The Application of Faith In Politics: What Role Should Religion Play?

Jordan Richardson

May 24, 2008
In the realm of political strategy, what you say, and when you say it, can often determine the likelihood of a victorious campaign. What might have been acceptable speech 50 years ago is not necessarily the most prudent form of communication today. The progression of modern politics dictates that one must appeal to base voters and try to expand the support to the middle ground, the “undecided.”

In this process, the candidate must evaluate the form of communication that will be used to sway these voters. Therefore, any discussion of faith, for better or worse, is often assessed through the criterion of its positive or negative effect on key voters.

What we have seen in recent years is the utilization of faith based votes and political correctness which, for better or worse, will certainly contribute to the process of political campaigning in years to come. In this discussion, attention will be given to the unique roles that religion has played in political figures throughout modern day history, and their response to the resulting trials.

The discussion of faith in politics is not a new phenomenon. For many of the formative years of America’s early history, politicians and government leaders would often beseech the Almighty for providence in their speech and writing. The tone and manner of their treatment towards God was deeply respectful, as the general populace was of some form of the Christian faith. They themselves believed in God, and chose to express this in their speech and writings.

Some of the earliest founding documents appealed to a higher power, such as the Declaration of Independence’s appeal to the “Supreme Judge.” However, as time went, on, the willingness to integrate faith into politics was looked upon with more criticism, as America accepted more naturalistic, postmodern views; case in point, the Scopes Trial and William Jennings Bryan.

The Scopes Trial, famous for the indictment of John Scopes, a Dayton, TN high school teacher, for teaching evolution in school was one of monumental importance. The trial was a direct clash between what role religion may cross into government, and what the resulting response should be. William Jennings Bryan, former secretary of state to Woodrow Wilson, and presidential candidate, obliged to help the prosecution, in what he believed to be an attack on Christianity. Clarence Darrow, the defense attorney, and strong atheist, found it necessary to cross-examine Bryan about his faith. Bryan, even after giving a valiant defense of his faith, was portrayed in the newspapers as dumb and ignorant. He, however, took what criticism there was, and held strong in faith.

His example of a strong defense of Christianity was not necessarily the same sort of battle that other Christian politicians were willing to follow in years to come.

Certainly the scrutiny that was given to Christians during the Scopes Trial was a warning to others who might be so inclined to speak publicly about their faith. As most citizens who often watch the news or read the papers know, there seems to be hesitancy among modern presidential candidates to discuss their personal convictions.

The argument of separation of church and state aside, much of this caution is fostered by the notion that religion is a personal, private set of beliefs that have nothing to do with political philosophy. The idea goes that whether you are Christian, Jew, Hindu or whatever, your private views should not be the criteria for election. After all, Article 6 of the constitution prohibits religious test, and Americans today feel proud to be open-minded and accepting of other views. However, whether we like it or not, religion does play a large part in the election process because it gives us insight into the candidate’s character.

For all the noble claims to be impartial about religion, as history loves to correct, this has not been the case throughout our nation’s past.

When John F. Kennedy was running for office, he seemed to have all the good qualities, a good face, good family, and a charming personality. More, he could motivate people. There was a slight hitch with Kennedy’s background as it related to politics: He was Catholic, and the United States had never elected a Catholic as president. There was much alarm from many of the Protestant voters that he would be receiving orders from the pope, and that his religious beliefs would be manifested in his policies.

Kennedy was forced to speak about religious convictions in his September 12, 1960, address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association. He said, “For contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who happens also to be a Catholic” (“Kennedy”). Thus, with this speech, he thwarted the attack on his religion.

The manner in which Kennedy chose to speak about his faith was very reserved and trivialized the relevancy of its effect upon his character. He instead chose to look at the “bigger issue” of what he was capable of. Catholicism may have been unpopular at that time, but Kennedy took the path with least resistance, and downplayed its significance.

This is an example of how in modern politics, the way that one presents their faith is crucial to the election. As we know, Kennedy was elected, but one must wonder if he ever regretted downplaying the role of his faith. Certainly, political expediency may sometimes excuse unwillingness to display religious views, but at what cost?

A more modern example of two presidential candidates’ unique religious views happened in the 2008 Republican primaries, with Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, and Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney. Both candidates had, according to modern secularists and evangelicals, radical religious views.

Mike Huckabee was a former Baptist minister with strong moral beliefs, and was viewed by secularists as a possible preacher-president. Naturally, they were opposed to the idea of having such a strong Christian influence public policy. Among Washington circles, many questioned the very constitutionality of such a president; would Huckabee’s pastoral work hinder him from respecting the separation of church and state?

Huckabee was tremendously popular among much of the Christian voters, but he saw the need to strategically answer the questions about his faith. He found the opportunity to do so in a June, 2007 Republican debate.

The question from the moderator asked if he believed that the earth was created in six, literal days, and obvious question designed to reveal Huckabee’s fundamentalism. Interestingly, Huckabee did not take the bait. It was in a brilliant, tactical move that he responded by saying, “It is interesting that question would even be asked of someone running for President of the United States. I am not planning on writing the curriculum for an eighth grade science book — I am asking for the opportunity to be President of the United States” (“Transcript”). He then went on to explain his belief in God, defending the God he served.

 It was a well-planned answer that not only deflected criticism of his Creationist beliefs, helping expand support among the undecided, but gave him an opportunity to then relate back to his base, the evangelical voters. While Huckabee did not win the nomination, his courage to speak out about his beliefs in other forums was a stark contrast to the usual line about a belief in a higher power.

The other candidate, who sent shockwaves throughout both the secular and evangelical camps, was Mitt Romney. His personal religious beliefs fall under Mormonism, and his family has played a large part in the Mormon Church. He was not the first Mormon to run for president (his father also ran), but his presence in the republican primaries this year brought about the question of religious freedom; does religion affect your vote?

While many Americans claim to be tolerant of other views, it seemed there were still tensions about Mormonism. In the late 1960s, the percentage of Americans who said they would not vote for a Jewish or Catholic presidential candidate was in the double digits; by 1999, those numbers had fallen to six and four percent, respectively (roughly the same as the percentage of voters who say they would not vote for a Baptist (Sullivan), yet twenty-four percent of Americans today say they would not vote for a Mormon presidential candidate (Jones).

Romney, recognizing the need to address his faith, gave a similar speech to Kennedy, where he welcomed questions about his faith. He said, “Well, President Kennedy, some time ago, said he was not a Catholic running for president, he was an American running for president. And I'm happy to be a proud member of my faith” (“Transcript”).

Romney was able defend his faith, keeping in accordance with Kennedy, but also went on to talk about how his faith defined his character. This signaled adherence with to his base, but also tried to gain the middle ground. Romney was able to deflect criticism from the secular media, but he had a harder time convincing evangelical Republicans.

A September 2007 Pew Forum survey found that 36 percent of evangelicals were reluctant to vote for Romney simply because of his Mormon faith (Pulliam). Romney lost ground in the evangelical circles of southern states, and was forced to withdraw from the race. In this case, while Romney had many good qualifications, and had deflected the mainstream media’s criticism of his faith, his campaign was hurt when he went up against an evangelical.

 He did not account for the practice of many Christians to “vote their faith.” He strategically ran a good campaign, but the tactics he used to persuade religious voters did have the effect he wanted.

These two candidates’ campaigns shed light on the attitude of modern American’s willingness to vote for someone who is outside their faith. Huckabee did quite well within his base, but could not appeal to the secular crowd. Romney, while thrilling fiscal conservatives with his strong understanding of economics and taxes, could not quite convince evangelical voters that his Mormon faith was of no concern.

It seems that among the three candidates presented, in terms of political expediency, John F. Kennedy was best at explaining his faith, satisfying his base, and expanding his popularity to the undecided. This was not the case with Huckabee or Romney. Kennedy downplayed his religion, and won votes; it was that simple.

However, one might wonder, have we really become more progressive in the last 50 years, in terms of religious tolerance and a willingness to share our faith? Is getting elected to public office by downplaying the effects of religion upon character and the choices we make necessary?

Indeed, just as willingly as William Jennings Bryan was able to put his faith on the line, so have many politicians become readily able to dismiss theirs. Is such a system, where personal religion is the deciding factor of a presidential candidate, and relevant enough to deny him the vote, proper for our system of election?

Religion is what identifies character, and character is what should determine the qualification of a candidate, not whether he is Baptist or Catholic or Jew.

Martin Luther King Jr. spoke of his dream where people would be judged on the content of their character and not of the color of their skin. It seems that it would be valuable to apply these principles to our mindset, having a discussion of merit, when evaluating a candidate, assessing their religion and character.

Faith has a valuable part in a person, and excluding it from the conversation in order to win votes, may not be the right thing politically, but not morally. Strategy and tactics in politics may demand that we approach the topic religion with the goal of political correctness and expediency, but until we can judge solely on character, we can at least have the discussion.
 

Jones, Jeffrey M. “Some Americans Reluctant to Vote for Mormon, 72-Year Old Presidential Candidates.” Gallup 20 February 2007 1. 5 May 2008 http://www.gallup.com/poll/26611/Some-Americans-Reluctant-Vote-Mormon-72YearOld-Presidential-Candidates.aspx.

Kennedy, John F. “Address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association.” American Rhetoric. American Rhetoric. 6 May 2008 http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkhoustonministers.html.

Pulliam, Sarah. “McCain Surges in Polls, But Many Evangelicals Wary.” Christianity Today 2 April 2008 6 May 2008 http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/februaryweb-only/106-12.0.html.

“Transcript.” CNN. 7 June 2007. CNN. 6 May 2007 http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0706/07/acd.02.html.