TruthBook Religious News Blog

McCain’s ‘Christian nation’ comments spark new concern about growing role of religion in the ’08 campaign.

James D. Besser - Washington Correspondent

The prospects for deep religious polarization in the 2008 election took a quantum leap this week in the wake of comments by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) that the Constitution created America as a “Christian” nation — and the rousing defense of his comments by some Christian groups.

McCain’s comments, which produced sharp rebukes from several major Jewish groups, echoed views expressed in a recent survey conducted by the First Amendment Center, in which 65 percent of respondents said the nation’s founders intended the U.S. to be a Christian nation — and 55 percent said that view was enshrined in the Constitution.

The upping of the religious ante in the 2008 campaign also includes a growing rebellion by prominent Christian conservatives against GOP frontrunner Rudolph Giuliani and their threat to back a third-party candidate who meets their religious standards.

And it comes amid continuing questions about whether former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney’s Mormon faith will be a deal-breaker with many Evangelical voters, and as questions persist about the “Christian nation” views of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, the emerging dark horse in the Republican ranks. It also comes as anxious Democrats ramp up their own religious campaigns, with more detailed discussions of the role of faith in their own lives.

All of that, some Jewish leaders worry, is pushing the nation toward the de facto establishment of a religious test for high office.

Earlier in the interview, he stressed his view that the “No. 1 issue people should make [in selecting a president] is, ‘will this person carry on in the Judeo-Christian principled tradition that has made this nation the greatest experiment in the history of mankind?’”

But his unambiguous agreement that the Constitution established a Christian nation stirred the most debate.

But some Christian groups praised McCain’s original comments – and said they could help in a presidential campaign that has been met with skepticism by evangelical voters and leaders.

But a leading Jewish Republican and McCain supporter said it was all a matter of interpretation.

The Republican Jewish Coalition offered only the faintest criticism of McCain’s comments.

Political analysts were divided on whether McCain’s comments were a verbal misfire or part of a conscious political strategy meant to revive his once-front running campaign. But many speculated that the upcoming South Carolina primary has a lot to do with it.

The 2008 presidential race took on even more of a religious charge this week with reports that leading Christian conservatives, including Focus on the Family leader James Dobson, met over the weekend and discussed the possibility of supporting a third-party candidacy because of their dissatisfaction with the current GOP field, and Giuliani in particular.

But Giuliani, according to recent polls, is running strongly among Evangelical voters despite his three marriages and his relatively moderate positions on gay rights and abortion — a trend political experts attribute to his strong image on terrorism and security.

The likeliest recipients of support from the angry Evangelical leaders, he said, is Huckabee, a Southern Baptist preacher, or Romney, who continues to work to combat the view among many Evangelicals that his Mormonism is a dangerous sect.

Labels: Christian, First Amendment Center, James D. Besser, Jewish, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Mormonism, religion, Rudolph Giuliani

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Saturday, September 01, 2007

Religion Shaping Race and Defining Candidates

August 27, 2007
New York Daily News

NEW YORK - A crowd cheered fervently in Iowa this month as Republican presidential candidate Sam Brownback quoted Mother Teresa telling him, "All for Jesus. All for Jesus. All for Jesus. All for Jesus."

Barack Obama's recently launched Spanish-language radio ad in Nevada tells the targeted Hispanic audience, "Barack Obama is a Christian man."

Hillary Clinton doesn't hesitate to let voters know the importance of prayer in her life, while Rudy Giuliani awkwardly dodges questions about his standing as a Catholic.

And then there's Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor and member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Everywhere he goes, Romney faces questions about his Mormon faith.

Religion has played a role in presidential elections throughout history. But not since 1960, when John F. Kennedy became the first Catholic elected to the White House, has it been as omnipresent on the campaign trail.

Historians and political experts say it's unlikely religion - or social issues embraced by Christian conservatives - will dominate the 2008 path to the Oval Office because the war in Iraq and homeland security seem uppermost in voters' minds.

"Nothing in the conversation, thus far, makes it sound like gay marriage and abortion are going to outshine the war," said Scott Keeter, director of survey research for the Pew Research Center.

But there's no escaping religion on the campaign trail. While other issues loom large, voters want to know where candidates stand when it comes to faith.

Bill Leonard, dean of the Wake Forest University Divinity School and professor of church history, said the campaign now under way showcases the nation's "continuing religious saga."

A century ago, "nobody would have believed" a Catholic could be elected president, Leonard said. The 2008 race is "just another illustration of the power of pluralism in American religious experience, that indeed a Catholic was elected and that indeed a Mormon is running as such a potentially viable candidate."

Earlier this year, a Pew Research Center survey revealed religion continues to play a role in shaping voters' decisions. Nearly four in 10 Americans said they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who is Christian, and 63 percent would not support a candidate who doesn't believe in God.

The poll showed 30 percent of Americans admitting they were less likely to vote for a Mormon. That hurdle rises to 46 percent for a Muslim.

For Clinton and Giuliani, the two New Yorkers seeking the Oval Office, the role of religion in their campaigns is a study in contrasts.

Clinton, a Methodist, talks freely about the power of prayer in her life. She's spoken publicly about how religion helped her overcome tough struggles, most notably her decision to forgive infidelity in her marriage.

"Obviously, my faith was crucial to the challenges I faced," Clinton recently told The New York Times, when asked whether her religion influenced her to stay married to Bill Clinton after the Monica Lewinsky affair.

But Giuliani, who had an affair with his current wife while married to his second wife, took a virtual vow of silence when asked in Iowa this month about his religious beliefs.

"My religious affiliation ... and the degree to which I am a good or not-so-good Catholic, I prefer to leave to the priests," said Giuliani, who once considered becoming a priest.

Former Sen. John Edwards, a Methodist, sparked controversy when he cited his faith as influencing his opposition to same-sex marriage. Later, at a forum on gay issues, he recanted. "I shouldn't have said that," said Edwards, drawing applause.

Many candidates, especially Democrats, feel compelled to discuss religion openly because President Bush's profession of faith played a prominent role in his successful 2000 and 2004 White House bids, giving the religious right plenty of political clout.

But when it comes time to pulling the lever, most experts said they doubt religion will be the deciding factor.

"There are some regions of the country where religious ideology and a certain kind of (faith) shape voters' decisions very much," Leonard said. But bottom line, Americans "want to know who is going to get us home from Iraq, and are any more bridges going to fall down, and what do we still do about New Orleans."

Labels: Barack Obama, faith, Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, Pew Research Center survey, politics, religion, Sam Brownback, voters

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Thursday, May 10, 2007

Parsing the Polls: Religion in Public Life

Sifting through the transcript of last week's Republican presidential debate, we came across this exchange between former Govs. Mitt Romney (Mass.) and Mike Huckabee (Ark.) about the role of religion in the public square.

Romney: "We have a separation of church and state. It's served us well in this country. This is a nation, after all, that wants a leader that's a person of faith, but we don't choose our leader based on which church they go to."

Huckabee: "I said, in general -- and I would say this tonight to any of us -- when a person says, 'My faith doesn't affect my decision- making,' I would say that the person is saying their faith is not significant to impact their decision process. I tell people up front, 'My faith does affect my decision process.' It explains me. No apology for that."

The candidates' comments got us thinking about how much or little the American public wants to hear about religion from their elected officials. Conventional wisdom says that most voters want a person of faith in the White House but are simultaneously wary of religion encroaching upon affairs of state.

Is that conventional wisdom right? Let's Parse the Polls!

First of all, it's important to set the backdrop on which the debate over how much religion we want in our public policy takes place. According to exit polling in 2004 and 2005, roughly nine in ten voters say they have a religious beleif system of some sort ("Protestant/other Christian" is by far the largest group), while 85 percent said they went to church at least a few times a year.

Looking at those numbers it's clear that the vast majority of Americans not only see themselves as religious but also seek out the communal setting of a church, synagogue, mosque, etc. at least a few times a year.

But, when it comes to whether religion should play a larger role in public life, people are far more divided.

In a January 2007 survey, Gallup asked people whether they would like to see "organized religion have more influence in this nation, less influence, or keep its influence as it is now." Twenty seven percent said they would like to see religion play a larger role, 32 percent said they'd prefer a smaller role and 39 percent said they would like to keep the status quo.

Those numbers are remarkably consistent with an April 2005 Washington Post/ABC News poll. In that survey, 27 percent said they preferred religion have "greater" influence in public life, 35 percent said "less" while 36 percent chose "the same."

Compare those numbers to a Gallup poll conducted in January 2001 -- at the start of the Bush Administration. In that poll 22 percent said they wanted less religion in the public sphere. In 2007, 32 percent said the same thing, a jump of ten percent in six years. Some have speculated that President Bush's willingness to talk publicly about his faith -- combined with his growing disapproval ratings -- may be responsible for the rise in the percentage of people who are put off by politics influenced by religion.

A May 2004 CBS News poll asked what worried people more: "Public officials who don't pay enough attention to religion and religious leaders or public officials who are too close to religion and religious leaders?"

Overalll 35 percent said they worried more about politicians not paying enough attention to religion, while 51 percent said they fretted about politicians paying too much attention. Isolate Republicans, however, and the numbers were nearly reversed with 53 percent saying politicians don't pay enough attention and 30 percent choosing the "too close" option. Compare that with just 25 percent of Democrats and 29 percent of Independents who wanted public officials to pay more attention to religion and religious leaders. The partisan gap is obvious.

While the American public is closely divided over the role religion should play in public life, there is a less of a chasm when it comes to several religion-related policy fights like prayer in school or displaying the Ten Commandments on government property.

An August 2005 Gallup poll showed 76 percent of the sample favored a constitutional amendment to allow voluntary prayer in schools, while just 23 percent opposed it. In that same survey 60 percent said that religion had "too little of a presence" in public schools while 27 percent said the amount of religion in schools was about right and 11 percent said it was too much.

The American public also tends to favor the display of the Ten Commandments on government property with 75 percent of a CNN/USA Today/Gallup sample in June 2005 saying the Supreme Court should allow that sort of display and just 23 percent saying it should not.

What to make of this raft of numbers? That we are a country divided -- sometimes even within ourselves -- when it comes to the proper role of religion in public life. On the one hand most Americans see themselves as a religious people; on the other, they remain generally wary about religion seeping into politics.

Because no obvious consensus exists, it's likely that the politicians running for president in 2008 will seek to find a balance between making clear to voters that they believe in a higher power while also making clear they won't be taking their marching orders from the church they attend.

It's a complicated position but reflects the divided mind most Americans have when it comes to religion's role in everday life.

The Fix owes a big debt of gratitude to The Washington Post polling team of Jon Cohen and Jennifer Agiesta. As they so often do, the two provided essential help in making sense of all these numbers.

Labels: Americans, faith, Gallup, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, politics, religion, separation of church and state, Ten Commandments, voters