Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Explaining Iowa: The God Strategy at Work
The victories by Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee in the Iowa caucuses on Thursday make one thing clear: in America's heartland, the God strategy works. Recent history suggests it won't stop there.In this approach presidential candidates make their religious faith demonstrably public and wield it as a campaign centerpiece. Out is a traditional wall of separation; in is a "bridge between church and state" that George W. Bush-who used the God strategy to perfection in 2000 and 2004-offered early in his presidency.
This is not how it's always been.
God and religion have always been part of U.S. politics, but our analysis of more than 15,000 public communications by political leaders from Franklin Roosevelt's election in 1932-the beginning of the modern presidency-through six years of George W. Bush's administration revealed a striking increase in public religiosity beginning in 1980.
That year, in response to Jimmy Carter's personal faith story, Ronald Reagan ran a campaign shot through with religious themes and calculated visits with newly mobilized evangelicals. This approach was so successful that subsequent presidents have followed suit. The result is that presidential candidates today use religion as a political weapon: to organize and explain one's values, to justify policy plans, and-most importantly-to divide the electorate into allies and enemies.
The victors in Iowa on Thursday have used the God strategy to a degree rarely seen in modern history.
Obama's public embrace of faith began in 2006 with a keynote address at Sojourners magazine's Call to Renewal conference. Syndicated columnist E.J. Dionne suggested the speech "may be the most important pronouncement by a Democrat on faith and politics since John F. Kennedy's Houston speech in 1960 declaring his independence from the Vatican." Later in 2006 Obama spoke at an AIDS summit hosted by Rick Warren-a conservative who is one of the most prominent evangelicals in the world.
Since then, Obama's religious politics have only grown. He often begins speeches-including his address in February 2007 in which he announced his intention to seek the presidency-by giving "all praise and honor to God," and regularly cites the biblical story of Joshua. In Iowa, Obama had a faith steering committee and his campaign held forums across the state titled "What's faith got to do with it?"
Still, he lagged behind Huckabee in his religious politics.
Early on, the little-known ordained Southern Baptist minister compared himself to Biblical underdogs David and other Old Testament prophets. He wowed Christian conservatives at the Family Research Council's Values Voters Summit in October, saying "I think it's important that the language of Zion is a mother tongue, and not a recently acquired second language." Huckabee began to surge in Iowa polls not long after, a rise he attributed to divine intervention.
Huckabee sealed his ascendancy by airing perhaps the most religious ads in U.S. presidential history. A signature spot featured Huckabee saying "Faith doesn't just influence me; it really defines me," as the words "Christian leader" flashed across the screen. In another ad, Huckabee asked viewers to remember the real meaning of the holiday season: "the celebration of the birth of Christ." When this message stirred up controversy, Huckabee adroitly painted himself as the target of secularists.
Obama and Huckabee: Two presidential candidates, two political parties, one approach-and the same result.
The question now is whether this strategy has legs beyond Iowa. As the candidates turn their attention to New Hampshire, they'll find voters who are likely to be a bit more cautious about too intimate a relationship between religion and politics. But soon thereafter comes South Carolina, where faith runs wide and deep. Indeed, Obama's campaign had a "40 days of Faith and Family" focus there in autumn.
One thing is for sure: we're light years and a religious political revolution from John F. Kennedy's candidacy in 1960, when he famously declared that "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute" and "I believe in a president whose views on religion are his own private affair."
That was a winning message then. Today it would be a voice in the wilderness-on both sides of the partisan aisle.
David Domke is Professor of Communication and Head of Journalism at the University of Washington. Kevin Coe is a doctoral candidate in Speech Communication at the University of Illinois. They are authors of just-released The God Strategy: How Religion Became a Political Weapon in America (Oxford, www.thegodstrategy.com).

50 Comments so far
Show AllHuckabee is a nut case. The Republicans left to caucus last night for their party were the ones who voted for Huckabee. The rest of the party went over to Obama's camp and caucused for him. Otherwise Edwards would have won. Republicans want either Obama or Clinton to get the ticket. It was a planned strategy on the part of the Republican party.
And this is the peasant America that is going to burn to the ground, unfortunately our fellow Americans are going to pull everyone into the toilet with them.
While they're are all praying to their flat-earth genocidal blood god, their POTUS Overseer will be bailing out "the investors" with our money while we sink into the deepest Depression ever seen in Western History. No I'm not kidding. Master wants EVERYTHING.
Anyone who survives who has any history will compare it to the 6th Century collapse of Rome after the explosion of Krakatoa. Over used but still true - Perfect Storm. Totally corrupt government systemically unable to take effective action. Due to environmental degradation thru land use practices and global warming, major domestic food growing areas becoming wastelands. And on and on.
That's ok. Lots of us are going to learn how to live outdoors and that'll be fun. In Denver, and Philly, and LA, and.....
Pieces of 8.
Mitt Romney did a good job of explaining the three parts of the conservative base.
Religious Conservatives
Economic Conservatives
Military Conservatives
Each wing of the conservative movement wants their value (religion, money, strength) to rule our society with little interference from democracy.
George W. won his elections because he was able to unite all three wings of the conservative party. In the Iowa caucus, we saw the religious conservative (Huckabee) beat the economic conservative (Romney) while the military conservative (Rudy) is falling further behind.
If Huckabee, Romney, or Rudy win the nomination, they will be defeated because they won't be able to unite the three segments of the conservative base. They each are too "on the nose" of a specific segment of the base.
Iowa produced the two most improbable frontrunners we could imagine from the two packs that have been running.
That they speak of faith is a good thing, not a bad thing. Religion is a big force in America and needs to be addressed head-on. And these guys could do that for us, possibly in the process exposing the profound difference between talking about "family values" versus enacting policy that actually benefits families. Bet you can't guess which one I think would emerge victorious on that, with America proud to see his two little girls romping in The White House instead of Barney and Miss Beazley.
Barack looked and sounded like a leader last night, and I think he's going to win the next two early primaries as well.
Let's be clear that Bush did not win in 2000 --- and 2004 is also highly questionable. The only way the Republicans have taken power is thru decades of political violence ...
And computer steals which begin in the mid-1960's.
See "Votescam -- The Stealing of America" --- which is the
story of the 26 year investigation of computer steals beginning in the late 1960's by journalists Jim & Ken Collier. You can scan the book or read it at the website.
http://www.constitution.org/vote/votescam__.htm
Again -- stolen elections didn't begin in 2000 --
they began in the mid-1960's.
EDIT: CORRECTION --
"Let's be clear that Bush did NOT win in 2000 --
and 2004 is also highly questionable."
Gore won in 2000 -- anyway you count it -- as the recounts have shown.
Let's not forget that Jesus Christ couldn't meet the constitutional requirements for being President of the US. He never made it to 35, and he was not born an American citizen -- despite what some GOPers believe.
If we must have a God in politics, let it be REASON.
"Huckabee asked viewers to remember the real meaning of the holiday season: "the celebration of the birth of Christ." When this message stirred up controversy, Huckabee adroitly painted himself as the target of secularists."
This is a beautifully concise paraphrase of Jim Wallis's best seller , " God's Politics : The Right got it Wrong and the Left Didn't Get It. "
" the celebration of the birth of Christ is covered " in depth " in Mike Huckabee's Bible ( mine too ) , two chapters-worth in Matthew , zero-mention in Mark , 1.5 in Luke and in nine words in John," the word became flesh and dwell among us,Happy Birthday ( " Happy Birthday È ) is my words.
The overwhelming balance of the chapters in MMLJ and all of the writings of Paul and Peter tell me , Mike Huckabee and the most disbelieving atheistic-secularist to follow the example of Jesus Christ in progressive , compassionate qualities like love , joy , peace , patience , kindness , goodness , faithfulness , gentleness and self-control.
How does Mikeès affirmation of an offensive strike against Iran square with gentleness and self-control.
Is there any secular-humanists that would disagree with the socialistic application of the nine attributes mentioned above.
Progressives probably have more potential for tolerance than Huckabee and his fundamentalists so may I suggest for them , the progressives , not to throw the baby out with the bath water . If an atheistic-secular-humanist has difficulty squaring the Old Testamentès slaughterung the Hittites with the seemingly-contradictory-pacifistic commands of Jesus , then rationalize that Jesusè commands and examples trump Ancient-Israelite history . God commanded the Ancient Israelites to slaughter the Hittites ; we are not Ancient Israelites and Iranians are not Hittites.
I generally refrain from expressing this trite colloquialism , Duuuh but just this once.
We don't need any god or any business in our government.
Hoa binh
peace coup, that's one of the best and easy to understand description of the conservatives, thank you! (I admit I don't listen to Romney)
Any thoughts on what the progressive divisions are?
And a follow up related to this article:
Is there a christian left?
Christian Left? I'm going to venture a yes on this one. As someone raised to be a rightwing fundie and then having abandoned the concept due to, ironically enough, higher religious education, I've seen a definite Christian countermovement against the Religious Right. It exists mostly in the Methodist and Episcopalian denominations, and to some extent in the Lutheran seminaries, but not at the parish level.
Without getting really wordy, my explanation of the basic difference between the Christian Right and left (not as well organized, hence no capitalization) is the view of Scripture:
The Right reads Scripture as the word-for-word inspired Word of God. All the wrath and war and judgement and repression in the Old Testament (and somewhat in the New, like when Peter murders a married couple for lying about their offering) is SOMEHOW the same thing as Jesus, hence you just learn to deal with the fact that God can love humanity and yet condemn the vast majority of it to eternal torment. According to this line of thought, God isn't necessarily good or just in the way we understand it; goodness and justice are whatever God is and well, we know where that goes.
On the other side, the left sees Scripture as people doing their best to understand the message God has for them, revealed fully in the person of Jesus. Where the Right weights everything equally, the left weights the words of Jesus above everything else, thus creating a far more humanistic bent to the faith.
I hope this helps, dustinchicago.
Huckabee is also in favor of a "consumption tax" instead of an income tax.
What is now termed the "missing class", i.e. the approximately 50 million Americans who work several jobs just to survive, "consume" all their income for basics and pay little or no income tax. Under Huckabee's plan, they would end up paying the greater proportion of their income in taxes than any other group.
The middle class (what is left of it) "consumes" what they earn and, judging from credit card debt, more than what they earn. They would be the another group they would be hit hard.
The wealthy and the super rich would be least affected. Their accountants will no doubt find away around the tax. I suppose they could even buy their multi-million dollar yachts in some other country and park them in the Grand Caymans or someplace like that.
If there really is a god, she will blow the shit out of every voting machine in the U.S.
What a disturbing trend! The whole purpose of separation of church and state was to prevent the government from sponsoring a specific religion. It meant that people like me, who are dedicated agnostics, will not have any religion imposed upon them. Those of us who believe that all religious dogma is mythological and symbolic - and really not to be taken literally - are increasingly marginalized. No wonder a whole band of militant atheists are writing books and sounding off on the subject!
I find it amazing that modern, thinking human beings can take seriously ancient texts that, even in light of multiple translations, are full of inconsistencies, violence, mysognyny, and contradictory personifications of god. As has been pointed out many times before, the Bible was written by people who thought the earth was flat, had never heard of viruses or black holes or the North Pole, and lived a very limited existence in which survival was tantamount.
I have no objection to anyone's private religious beliefs, no matter how farfetched they are to me. But I have serious objections to making faith a part of public service. Huckabee has said (paraphrased) that science changes from year to year, but god stays the same. For me, that's a perfect reason to prefer science. Of course it changes! It's not a religion - it's a discipline and a method of discovery. As the different branches of science uncover more secrets of the universe, what we know changes.
And of course, god changes too. It just takes longer. People used to believe as strongly in Athena, Thor, and a variety of sun gods as Christians do in the Hebrew god and Jesus. The notion of a king dying willingly for the good of humankind is not unique to christianity. It's just another form of the life-death-life mystery.
Simply the fact that Christians believe that those of us who don't buy into their mythology will suffer for eternity for their THOUGHTS should scare the daylights out of any reasonable person.
That any of this should inform our political landscape is frightening and ludicrous. Perhaps it's just that in times of peril, people find more of a need for religion. But it still encroaches on my rights, and it makes America look ridiculous to the rest of the "civilized" world. Anyone who wants to find out what it's like to live in a country where religion is entangled in government should take a close look at Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and other similar places. It's not pretty.
LeeAnnG_____AMEN
LeeAnnG "As has been pointed out many times before, the Bible was written by people who thought the earth was flat, had never heard of viruses or black holes or the North Pole,"
You forgot to mention they thought acts of magic were miracles.
and lived a very limited existence in which survival was tantamount.
For a lot of people the most important things haven't changed much.
By the way, historical evidence hints at Jesus being nothing more than a philosopher.
Everythihng LeeAnnG said! If they can convince us this is a holy war we might look the other way and let the Bilderbergs go unchecked and we'll all continue to participate in our own demise.
LeeAnnG January 4th, 2008 4:47 pm,
Great post, yes. I have lived in Saudi Arabia and while it is very interesting and quaint it's not a society where I would like to spend the rest of my live. I am sure the fundamentalist would like to see a religious police in the United States as there is in Saudi Arabia.
Religion belongs in the Church and home not in politics-it's disgusting to see all the politicians scrambling to be the "most religious".
Let's see how many megayachts, private jets, balls and trappings of the hoi polloi it will take to make Obama forget who put him there.
Excellent points on the Huckabee tax ideas RUTHK. Being a former preacher, he knows how to avoid taxes too. If Obama wins the Democratic primary, and right now he is the front runner, Huckabee will likely be our next president.
yee haw, mike huckabass rides again!
The Flying Spaghetti Monster has promised me personally tht Huckleberry Hound is not going to win.
The responses just show why these guys can use religion as a political tool... because the left is so utterly hateful and tone-deaf on this aspect of human life. Anyone who believes in invisible things is an idiot or a charlatan? Guess that leaves the overwhelming majority of the human race out of your vision of the future. Humans will "evolve" away from religion? It has been a few centuries now since the Treaty of Westphalia, people, and it ain't happening.
Do you think Native Americans are mentally ill because some believe that praying to killed animals makes them come back in the same form again? Kinda sounds like gratitude to me, something Americans could sure use some of when it comes to the ecosystem.
Do you think the Berrigan brothers were lunatics because they believed the Holy Spirit directed them to pour blood on nuclear weapons? I for one would not like to do without that kind of daring.
Was MLK, a Methodist preacher, a dangerous influence in society? You're darn right he was... a very disruptive force, inspired by the OT prophets and by Jesus' vision of justice as he saw it.
Piss all over everyone who doesn't bow down to the mighty god of science and "pure reason" whose omniscience has done so much for us these last two hundred years (global warming, eugenics, military hardware, factory farming, smog, massive uptick in cancer and other diseases to more than make up for vaccination's gains). Go ahead. Ultimately, you're pissing into a fan. The right doesn't give a shit what you think, and the religious leftists just walk away shaking their heads, and limiting themselves to local aid ministry.
By the way, how exactly do you people explain China, a repressive, polluting, sexist, homophobic major power, to yourselves when you're not busy raving about Richard Dawkins? It sure ain't the Bible or the Koran driving those knuckleheads. Confucius and Mao... both atheists. And so what? Power and greed are the problems, not cosmology, and until the left gets that, it is doomed to failure.
LEE ANN: Excellent posting. Hopefully those who reflexively defend "all the good Christians" will realize what the politics of religion is doing to this country and how dangerous a theocratic-
authoritarian version of Amerika will (is in the process of) be.
I don't know the details of the Huckabee tax plan, but executed properly, a consumption tax is best for the earth.
Think about it... all the wounds we are inflicting on this planet are caused by consumption.
But to properly execute a consumption tax, any investment that pays more than the rate of inflation should be taxed as the consumption that it is. Buying stocks in companies that rape and pillage the earth is consumption. Putting your money in a mattress or a passbook savings account at 2.5% is not consumption.
I'm going to vote Democrat. Notwithstanding the fact that I've constantly knocked the Democratic Party on this thread: that they're not much different from the Repugs, that they have their hands in the pockets of corporations and Israeli lobby groups, etc, etc.
But now, with that fundamentalist, nut case called Mike Huckabee running and probably winning the Repugs nomination, it is different. I'm voting for a Democrat not because I'm naïve or because I like this double-dealing bunch, BUT BECAUSE I WANT TO BEAT A FUNDAMENTALIST.
The present system gives us a choice between an asshole and half an asshole. In the present system, the third parties and their candidates have no chance in hell to be elected, unless the system is revolutionized and changed. Pragmatically, what am I supposed to do now? Get mad at the system and not vote? And allow an asshole fundamentalist to become my president?
I guess the system has got me beat again. I will vote Democrat not because I think they're good, but because I want to beat an Armageddon-seeking, rapture-loving asshole. Please think about it. Do you think I have a better alternative?
I merely wish to point out that both John Edwards and Hillary Clinton also spoke about their Christian faith at the Sojourners "Call to Renewal" conference this past June; each of the top three Democratic vote-getters in Iowa have publicly confessed an evangelical (note the small "e") Christian faith. Jim Wallis might now say that the Left finally "gets it."
And what do we make of the fact that my candidate, Dennis Kucinich, recommended Obama to his supporters? If Dennis doesn't see Obama's religious faith as an impediment to his upholding the Constitution, perhaps we might consider Domke and Coe's response to Obama's faith a bit reactionary. It's certainly unfair to single Obama out when "runner-up" Edwards has also been very public about his own Christian faith.
Actions speak louder than words..
"Don,t listen to what they say, Watch what they do" is so basic yet so often ignored.
What is it about separation of church (utter mythology) from state (harsh reality) that is so hard?
Typically it is the most ardent god botherers who have the most egregiously wicked and destructive policies, for both the planet and the people.. American ignorance (intellectual, social and political) has doomed the entire planet, slowly but surely.
Amazing.... And very depressing.
Not that it matters, but Jesus (the person) was probably born in the month of September or so, check out the web sites.
It is so interesting that religious or patriotic conservatives act in a manner that many would say are contrary to their basic believes. Many religious conservatives believe in the death penalty, clearly unchristian like. Like many patriots fly all their flags in a war in a manner that is disrespectful (flags need to be lit up if they are up all night).
Just another Athiest Unrepentant Nader Supporter Enrivonmentalist
dustinchicago January 4th, 2008 2:35 pm: "And a follow up related to this article: Is there a christian left?"
Unfortunately there are hundreds of millions of them left and no indication that their numbers are being reduced.
Jan Steinman: executed properly, a consumption tax is best for the earth.
But the rich like consumption tax as a means to redistribute wealth from poor to rich.
The progressive ideal is full costs in retail prices so that everyone is aware and responsible for the collective well-being. So the Iraq war cost is reflected in the petro-product retail price. Alternative products are relatively cheap, so the consumer votes "nay" to the petro wars through selecting the cheaper alternative. This tends to deter the petro wars and similar rackets. Full costs will be hugely popular with the people.
Related ideals include complete biological cycles with kitchen and restroom waste and industrial organic waste back to the soil, and complete industrial cycles with manufacturers required to recycle their warez. This approach deters waste and pollution.
The only barriers are political in this feudal society where the rich rule over the poor.
Salia: I will vote Democrat not because I think they're good, but because I want to beat an Armageddon-seeking, rapture-loving asshole. Please think about it. Do you think I have a better alternative?
Yes. Vote your principles. When enough people do the same, we'll have self-rule. This is supported by Kant's Categorical Imperiative: The individual should do what creates the desired result when everyone does the same.
This article confirms my belief that America is basically a fundamentalist nation. 30-40 millions are evangelicals, aka rank fundamentalists. The rest of the religious folks may not be too fundamentalist, but they're religious nonetheless, and they would normally vote for a guy who invokes God or Jesus, perhaps, out of fear if for nothing else. In a way, they try to say to God: Look, I may not be too religious, but I'm voting for one of your guys.
Those who have any objection to my calling America a fundamentalist country, could perhaps explain this one: There is one church in almost every city block in American cities and towns, more than in any other European nation. And, per area, there are more churches than there are mosques in Saudi Arabia.
The so-called "God strategy" works because the Left is so comprehensively religiously illiterate that they've left a vacuum to be filled by fundamentalists. I see nothing wrong at all with a candidate declaring their religious position. I don;t see how it violates the "Church/State" separation. As a religious person I agree religion as a vital part of life. Therefore, I want to know where candidates stand. What's wrong with that? The Left just don't get religion, do they? And as long as they don't, the fundamentalists and the religious right will prosper. Since when does Left = atheist? The thing that is so obviously missing in American politics is an informed religious Left. You can wish that religion will disappear off the face of the planet all you like, but it is not going to happen. So it is time the Left stopped alienating religious people and stopped slandering and denying this entire dimension of human life. Broaden your world-view a bit! Of course religion is part of politics - because it is part of life! Get used to it and stop whining about the fact that many people have a religious sensibility and take it seriously. The religious illiteracy on the Left is astounding and an insult to the American people. You can't quarantine religion from public life, and that was never the intention of separating church and state powers.
As a fairly new Unitarian Universalist, I am finally very comfortable with religious people and ask only that every American respect freedom of and from religion. Some religions are by their nature very inclusive, regressive, and aggressive, and as long as they cling to their underlying mythology and remain so dogmatic, reason will not prevail, for them.
The good news is that the ever expanding body scientific knowledge will alter the world view of all cultures, eventually. The new generations will eventually understand that the earth is round, rotates around the sun, and that there is no place in the universe that contains a physical heaven where the raptured remains of the true believer can return.
Science has the better "creation story" and eventually it will prevail over the Genesis account.
Barak Obama's United Church of Christ is from a long tradition of enlightened believers and should not be lumped in with Rev. Huckabee's brand of non-informed religion. Mike is entitled to reject evolution and George Bush can cling to ancient ideas about the sanctity of a fertilized ovum and veto science, but they will not stop the eventual extinction of flat earth views of the world. Darwin's ideas are only 150 years old and cultural changes caused by advancing technology take a few generations to die out.
Don't worry, indoor plumbing is here to stay. Mike Huckabee doesn't really talk to God. Goodness and light will eventually prevail; the mission of the enlightened is to keep the faith. Meanwhile, our job is to speak to the truth, stand actively against those who seek to burn people at the stake, prosecute the torturers, and continue to spread justice as far as we can.
Put not your faith in man. I'm really sick of the flaunting of religious candidates. Didn't we all indure enough with Bush and his God Bless America routine.
Thanks, Hermes7, for a very thoughtful post above. I think you've got it that us lefties do not understand and appreciate religion enough. And we do not seem to understand that we are not to be bashing religion but rather embracing it eloquently so that it cannot be so easily co-opted and used to the wrong ends by the so-called "right". With Christianity, for instance, if the actual words of Jesus are repeated enough, the message cannot be hidden that we are to be kind to one another. It's brave and it's liberal. It does not seek to "conserve" some old order of repression that is the very essence of the word "conservative."
When religious people do something good - I think that's good. When they do something awful in the name of religion,
it can be truly awful. (I immediately think back to the hate campaign waged against Michael Shiavo, or the people who want to have a great war of religion against all Islam.)
We DO need a public discussion of religion - and what it means in real terms in the actions we take.
But simply saying things like "I believe" or "I don't believe" or "God thinks this or that" (as if we know!)
is vacuous and ultimately harmful.
The Huckster is willing to say anything to win. He can lie with a straight face and make you believe it. The Huckster is the most dangerous candidate from the right since Reagan. Watch carefully, and you will see Huckabee even deny Christ if it suits his purposes. His denial of the cross in his Christmas ad is an example. There is no way in hell he didn't know that cross was there and he must have planned it and agreed to it. Yet he denies it. Denies the cross. Denies Jesus. He will say and do anything. Watch out.
If Mr. Huckabee indeed becomes the candidate, he will seek to shape his populism around the so-called FairTax idea, the national 23% sales tax to replace personal and corporate income txes, FICA, Medicare, and estate taxes, and "end the IRS" as we know it. These are dangerous ideas for three reasons:
1) We lose what little control we now have over corporations with a tax code or our liberal "threat" to change the corporate tax laws to be more restrictive.
2) The real accounting of Social Security and Medicare gets lost and those are then converted to means-tested welfare only with no independent taxes funding them.
3) Churches and other non-profits become political mouthpieces because they no longer have a tax-exempt status to "lose." This is the biggest reason that
some evangelicals are jumping on this bandwagon.
So is Mr. Huckabee less than truthful? Watch what you hear him say and not say about the "FairTax."
I sure do miss that Kurt Vonnegut. I suppose I ought to root through the books boxed in the basement to find the exact discussion, but I'll make do with an imperfectly-remembered gist.
In a commentary about his books being banned by schools, etc. (IIRC), Vonnegut likened the difference between America and the European monarchies that preceded its founding to a deck of cards (which itself evolved as a sort of microcosm of social categories or roles). Monarchies contained face cards-- kings and queens.
The face cards not only represent secular power, of course; monarchies derive their authority from the concept that the monarch is either created or chosen by the Creator of the Universe to rule. So the protections of law that obtained generally could be trumped, or overridden, by the dicta of a godly monarch and his ministers.
Vonnegut held that the Founding Fathers, regardless of the complexities and paradoxes arising from a group of elite aristocrats designing a new form of democratic government, recognized that the "face cards" were the root of injustice and inimical to the enlightened rule of law. The Constitution, in effect, removed the face cards from the deck. In the USA, freedom of expression and other civil rights would be adjudicated without face cards, meaning either direct or subliminated "divine right", automatically taking the trick. Furthermore, churches-- religious institutions-- were not to be accorded any special privilege or place in government. Churches weren't banned or persecuted, just deprived of special status including seats in government. No religious tests for office, etc.
They drew what they considered a bright line separating their new government of men and laws from theocracy, i.e. the theocratic principles that underpin traditional monarchies.
Again, IIRC, Vonnegut explained that he wasn't crushed by being censored, because organizations like the ACLU exist to patiently remind bigoted, hysterical censors that righteous indignation founded in religious belief doesn't cut it anymore. And in fact, at least in those days, courts routinely rejected clumsy censorship promoted under the rubric of enforcing community standards of decency. Unjustified censorship based on religious opinion is a form of the "tyranny of the majority" which the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written to oppose, or at least minimize.
I offer this long-winded tangent not only because I share Vonnegut's analysis, but because IMO, like the Ring of Power in "Lord of the Rings", the face cards were never quite destroyed or expunged. This is to be expected in a society founded on freedom of religion; obviously the Founders didn't intend to abolish or exterminate religious belief-- just neuter it politically.
One possible reason that the "left" (whatever that means these days), or "progressives", lash out at this latest resurgence of religion is because it represents an attempt to re-introduce face cards into the political deck, albeit indirectly. Arguing that religious belief is inherently valid and wholesome, and a ligitimate topic of political discourse, necessarily re-introduces theology into the mix. Thus, those ludicrous questions during the Dog and Pony Show pseudo-debates, and the spectacle of candidates preaching garbled and labored sermons on religious doctrine.
All of the exasperated, supercilious scolding about how the left/progressives shoot themselves in the ass by criticizing or disparaging religious belief ignores the deep-seated and thoughtful rejection of letting the godly camel's nose back under the tent. We've already seen what seven years under a delusional Manichean theocrat is like, and the Dominionists proceed apace.
As far as the tired canard about left/progressives "hating" religion and religious persons goes-- it's about equal parts misunderstanding and condescension. As such, it's at worst an equal and opposite reaction to the believer's "hatred" and contempt for aggressive non-believers. (Yeah, I know; you may hate the sin but never the sinner. Back at ya!) Of course it's the case that there is unfortunate, ignorant, and wrong-headed vitriol expressed by passionate skeptics. It's indefensible, as is its converse. This patronizing idea that the problem is that the left somehow doesn't "get" religion is another lame generalization concocted from elements of truth-- and I'm not sure that affronted believers accept that anyone who doesn't "get religion" can still "get" religion.
Arguing that religious belief is a vital, necessary, and laudable aspect of Amerikan life, and advocating the placing of religious matters back on the table because it's simply more useful, even vital, information about candidates, is a mistake. The religious reactionaries are perpetually pissed off that non-believers affect superiority, as reflected in the drumbeat from fundies claiming religious persecution from mean-spirited secular humanists. But adding theology to the political discussion, in full-strength or diluted form, can only vitiate true egalitarianism by inspiring another two-tier adversarial relationship between the godly and the godless.
We gotta be able to talk about it - if the candidates are making stupid meaningless superstituous comments based on beliefs that they inherited or adopted out of whatever motivation, someone ought to call them on it.
If they use religious verbiage to argue strongly for real things that make life better for all people, I'm not agin it.
When reason and a realistic appraisal of our present economic disasater fails, these hucksters don the cross and the flag. And how does one dare criticize these "Christians". These polititians know the psychology of religion and use it and they are all hypocrites. Check out that millionaire and fool Peterson and others. Don't you have a friend or relative or neighbor who cloaks themselves with the cross and how you would be cast out if you dare point out their delusion. These are all cowards who hide behind their prayers and expect everyone to believe they are the chosen from on high and therefore should be elected and expect you to give them all of your money. When America continues to lose jobs, expect more cries from these fools who think their prayers will save you from an oncoming depression. Even Hillary has been surrounding herself with some type of Christian click. America is in the midst of a nervous breakdown and these clowns are milking the religious cow dry..
LeeAnn, great post!
I'd like to add, though, that the real problem with religion isn't religion itself, but its manipulation by men who want to use it as a control mechanism. This, of course, is the exact problem the founders of the United States wanted to avoid when they penned the Declaration of Independence. Maybe this is obvious, but it's still something that the average American voter can't seem to get past.
Does it really matter if the voter manipulation is done by the religious right or the religious left? It's still voter manipulation via religion, which is a no-no according to our Constitution.
All that being said, I suspect that humans are somehow hard-wired to believe in a god, simply because we are really the only species of animal that knows without a doubt that we are going to die, and the belief in a god and an afterlife helps us to deal with this. So, for believers, their belief in a god helps them to get through difficult times. And that's fine, as long as those of us who aren't believers aren't forced to structure our lives around someone else's belief, especially when that belief centers around the inevitability of a huge war in the Middle East.
DAMN LIBERAL & LITTLE BROTHER: Enlightening posts.
HERMES: Most religions act in authoritarian capacities. They establish strict rules & protocols and demand (mindless) conformity from their flock/members. SPIRITUALITY, on the other hand, IS embraced by many in the left, because it is not based on a centralized authority or dictum; rather, it opens the mind, soul and heart to pursue matters that help us to grow as whole persons. I am VERY suspect of religion given its historical record. If I was not burned as a witch in a former lifetime, the possibility now appears to etch closer on the Christian-theocracy's horizon. The very assembling of persons to follow so-called "Divinely" given rules challenges the premise of democracy and the ideal of a diversified society.
I have NO problem with anyone else's beliefs, and I do acknowledge Jesus as a HIGH teacher. However, once those beliefs cross over into policy, and policy begins to define what people can and can't do with their minds, bodies, livelihoods, property, and so forth... that ain't no democracy and it's not what his country was founded for or about. So let's not applaud the right for embracing religion. It's just another autocratic puppet show where the masses follow along and act against their own best interests, and if given the space and time, mine and possibly yours.
"Give unto Caesar what is Caesars." Jesus
Jesus Christ, the founder of Christianity, wanted nothing to do with politics. I suggest today's Christians re-visit the tenets of this religion.
Rtdrury,
True. But because I believe that there are not enough of us, even if we all voted on principle, then nothing would be achieved, and our votes would be wasted. When Nader ran a few years ago when we voted on our principle, Bush won.
On principle, I would vote for Kucinich, but look at his chances, and how MSM ignores him. He most probably would not even be nominated. That puts me on square one again.
Fargokantrowitz "Jesus Christ, the founder of Christianity"
Damn I thought Peter and Paul founded Christianity in the name of Jesus." Based on information I've read through the years Jesus was neither a Christian nor a Muslim. He was a great philosopher.
Saila "When Nader ran a few years ago when we voted on our principle, Bush won."
No the corporations won, Americans due to their ignorance got Bush.
"On principle, I would vote for Kucinich"
Then do it.
but look at his chances
Slim and none if people buy into the MSM propaganda.
how MSM ignores him.
That's because they know he would help the average American citizen over the average American corporation.
That puts me on square one again.
Win or lose follow your gut (principles.) Americans need to wake up and quit listening to the MSM, they're the ones telling us who can and who can't win. They're the ones who want us to follow their lead so that then can keep us bent over.