The Role Of Religion In Politics

[babylonsister]

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/10/30/438033.aspx

From NBC’s Domenico Montanaro
There is clearly a split among how Democrats and Republicans view the role of religion in public service, according to a new poll made available to First Read that was sponsored by the Interfaith Alliance and conducted by the Democratic polling group, Greenberg Quinlan Rosner.

Three-quarters of Democrats believe a candidate should not use their religion or faith to influence voters to support them, but those numbers are much lower when it comes to Republicans. Only 58% of Republicans believe so. And nearly three in 10 Republicans “strongly disagree” with the statement. Religious conservatives have been the most reliable voters on the GOP side and their turnout is largely credited with helping elect President Bush.

The poll also found that more Republicans than Democrats attend religious services regularly. About 63% of Republicans said so as opposed to about half of Democrats and Independents.

On the influence that clergy and religious leaders should have on voters’ decisions, a majority of Republicans believe that they should have at least some influence. Only 38% of Democrats say so.

And on picking Supreme Court justices, more Democrats (85%) than Republicans (68%) believe the next president should pick justices who will protect the separation of church and state.

It's worth noting that Independents had very similar breakouts to Democrats. That’s something Democrats count on when it comes to the general election. Numbers of those who self identify as conservative versus liberal are generally higher, so Democrats have to have a broader Independent appeal when it comes to the general election. Kerry, for example, beat Bush when it came to Independents, but he didn’t quite win enough of them.

[NMMNG]

1. Religion has no place in politics

Nothing good can come of it. Nothing good at all.

[Chovexani]

3. I like that bumpersticker

The last time people mixed religion and politics people got burned at the stake.

[NMMNG]

4. Me too

:evilgrin:

[Igel]

2. Some of it is shorthand.

You give yourself a label, and those that know what the label mean have an easier time saying 'yes' or 'no.' Just as Edwards called himself "progressive", so for some people knowing that "so-and-so is an X" covers a lot of ground.

As for religion in politics, it's going to happen: Religion, virtue, and morality for a lot of people are linked together. One would expect laws and policies to reflect something like a consensus-view of what is just and virtuous in many cases. Even here you find religious justification for social programs, treating the "least among us" well as a sign of virtue. As Franklin said--they gave us a good constitution, but it would take a virtuous people to preserve it. Not "wise", not "educated", not "liberal". Virtuous, in his opinion.

Note the death penalty fight is not just one involving "Gee, how do we deal with murder in society?" as a moral issue: People think it's right or wrong, not merely practical or impractical. The abortion issue is far from just a "every child should be a wanted child" issue, if you listen to most of the advocates on both sides. Tax discussion involve consideration of private property and the propriety of government seizing assets for the public good. Lots of moral issues in those, and if you believe that private property is a natural right you've just invoked something akin to a religious worldview--we have natural rights by virtue of our creation, not our evolution or mere existence.

This doesn't mean that organizations per se have to have a role, or should. It's possible for religion to play a huge role, simply because of the role it plays in the lives and minds of the population, while the actual organizations themselves have a secondary role. In this, they're very much like any other advocacy NGO, arguing for a vision of what good people or good society is like. We may not like the vision, but they have the same right as we do.