I am constantly amazed at the role religion plays in American politics. In a country where there is a clear separation of powers between the church and state (and hats off to the country for establishing this as a fundamental so early in its history), there is evidently not a separation between the church and politics. I come from a country where the Church of England is technically part of the institutions of the nation (not something of which I approve, by the way) but where religion plays a much more incidental role in party politics. And the extent to which religion can pervade political debate in the world’s largest super-power makes me a little uncomfortable, to say the least.
Much of the debate surrounding the fight for the Republican nomination in recent weeks has been about religion. Rick Santorum has trumpeted his conservative Catholicism as he has opposed gay rights, contraception and a woman’s right to chose. The white, middle-aged men who have come out to applaud him are not a cross-section of the American population but his core base of support. But that doesn’t make the comments of the likes of Rush Limbaugh (who called women who can’t afford contraception “sluts”) any less offensive. Nor does it make Santorum’s position as the latest surge candidate in the GOP primary any less troublesome to those of us committed to equality and fairness (including some of my most religious and Catholic friends).
But surely it doesn’t do Santroum’s reputation as a legitimate candidate much good if he continues to suggest that the separation of church and state makes him “want to throw up” and that it may not be one of the fundamental tenants of American’s representative democracy. Despite all his populist rhetoric that appeals to the conservative base of his party, this is one area in which he appears too out of tune with a clear majority of the nation: two thirds of Americans champion a clear church-state divide. If nothing else, someone should inform him that if there had been no separation between the two, his church would certainly not have been able to become an institutional part of his state.
This is not to say, however, that Santorum is alone in his religious zeal on the campaign train. Newt Gingrich, who has changed religion almost as often as he has changed wives but is now a dedicated Catholic, has focused more on President Obama’s supposed religion than his own. And while the right wing of the GOP may be pre-occupied with conspiracy theories about President Obama’s birth certificate and presumed adherence to Islam, this is not the concern of the majority of voters, most of whom, I imagine, are more concerned with their own and the nation’s economic prospects. But that didn’t stop Gingrich, at a campaign rally ahead of Super Tuesday, accusing Obama of being “quick to apologize for Islam” but unwilling to stand up for the Catholic Church.
But when Gingrich and his opponents talk about religion, who are they opposing: Obama or Romney? Romney has spoken very little about his faith in this campaign. After spending 2008 justifying the idea that a Mormon could lead the nation, a fact generally accepted by many voters today, he has obviously realized that any discussion of his particular religion will be of little help to his electoral chances. The sad fact is, however, some people still want to characterize the likely November match-up as being between a Muslim and a Mormon, only one of which we know is true. For a Presidential candidate, the only thing that could potentially be more dangerous in the minds of the American electorate would surely be having no religion at all.
In many countries, using religion to win votes is seen as a cynical ploy. In America, it is an electoral necessity. Any candidate who failed to declare, and indeed publicly share, his or her faith would get nowhere near the Presidency. In a 2011 survey, 67% of American voters said that they would be uncomfortable with an atheist in the White House, more than the number who objected to the idea of a Muslim or a Mormon Commander-in-Chief. And though the number of atheists in the US has risen in recent years, so has the volume with which politicians speak about their religious beliefs. In many ways, therefore, atheism has become a deep-seated taboo in American public life and the once sacred separation between church and state has become overshadowed by a division between believers and those affiliated to no faith.
Established in 1995, the Georgetown Public Policy Review is the McCourt School of Public Policy’s nonpartisan, graduate student-run publication. Our mission is to provide an outlet for innovative new thinkers and established policymakers to offer perspectives on the politics and policies that shape our nation and our world.
4 thoughts on “My Church, Our State: Religion on the Campaign Trail”
Comments are closed.