BELIEF WATCH
Lisa Miller
The Authenticity Test
Just 40% of Americans go to church weekly, but 70% want a president with strong religious faith.
Over the past three years, Sen. John Kerry has had a lot of time to think about his God, and at a meeting with journalists in Washington earlier this month he shared those thoughts. He grew up in a Roman Catholic home before Vatican II; though devout, he prayed in private behind his closed bedroom door, as was the custom at the time. In Vietnam, he prayed to God to save his life, and when he came home some of his foxhole promises no longer felt so pressing. Kerry, a divorced, pro-choice Democrat with a foreign-seeming wife, ran for president in 2004 against an incumbent whose personal Christian-conversion story was intricately woven into his public persona. Yet, out of principle or stubbornness, Kerry chose not to expound upon his own faith until late in the race—too late, he says in retrospect. In the spring and summer of '04, a handful of U.S. Catholic bishops announced they'd refuse Kerry holy communion on the grounds that his stance on abortion went against church teachings, and Kerry suddenly found himself having to answer fundamental questions about who he was and what he stood for. "I should have started earlier to introduce who I really was—in '02 or '03," he told NEWSWEEK last week. He gave a big Catholic-values speech in Florida in October, but by then it was too late. "October is October. You've got to do this earlier," he says. "People have to have a sense of this as a continuum. Explaining how Catholicism has shaped my view of public life—it would have made a difference."
These revelations should be instructive to the field of '08 hopefuls, who as a group represent a dramatic range of religious views and observance, from Catholic to Mormon to— potentially—Jew, and from extremely orthodox (Mitt Romney) to much less so (Rudy Giuliani). Despite their religiosity or lack thereof, all will have to tell a convincing faith-and-values story to the American public—for Americans, though cynical about politicians, still love public piety. Although just 40 percent of Americans go to church every week, 70 percent say they want a president with strong religious faith, and 94 percent believe in God, according to an August survey by Pew. Kerry believes that a candidate doesn't have to be a regular churchgoer to be elected, but cannot under any circumstances be an atheist or agnostic. John Green, a fellow at Pew, agrees. "Supporting a candidate who's religious is shorthand for supporting a candidate with values and principles," says Green.
If Kerry is right, then a successful candidate must neither remain mute on the faith question nor pander, but tell an authentic personal-values narrative early and often. The thrice-married Giuliani, who told values voters last month that "I don't easily publicly proclaim myself as the best example of faith," seems to have passed the authenticity test: last week Pat Robertson endorsed him despite their many ideological disagreements.
Americans have elected and loved secular presidents before, from Thomas Jefferson, who decided to edit the miracles out of the Gospel stories, to Ronald Reagan, who, though a movie actor and not a regular churchgoer, was able to convince people of his sincerity and commitment to high principles. In the absence of an orthodox religion story, Princeton sociologist Robert Wuthnow suggests that candidates tell a story about "a sense of rebirth or change or insights or awakenings." As the religious right scrambles to cohere, perhaps this is a good moment to remember that authentic belief in God is a personal matter, and if half of Americans can't find God in church, maybe the president doesn't have to, either.
© 2007
Loading Menu
Member Comments
Posted By: Johndavidprince @ 03/17/2008 10:00:52 AM
Comment: There are people who abuse the term or concept ???freedom of religion??? without really understanding the true depth of the words involved. Lets start with the word religion. What is a religion: the belief, habit, ritual, thought, or faith? I believe all synonyms would apply to the definition of the word. Religion could be how I tie my shoes, my political ideas, my thoughts on science, or my feelings toward a particular brand name (in some cases consumerism qualify as religion). Many only argue that religion is strictly a word with a monopoly pertaining only to God or the Church. If you can make the argument that even atheistic approaches that of a religion; then one has to accept that my views on foreign policy or free trade qualify as a religion. Religion is a single or series of repeated behaviors and or thought. That is why we have a freedom of speech, privacy, and the freedom of religion within the constitution. All the concepts of the document from our revolutionary era uphold one another. They cannot exist without the other. These rights are all a form or relative or thought. They are all an attempt to protect the freedom of thought. Such wording of the constitution has to be interpreted with the full meaning of the word. For words are ideas, concepts, or theologies in and of themselves. Now think about the word freedom. I hope we all understand what freedom is. As well we should also think about what we do not have the freedom to do. There are many thoughts that are originated within Biblical religion that people do not have the right to do; consider many verses of Deuteronomy, Leviticus, Revelation, and other books of the Bible. (I would hope we all know which verses they are) We do not have a total freedom for Biblical Church based religion. If we did, we would be living in a world of chaos, torture, and general madness including witch burnings, stoning, forced conversion, or be-headings. There are concepts in the secular world that are beliefs which are illegal they are the current laws on the books. Those laws are a record of what belief or thoughts you shall not hold. So beware when Biblical religion claims they have the power, the right, or the protection to conduct their actions when in conjunction with the government. There are some who would claim that Biblical religion has the freedom of religion as to fuse with the government or take on the responsibilities/functions of government with tax dollar support. My faith-based program is the issue and unconstitutionality of faith based programs and any vicarious use of those programs for the potential of converts via the heading of people to faith based services. The Church should function independently from government at all times. This serves the society in protection of the true freedom of religion, our freedom of thought.
Posted By: Johndavidprince @ 03/17/2008 9:59:41 AM
Comment: We forget about some of the conservative AM Radio pundits who like to use inflammatory speech to gain ratings as well religious leaders of many faiths. People who are out of touch with the Black community are distorting the issue of Rev. Wright???s statements. In New York City there were police involved with sales of crack and cocaine. It is a fact. There were 100???s of officers convicted for corruption in a well-documented case. Where is Wright distorted in his thinking? Now on the HIV issue he is postulating a theory, true. We must remember that there are many Christian leaders who espouse shaky theory. Wright???s 911 comments may be inflammatory to pro-war/America can do no wrong foreign policy wing nuts. Yes. But on closer analysis the foreign policy actions of the past have been and will be debated on their ethical correctness or their potential for what the CIA calls ???Blowback.??? This issue is being blown out of proportion. Those who harbor racist thoughts would view some of Wright???s statements as controversial but only out of historical ignorance or denial of the years of proven oppression. Should Wright or any African American feel happy about the years of discrimination, slavery, lynching, Jim Crow Laws, and other aspects of US history? So now the right wing has issued a de-facto religious test for office. Well we should analyze all republican candidates religious associations and every word their religious leaders have spoken. This is sick and shameful how some in the press or media have reacted to the Wright issue. The man has the freedom of speech that we should respect even if he offends some of the racists within the right wing. Now on Talk Radio there are Christians claiming that Rev. Wright???s Church is no Christian. What? Is this the new Protestant v. Catholic, Christian on Christian infighting? Are we to believe that opinions from predominately white Churches have a cultural clue as to how African Americans feel or should feel. How dare those who claim to ???judge not lest ye be??? start violating their own tenants? Since when is it a crime for a Black pastor when talking about the injustices bestowed their people to use the N-word? The proper use of that word in terms of history is not a symbol of reverse racism. Yet now we have people judging if his comments are Godly enough. This is a joke of a debate when you boil the water down and look at the facts left in the pan. We have sunk to a new low as a Nation. This ugly debate is the result of years of fusing politics and religion by the right wing thus making all pulpits a voice for politics rather than pulpits of faith.
Posted By: GRACE555 @ 02/15/2008 12:33:13 PM
Comment: GOING TO CHURCH DOES NOT GIVE YOU A STRONG RELIGIOUS FAITH. YOUR RELATONSHIP WITH GOD DOES. SOME PEOPLE WHO DO NOT ATTEND CHURCH REGULARLY PRACTICE THEIR FAITH ON AN EVERYDAY BASIS, AND ON THE OTHER HAND SOME PEOPLE GO TO CHURCH REGULARLY AND WALK OUT OF THE CHURCH AND GO ABOUT THEIR BUSINESS AS IF THEY DO NOT BELEIVE IN GOD...IT IS NOT ABOUT GOING TO CHURCH.......I THINK PEOPLE THINK THEY CAN TRUST A PRESIDENT WHO BELEIVES IN GOD, BUT SAYING IT AND LIVING IT ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. THEY FEEL A MORAL SENSE OF TRUST. i KNOW THAT IS HOW I FELT FOR A LONG TIME....UNTIL I REALIZED WHAT A TRUE CHRISTAIN WAS.