TruthBook Religious News Blog

How religion got deep into politics

By John Shulson | The Virginia Gazette
October 1, 2008

WILLIAMSBURG -- Bruton Parish Episcopal Church recently launched its fall series, “The Influence of Religion on Presidential Politics,” with an overflow crowd in Lewis Hall to hear Dan Roberts speak on “America’s Vacant Public Square.”

Roberts, a true Renaissance man, is a professor of history at the University of Richmond. He’s also a Presbyterian minister, a Bronze Star Medal recipient and a jazz pianist. Roberts created the syndicated Public Radio series, “A Moment in Time,” which plays to 2 million listeners eager to resist “this growing epidemic of ignorance about the [historical] past.”

The radio program was inspired by a survey in which 78% of college seniors from 55 top universities could identify Bevis and Butthead, while only 33% could connect the dots between George Washington and Yorktown. Roberts set about to make history relevant in short radio bursts.

His thoughts concerning religion and politics date back to the founding days of our country and its disenchantment with the Church of England.

Assuredly, “Church and state were tightly locked,” he told his Bruton Parish audience, “but distrust also existed.” He recalled that the Founding Fathers rejected sectarian religion in government. “The state would not be the people’s moral salvation, and it wouldn’t seek to manage people’s lives.”

Instead, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution addressed religion in non-specific terms. “We could have created a Christian republic, but we looked west toward something new,” he said.

However, the seeds of a growing religious movement within the state were sown when the Constitution was ratified. “Evangelicals said they wanted a Bill of Rights and freedom of religion and bartered with James Madison to achieve this.”

As America began to grow into a diverse republic, the Great Awakening saw a growth in evangelical churches. Later, the immigration of many Catholics and Jews tended to undermine Protestant dominations, he said.

Roberts said presidential candidates realize “it’s dangerous to play the religious card. Candidates try to avoid making it an issue... in order not to offendcategories of people.”

Since candidates need to be careful not to make overt appeals, Roberts said, politicians resort to code language such as “family values.” He explained that “family values” can mean one thing to a couple with a child in Virginia and quite another to two men who adopt a child in Chicago.

Of the need to tread lightly in the use of religion, Roberts illustrated three candidates who traversed political minefields: Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Richard Nixon.

Even though Jefferson was accused of being a deist and the father of a child born to a slave, he refused to respond to allegations and chose to ignore the subject of religion. He decided instead to hit hard on John Adams’ position on war.

Lincoln didn’t conform to orthodox religious folks. He reacted against sectarian rivalry and even used reason and ridicule to counter aspects of the Bible. However, Lincoln eventually grew into a form of Unitarian religion, using it not in debates but in other ways. He used biblical language in fighting slavery. He could speak the religious language of the voters he needed. The result was that his humor and his personal demeanor propelled him to office even though the people didn’t share his religious beliefs.

It was Nixon, Roberts said, who started “pious presidential pandering” to play to the religious. He explained that Nixon, a Quaker, occasionally went to church, preferring to hold Sunday services in the White House. However, Nixon tended to stay away from the subject of religion.

Instead, he used overt religiosity as a code.

“Nixon’s strategy was to win the Southern white vote. Many in the South were racists and religious. He realized a direct racist appeal couldn’t be done. But he did appeal to them through the use of code phrases familiar to Southern whites such as ‘states’ rights’ and ‘law and order.’”

In drawing his extensively prepared comments to a close, Roberts returned to his theme of a town square.

“The vacant public square is under attack. Many voters calculate to use religion to determine who they’ll vote for. It’s now factored into the strategy. The fate of the public square hangs in the balance.”

Labels: Abraham Lincoln, America, church-state, Dan Roberts, history, John Shulson, politics, religion, Richard Nixon, Thomas Jefferson