America is that you profess a faith in Jesus. As a politician you can get away with any immoral act and especially having a complete lack of humility, so long as you profess to be a believer. That is why so many politicians wear their religion on their sleeve.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Let’s get this straight - Gov. Perry invited leaders of ALL faiths including Catholic, AND there was a rabbi in attendance - the press got that all wrong.

The Catholic Diocese declined to attend. I think it would have been a nice thing to do, but they didn’t ask me. I mean, we are always praying for our separated brethren, why not attend their prayer rallies?

But I will tell you that political figures in this country walk a fine line between the display of a faith and getting too religious while in office. It is less controversial for a Protestant to do this than it would be for a Catholic to do it (not that any Catholic would - we don’t have prayer rallies!). This country was founded on Protestantism, so there is still a hearty anti-Catholic sentiment, as was evident when President Kennedy was running for office and was elected. It was a huge problem for many and was the start of many conspiracy theories about how the Freemasons are actually running the world from behind the scenes.

Religious people applaud Perry for being confident enough to do this - non-religious people point and say, “He’s doing it for political reasons only.” Since it actually hurts him more than helps him, I think he was sincere in his motivations. And he is a professing Christian, is not afraid to speak the name of Jesus Christ right out in the open, as opposed to the current President who has the name covered up or removed when he speaks (only twice) in any religious setting.

 

[Carlan]

It might be difficult to explain because, to us Americans the article seems pretty straight forward.
I wonder if part of the problem in “getting your head around” this might have to do with a fundamental difference in how the US and the European countries have evolved.
The European history has a very strong connection between Church and state. So much so that in most countries there was a “State Church”. Even though this is no longer the case in many places, there may be an underlying current of this history in the psyche of European politics.
The U.S. has never had a “State Religion” despite the claims of some that it is build on Christian values (largely true).
Also true is that for many decades, most of it’s history, the Majority of the US population and it’s representatives were Christian, or presumed Christian.

Today, with a more pluralistic society and a growing secular humanist view of politics and society, religious views have become less dominant. Instead of being the majority view, they are one of several views widely and loudly expressed.
This has led to the religious values of a candidate no longer being assumed. Likewise it has led to religious groups organizing themselves politically to a greater degree than in the past.
The result is that politicians are under greater and more active scrutiny for their religious views than they were in the past.

Peace
James

Good post James, as always most thoughtful. Peace, Carlan

 

[Carlan]

And he is a professing Christian, is not afraid to speak the name of Jesus Christ right out in the open, as opposed to the current President who has the name covered up or removed when he speaks (only twice) in any religious setting.

How charitable you are when referring to the President of our multi cultural Nation, Juliane!
Peace, Carlan

 

[Hecares]

The US was founded based on Christian albeit protestant values. One used to be able to assume those core values were shared by all. (Note that I said “core” values. There have always been some differences in belief, but not in the basics.) The typical resident was said to be a white, anglo-saxon protestant as late as the 1950’s and 60’s, maybe later.

In recent years we have had a growth in demands to recognize other religions to the point that christian beliefs can’t be expressed as freely. For example: most items recognizing our holiday of Thanksgiving now say “Happy harvest,” or" Happy Autumn" in order to avoid the appearance of favoritism toward christians, and thus start an uproar among non-christians. When I worked in a government office, we were told to say ,'Happy Holidays" instead of Merry Christmas so that we woul be inclusive to Kwanza and Chanuka observers as well. My personal opinion is that part of the interest in the religious beliefs of candidates is a backlash from this movement.

We have had a large influx of hispanics in our country recently. Most of them are Catholic, bringing a large Catholic influence which worries the protestant majority.

Our country is at war with and has suffered terrorist attacks in recent years from people who professe the belief that they were fulfilling the commands of their religion by killing Americans. Many Muslims want to live peacefully in this country, but it is difficult for many of our citizens to trust people who profess the same beliefs as those who claim that their religion requires that they kill us as infidels.

There is a broad political base of evangelical christians. They often tend to unite in their votes and can therefore be very helpful in the election of those whom they support.

When I lived in Germany, I had to declare myself either Catholic or protestant. In the US, we have wide variations of beliefs from Catholic to atheist and many in between. If people act according to their beliefs, we prefer to have someone whose beliefs are similar to our own.

Hope this helps. Feel free to ask for further clarification of my thoughts if you want; and I repeat that these are my personal opinions based on many years of experience with different cultures and a background in sociology and psychology.

 

[exnihilo]

Religious people applaud Perry for being confident enough to do this - non-religious people point and say, “He’s doing it for political reasons only.” Since it actually hurts him more than helps him, I think he was sincere in his motivations.

If you meant to say ‘tend to’ for the first two thoughts I agree. I’m very religious and I’m inclined to believe it is for political reasons because he is a politician. I dont consider politicians to be the best among us and given the fact that a person is elected by the majority in our corrupt culture it seems almost impossible that they could be.

I really dont see how this hurts more than helps. Texas is a fairly religious state. So it helps him in Texas. It also helps boost him throughout the South. Gardasil Rick, who eagerly took money from drug companies and passed a law requiring young girls in Texas to get the HPV vaccine, needed to shore up his Christian credentials. Any politician who signs an executive order (tyrannical declaration) that 11 year old children need an expensive vaccine for an STD stands on very shaky ground with Christian conservatives.

Also keep in mind we are leading up to the primaries and not the general election. What all politicians do is appeal to their base during primaries and then move to the center after they get the nomination. What they say during primaries are convenient lies to get the nomination. So a Democrat will be extra liberal and a Republican extra conservative. But once they secure the nomination they back away from their earlier promises. Heck most politicians qualified for a presidential run are even good at putting on accents when they talk to different groups of people. Folks like Hillary Clinton suddenly have a twang when down south.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

In this post, I am thanking everybody for answering my question.
Some say it is pretty straight forward but I do not see this type of environment is Europe. so, the explanations were very good.
In fact we had a Curch-State close relationship, much like the Muslim Countries have today, with the exception of Turkey. But, the French Revolution which inspired the United Sates, in 1789, cut those ties.
So, I do not know the whole of Europe, but I hardly see Theology playing any role in European Politics. I do not say it is right or wrong. the Pope says it should play, as it was when the EU refuse to put in its constitution a reference to God and the Christian values, what I think was wrong.
Sincerely, from own point of view, though I understood the text, the whole background appeared strange as if it were from another world.
Still, the thing that puzzles me is whether one is christian and can use his Christianity to show his personality (but it seems some do this and it harms their cause) when others seem to use it without believing at all and they are rewarded. Strange, no?
Once I read that G.Bush read the Bible everyday but then, some years later, they told it was all a fake, he was not religious at all.
To fake religion and go up in the polls is rather strange.
Thanks.

It might be difficult to explain because, to us Americans the article seems pretty straight forward.
I wonder if part of the problem in “getting your head around” this might have to do with a fundamental difference in how the US and the European countries have evolved.
The European history has a very strong connection between Church and state. So much so that in most countries there was a “State Church”. Even though this is no longer the case in many places, there may be an underlying current of this history in the psyche of European politics.
The U.S. has never had a “State Religion” despite the claims of some that it is build on Christian values (largely true).
Also true is that for many decades, most of it’s history, the Majority of the US population and it’s representatives were Christian, or presumed Christian.

Today, with a more pluralistic society and a growing secular humanist view of politics and society, religious views have become less dominant. Instead of being the majority view, they are one of several views widely and loudly expressed.
This has led to the religious values of a candidate no longer being assumed. Likewise it has led to religious groups organizing themselves politically to a greater degree than in the past.
The result is that politicians are under greater and more active scrutiny for their religious views than they were in the past.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

In this post, I am thanking everybody for answering my question.
Some say it is pretty straight forward but I do not see this type of environment is Europe. so, the explanations were very good.
In fact we had a Curch-State close relationship, much like the Muslim Countries have today, with the exception of Turkey. But, the French Revolution which inspired the United Sates, in 1789, cut those ties.
So, I do not know the whole of Europe, but I hardly see Theology playing any role in European Politics. I do not say it is right or wrong. the Pope says it should play, as it was when the EU refuse to put in its constitution a reference to God and the Christian values, what I think was wrong.
Sincerely, from own point of view, though I understood the text, the whole background appeared strange as if it were from another world.
Still, the thing that puzzles me is whether one is christian and can use his Christianity to show his personality (but it seems some do this and it harms their cause) when others seem to use it without believing at all and they are rewarded. Strange, no?
Once I read that G.Bush read the Bible everyday but then, some years later, they told it was all a fake, he was not religious at all.
To fake religion and go up in the polls is rather strange.
Thanks.

Strange - Yes. But that’s politics (over here…)

When a person identifies with any group or movement or position, it can provide advantage or disadvantage (often both). These movements or groups may be religious, environmental, economic, social etc. But if they have a political voice and agenda, these groups will evaluate and work for or against one’s election.
The honest person speaks the truth and lets things play out accordingly while retaining credibility (and grace). The dishonest person speaks whatever seems to be of advantage at the time and may be “rewarded” in the short term but in the long run it does them more harm than good.
I’m sure that in Europe there are such groups as well. Groups that the Politicians are obliged to seek endorsement from or at least the friendship of. In the U.S. Religion just happens to be one of those groups.

Most politicians, like most people, fall somewhere in the middle. They enter politics with ideals and a desire to help and to promote the good. They seek to be honest and open, but at the same time they know (or believe) that they can do nothing unless they are elected. They also know that there are others who desire their defeat and will seek to show them in the most negative light possible.

So - Most all politicians try to walk a very careful path, trying to be honest, but then also trying to please sufficient numbers to get into office and to stay in office.

Peace
James

 

[The_Old_Medic]

To secularist people, anyone that is openly religious is suspect. They tend to think that anyone that is “too religious” will somehow attempt to impose their religious beliefs on the country.

In the United States, there is complete freedom of religion. There are well over 1,000 different religions practiced in the USA, including Satanism, Witchcraft, Wiccan (which is NOT Witchcraft by the way), various forms of paganism, various forms of Christianity, various forms of Judaism, various forms of the Muslim religion, many form of animist religions, many forms of Eastern religions, and so on.

Most of the Press in the USA is very secular. They attack anyone that publicly expresses a strong religious belief system. They keep saying that the Constitution of the United States requires a separation between Church and State In fact, it does not, there is not one word in the U.S. Constitution that calls for a total separation between the Church and the State. It just prohibits the Congress from ESTABLISHING A STATE RELIGION.

It also requires that absolutely no religious test can be utilized in selecting any person for Federal Office. That means that the government can not require that only Christians can hold office as an example.

So, what this article is doing is attempting to show that there are some people running to become President have strong religious roots, and therefore they should not be allowed to become President.

 

[exnihilo]

Most of the Press in the USA is very secular. They attack anyone that publicly expresses a strong religious belief system.

I dont know. It seems to me if you are Buddhist or maybe a Kabbalahist (or whatever you call a practitioner) you get a pass. It even seems if you are an anything goes non-judging (of anything formerly considered immoral) Christian you get a pass.

They keep saying that the Constitution of the United States requires a separation between Church and State In fact, it does not, there is not one word in the U.S. Constitution that calls for a total separation between the Church and the State. It just prohibits the Congress from ESTABLISHING A STATE RELIGION.

It also requires that absolutely no religious test can be utilized in selecting any person for Federal Office. That means that the government can not require that only Christians can hold office as an example.

You are exactly right. Folks are unaware that many states, maybe most, had state churches at the founding of the United States. Most were of course Episcopal due to the English Anglican heritage. Many states had in their constitution clauses saying you must believe in Jesus Christ and be specifically a Protestant to serve in office. And some like, Massachusetts, had in their Constitution, written in part by John Adams, clauses giving money to schooling people in the Bible. Catholics might naturally find offensive the Protestant clauses but keep in mind at one time in early America non-Anglican denominations were also forbidden.