The Political Role Of Religion In The United States

Stephen D Johnson, Joseph B Tamney

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2019
• eBook ISBN: 9781000304626
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: International Relations
• Index: Politics & International Relations

The political importance of Christian churches in the 1 980s is the focus of this wide-ranging book of readings. Contributors begin by placing the current involvement of religious groups in politics in historical perspective and then analyze the politics and ideologies of both the religious right and religious left. They al30 explore specific issues, including the separation of church and state, the impact of religious interest groups on public policy, religion and abortion, and feminist theological views.

PART 1
Background

Introduction

In an editorial on 15 September 1984, the New York Times was quite critical of religious leaders becoming involved in presidential politics; in fact, Americans in general seem uneasy about the mixing of religion and politics. Paul J. Weber, in Chapter 1 ("Religious Interest Groups, Policymaking, and the Constitution"), discusses the constitutional issue of the relation between church and state. He examines the different interpretations of this relationship in the U.S. context and concludes that there is a constitutional basis for and benefits to be derived from allowing religious interest groups to compete for influence on the formation of public policies.

It is customary to divide such interest groups into liberal and conservative branches and to assume that each has its own social program. Is this a valid analysis of U.S. religion? Exactly how do these types differ in terms of social policies? These questions are addressed in Chapter 2 ("The Clergy and Public Issues in Middle town," by Stephen D. Johnson and Joseph B. Tamney). In addition, the authors present the reasons conservative and liberal clergy have given for their positions. Religious beliefs and values seem to play a minor role in the ministers' justifications of their positions on social issues. The implications of this finding are discussed in the chapter.

Evangelical Christians were once considered part of the conservative branch of Christianity. But Chapter 3 (Cacophony on Capitol Hill: Evangelical Voices in Politics" by Richard V. Pierard) presents a brief history of evangelical political officeholders and makes clear that the identification of evangelical Christianity with conservative Christianity has become invalid. During the twenties and thirties, evangelicals were politically conservative, but they played a minor role in U.S. politics. The situation began to change after World War II; about the same time that liberal clergy were active in the civil rights movement, evangelicals began to be a political force in Congress. By the sixties, evangelicalism no longer was synonymous with political conservatism. For at least the last twenty years, a wide range of political viewpoints has existed among the politically active evangelicals. As Pierard concludes, "Evangelicalism, for all its conservatism, can no longer be regarded as a monolith. Its voices on Capitol Hill are a cacophony of contrasting claims and political ideologies."

1
Religious Interest Groups, Policymaking, and the Constitution

Paul J. Weber

The highly publicized 1984 lectures at the University of Notre Dame by Governor Mario Cuomo of New York and Congressman Henry Hyde of Illinois, as well as the recent pronouncements of the Catholic bishops on nuclear war and economic policy, have rekindled an old argument about attempts of religious leaders and groups to influence the policymaking process. In the minds of many people such efforts are highly suspect, if not actually unconstitutional. An article last year in a student newspaper is fairly typical:

In an unprecedented speech Pope John Paul II asked that the United States and the Soviet Onion disarm simultaneously, that they withdraw their troops from Central America and Afghanistan, that all the violence and terrorism be stopped in the Middle East, and that all the countries of the world pardon their prisoners sentenced to death.

Aside from being a clear case of overstepping boundaries, the pontiff has entirely oversimplified matters of grave importance and extreme complexity. . . . The pope, however, has stepped into a realm in which he does not belong and for which he is not qualified to propose solutions.

I hope that in the future, John Paul II will continue to provide spiritual strength to the peoples of the world while realizing that politics are matters that would be better left to the politicians (Stanley, 1983:5).

Such views are not confined to the relative obscurity of campus weeklies. A New York Times editorial (April 23, 1960) once made the rather startling claim that "we start with the premise shared by every American who believes in the constitutional principles on which our country is founded that religion has no proper place in American politics." More recently, syndicated conservative columnist William Safire attacking both the Catholic bishops' pastoral letter on nuclear deterrence and President Reagan's speech to evangelical ministers, expressed the views of many:

Most people who take churchgoing seriously want moral guidance, not political presumption, from their clergy. Most voters who take their participation seriously want political philosophy in action, not spiritual instructions from the president. But assume that the president is 100 percent right about morality or that the clergy is 100 percent right about foreign policy. The fact that each is playing in the other's ballpark is what is wrong (Safire, 1983:A-11).

Safire's views were echoed by Philip Lawler in a Wall Street Journal editorial. "It is individuals--not economic systems--that face heaven or hell; so it is the business of the church to save individual souls. Bishops once focused on that" (Lawler, 1984:36).

If such opposition to religious involvement went no further than occasional newspaper columns and editorials it would probably not merit further comment. Unfortunately there have been numerous attempts to turn such opposition into laws prohibiting or at least emasculating religious influence. As the Harris v. McRae controversy over the Hyde amendment (prohibiting federal funding for abortion) worked its way through the courts, plaintiffs argued that the law violated the First Amendment partially because the Hyde amendment was passed as a result of "excessive" religious influence on the legislative process. The Supreme Court's acceptance of this argument (if it had occured) could have had monumental impact on religious advocacy (Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297, 1980).

Why is there such widespread opposition to religious involvement in the political process? Aside from the fact that it is a handy emotional argument to hurl whenever one opposes a policy advocated by one or another religious group, there seem to be four major reasons: (1) a vague, hazy and, I would argue, erroneous understanding of the meaning of separation of church and state in the United States, (2) a fear of the political power of the churches, (3) the Supreme Court's administrative involvement standard, and (4) a fear of political divisiveness along religious lines. The combination of these leads to opposition to religious involvement in the political process.

In this chapter I will propose not only that there is a firm constitutional basis for religious involvement in politics but also that encouraging such involvement is a sound and healthy component of the political process and does not lead to excessive entanglement.

The Meaning of Separation

The most secure foundation for religious activism lies in the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech and assembly: "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Although freedom of association is not a very well developed right in U.S. constitutional law, even in its primitive form it protects "a right to join with others to pursue goals independently protected by the First Amendment--such as political advocacy, litigation (regarded as a form of advocacy), or religious worship" (Tribe, 1978:702).

It has been argued that the freedom of speech and assembly clauses do not apply to religious groups or religiously motivated individuals because they are protected and limited by the religion clauses in the First Amendment./1/ The religion clauses of the First Amendment declare that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Acknowledgments
• General Introduction
• PART 1: BACKGROUND
• PART 2: THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT
• PART 3: RELIGION AND LIBERAL ISSUES
• Index