Religion as a political advantage

You’ve got to keep a scorecard to see where the candidates stand on the issues, but when it comes to religion, write with a pencil so it can easily be…corrected.

This time it may be the Democrats who are getting religion.

Former Sen. John Edwards invoked “My Lord” in the first Democratic presidential debate when asked about moral influences on his life. At a campaign event on the day of the Virginia Tech massacre, he offered a prayer and — in a pointed break from Democratic candidates’ usual wariness of offending religious minorities — closed with the words “in Christ’s name.”

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) comfortably works in references to his faith at public appearances. Even before his presidential candidacy, he gave a well-received speech arguing for a greater role for religion in politics and cultivated relationships with influential church leaders, including mega-church pastor and best-selling author Rick Warren.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) included a paragraph about faith in the official biography on her campaign Web site. And in her Senate re-election campaign last year, she drew notice in the New York press for wearing a cross at some public events.

She drew notice in the New York press for wearing a cross? See how political religion is becoming? So of course, it falls into the ‘correctness’ watch.

Reversing recent political history, it’s the leading Republican candidates who for various reasons have so far been reluctant to speak too much about matters of faith.

How much is too much? Where are the lines, anyway?

Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, a divorced Catholic, holds liberal views on abortion and gay rights. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a divorced Episcopalian, has a tense relationship with leaders of the Religious Right. And former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is a devout Mormon whose religion arouses suspicion among many evangelicals.

You know, just the way stories are reported in the media creates impressions of the candidates in the minds of the public. So, Sen. Obama gave a “well-received speech arguing for a great role of religion” and made good relationships with “influential church leaders”, while McCain “has a tense relationship” and Romney “arouses suspicion.”

“Give the advantage to the Democrats at this point,” said Rich Cizik, vice president for governmental affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals.

The news media are already doing that. 

“You would have to conclude that the Democrats have a lot more interest in faith than the Republicans based on what they’ve had to say.”

I actually think it’s more that the Democrats have discovered religion as a political tool, looking at the course of politics over the past decade.

The Democrats’ 2004 presidential nominee, Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), did not start a religious outreach operation until the general election was well under way and did not give a speech on faith until nine days before the election.

“It’s almost a 180-degree difference from the Kerry campaign,” said Mara Vanderslice, who was director of religious outreach for Kerry and now works as a consultant to Democratic candidates on engaging religious voters.

Apparently, the advice is to get out there in front of religious groups as much as possible.

All three of the leading Democratic candidates are scheduled to appear next month at a forum on faith and values sponsored by Sojourners/Call to Renewal, a liberal evangelical group that concentrates on anti-poverty issues. Religious leaders will question the candidates on their moral beliefs and how they shape their public policy views, said Rev. Jim Wallis, the group’s president.

Questioning candidates for public office on their moral beliefs is not only a good idea, it is our obligation in a representative republic. Interesting, how we’ve shifted from the taboo of political discussions of religion under the false application of church/state separation clause, to…this.

The shift in interest is partly due to the mix of candidates in the current presidential campaign. But the focus on faith also reflects political realities. Many Democratic political professionals believe the party’s candidates need to do a better a job of showing a clear moral vision and connecting with religious voters.

Most of our leaders need to do a better job of showing a clear moral vision and convincing people of faith that they are well represented in government.

A 2004 poll co-sponsored by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life found that nearly 70 percent of Americans felt it was important for a president to have “strong religious beliefs.”…Expressions of faith can be more politically tricky for Democrats than Republicans because their party includes more secular voters and more members of religious minorities, such as Jews and Muslims.

But party leaders were alarmed by the 2004 election returns. The Democrats narrowly lost the presidential election, and one big reason was massive support for Republicans among the large portion of voters who regularly attend religious services. In a close election, even a slight gain in support from such a sizable group could swing the outcome.

This is a good analysis, but it says even more than the words on the page. Factoring in “the large portion of voters who regularly attend religious services,” which gave “massive support for Republicans” is going beyond talking about religion and focusing attention on those who practice their faith…a huge and important distinction.

Look at this sub-head in the story:

Tweaking abortion rhetoric

That, right there, reveals the problem for socially liberal politians. Abortion is the fundamental human right without which all others are incoherent. Supporting it is denying the most vulnerable human beings protection. Spinning that support with ‘rhetoric’ is deceitful because it is aimed at changing the subject and deflecting attention from what abortion is, and what it means to support it. And ‘tweaking’ the rhetoric means more intent to spin and soften the public to the abortion agenda.

Some Democratic political leaders, meanwhile, have sought to adjust their rhetoric on abortion to tamp down hostility toward the party’s abortion-rights position.

So they haven’t sought to adjust their position on human rights and abortion, just their rhetoric.

Many Democratic candidates in recent years have altered the way they speak about their abortion-rights stands, stressing their respect for the positions of those who are morally opposed.

That’s important. No matter what, people on both sides of the abortion debate have to have dialogue, in goodwill, with clear language, about what stand for and why it’s not only defensible but reasonable and moral. Let the consequences come from that kind of political debate.

Clinton called abortion a “sad, even tragic choice” in a 2005 speech, stirring criticism from abortion-rights groups. And some Democratic lawmakers have gathered behind legislative proposals explicitly aimed at reducing the number of abortions, through aid for contraception and assistance to expectant mothers.

What we need here is more education on abortion and contraception, not rhetoric.

Still, last month’s Supreme Court decision upholding a ban on a procedure opponents call “partial-birth” abortion may stir passions on both sides of the abortion controversy.

That phrase always stops me…”a procedure opponents call ‘partial-birth’ abortion.” What, exactly, do it’s proponents call this procedure in which the doctor partially delivers the baby and then pierces its skull to kill the infant with scissors and suctions out…I can’t continue this description.

Read Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion rendered on that Supreme Court ruling here. It’s all there in graphic detail. And then ask reporters and politicians and abortion activists what they call the procedure. “Late term abortion” is just too lame. It doesn’t get any ‘later’ than birth.

But the press and the politicians are maneuvering around those glaring truths, trying to finesse the language and re-direct the concern over moral issues.

Whatever direction the battles over abortion may take, the leading Democratic presidential candidates appear committed to a more visible role for faith in their campaigns. Obama, for one, argues that the party can only win popular support for progressive goals if it makes the case in the moral terms that religion offers.

And Wallis, of Sojourners/Call to Renewal, argues that it is entirely appropriate to look beyond candidates’ views on the issues of the moment toward their moral core in order to gain insight on how they might respond to the unanticipated challenges they are sure to face as elected officeholders.

“It’s fair for any citizen to evaluate a candidate by their moral compass,” Wallis said. “Politics should be about values. That’s the right conversation. Your moral compass shapes your values and, for some people, that’s their faith.”

The right conversation is about values that form a candidates moral compass. The right questions are about the protection, care and benefits of all human life.