Catalog

Should a political candidate's religious beliefs be regarded as an important factor in political races? If we allow religion to be used as a campaign strategy, what will be the effect? If the American people elect a president because of his religious ideals, what will happen to the doctrine of separation of church and state? Whether we like it or not, there has been a rising trend among politicians to use their religious affiliation as a means of attracting voters. This strategy has been implemented in response to the expanding political clout of a group we shall call the "Christian Supremacy." The group's large numbers and extremely narrow focus on religion has altered the way some politicians campaign, in part because gaining the support of the Christian Supremacy can help procure a large amount of votes and possibly secure an election. But what are the potential repercussions of allowing this faction to continue to shape the political landscape?

Stephen Newman, in From John F. Kennedy’s 1960 Campaign Speech to Christian Supremacy: Religion in Modern Presidential Politics, paints a grim picture of the current state of religious affairs. Through a sampling of the Christian Supremacy’s attempts to eliminate the doctrine of separation of church and state, Newman highlights the real harms that could result from an overemphasis on religion in political campaigns. His article highlights the relentless and dangerous religious attacks on citizens who strive to preserve the separation of church and state, a fundamental pillar of our democracy.

In making the argument that mixing faith and politics creates a constitutional powder-keg, Newman makes three points. First, he contends that the Christian Supremacy has made a series of chilling attacks on the political lives of the American people, and that the religious right is present in all aspects of government. Next, he focuses on John F. Kennedy's (“Kennedy”) famous 1960 presidential campaign speech on religion and politics, which was made in response to influential Protestant leaders who were vehemently against the nomination of a Catholic presidential candidate. He argues that Kennedy’s speech was significant because it presented the American people with a debate over whether church and state can actually be separated. In addition, Kennedy’s speech is considered to be a pivotal moment in showing that the country can be governed successfully by an agnostic government. Last, he contends that during the 2008 presidential campaign, candidates were compelled to address the interplay between religion and politics in an effort to appease the Christian Supremacy. Although seemingly supportive of President Barack Obama’s campaign strategy to invite different religious leaders to participate in the public forum in the hope of winning votes across religious groups, Newman ultimately argues that this is a potentially dangerous approach because the executive branch will now be obligated to monitor that participation.

Attacks by the Christian Supremacy

Our nation's history is peppered with attempts by the religious right to Christianize American society. From a proposal in 1863 that attempted to include the phrase "in order to constitute a Christian government" in the Constitution's Preamble, to the more modern battle over prayer in public schools, our government has continuously strived to prevent religion from encroaching upon our secular society. This fight to maintain the separation of church and state is of the utmost importance because we are a diverse nation and cannot allow the practices of one religion to disturb the freedoms of another. The following is a sampling of acts by all three branches of our government that have threatened the rights of non-Christians to live in a country that separates church and state:

After promising at his inauguration that "church . . . synagogue and mosque . . . will have an honored place in our plans and in our laws," former President George W. Bush funneled taxpayer funds to "faith-based" organizations. Subsequently, in Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., 551 U.S. 587(2007), the Supreme Court denied standing to taxpayers who brought suit claiming these expenditures were unconstitutional.
Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion in McCreary County v. ACLU, 545 U.S. 844 (2005), argued that a state can engage in speech that privileges the views of religious believers over nonbelievers, as well as give preference to monotheistic religions over polytheistic and non-theistic religions.
In Hinrichs v. Speaker of the House of Representatives of the Indiana General Assembly, 506 F.3d 584 (2007), Indiana citizens challenged the long-standing practice of the state's House of Representatives to start each congressional session with a prayer often led by clergy of the Christian faith. A substantial number of the prayers were offered in the name of Jesus, Christ, the Savior, or the Son. Prayer leaders assumed to speak on behalf of all listening, both on the floor and in the public gallery. One reverend opened his prayer by saying, "Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of Lord Jesus, giving thanks through Him to God the Father." Another reverend gave thanks to the Father "for our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ," and then, at the Speaker's invitation, sang "Just a Little Talk with Jesus." A third said:

As a minister of the gospel, I exercise my right to declare this room a hallowed place. I invite into this room, into the proceedings of the day . . . to each person, the mighty Holy Spirit of God. Holy Spirit, give these here the mind of Christ. . . . I ask this in the name of Jesus Christ.

The Indiana citizens were ultimately denied standing to challenge the prayers.

These are but a small selection of past events which offer a taste of how religion finds its way into the political landscape. Sadly, history also provides many more examples of religious attacks on (i) school children, (ii) families, (iii) homosexuals, and (iv) judges. The Terry Schiavo case, which discussed the right to refuse life-saving medical treatment, is a prime example of such an attack on the judiciary. After the Supreme Court denied certiorari to hear this case, religious activists unsuccessfully attempted to sustain the life of Schiavo in her irreversible vegetative state, even though this contradicted her previously-stated wishes, the wishes of her husband, and the orders of the lower courts. Attempts by both the public and members of the Republican Party bolstered these efforts to prevent Schiavo’s death.

Although religious groups ultimately lost that fight, weeks of drama over Schiavo’s life demonstrated how voracious the religious right are willing to be and how susceptible the American public can be to their tactics. They found willing allies in the Republican Party, whose leaders supported and acted in tandem to attack judges. These Republican leaders threatened punishments in the form of restricting jurisdiction over specific cases, cutting budgets, and creating a new inspector general to oversee the federal judiciary. As the Republican Party increasingly courts the Evangelist voting population, and the Christian Supremacy expands its media campaigns, the American people must be on constant alert in order to thwart any attempts to de-secularize our governmental structure.

Kennedy’s 1960 Campaign Speech

Any attempt to analyze the current state of religion in modern politics must look back to the speech that Kennedy gave on September 12, 1960, to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association. Kennedy’s speech is an important example of how a political figure under attack for his religious affiliation successfully conveyed the importance of the separation of church and state. In doing so, Kennedy arrived at the more pertinent issue--whether one’s religious beliefs are relevant to the qualifications necessary to be President of the United States. Kennedy was challenged by many Protestants because he was a Catholic presidential nominee. These challenges were based on the belief that, as a devout Catholic, he would not be able to escape his allegiance to the Church while performing his duties as president. In attempting to allay these fears, Kennedy warned that the presidency must not "be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group." Kennedy averred that "a president[’s] . . . religious views are his own private affair . . . ." Furthermore, he directly addressed the specific accusations regarding his religion by declaring, "I do not speak for my church on public matters; and the church does not speak for me." But, most important, Kennedy eloquently pronounced:

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute—where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote—where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference.

Kennedy was a proponent of the absence of religion in governmental affairs, which he explicitly stated from the beginning of his presidential campaign. Sadly, his position on secular government was not shared by his successors. Subsequent presidential candidates have embraced the Christian Supremacy’s efforts to emphasize religion during campaigning. Many have used it as a campaign strategy, which has helped propel them to victory. Examples of such victories include the campaigns of Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush.

The Current State of Affairs: Religion in the 2008 Presidential Campaigns

The 2008 presidential campaigns were heavily focused on religion. Several candidates promoted their own faith, stressed their ties to religious figures, and pledged to work toward the goal of increasing the presence of religion in public life. Specifically, three Republican candidates (Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, and John McCain) either used their own beliefs or bent their values in order to gain the trust (and vote) of the Christian Supremacy.

One of Mike Huckabee’s most vocal campaign strategies was the claim that his religion did not just influence him, it defined him. He overtly used religion as the basis for his stance on amending the Constitution in order to prohibit gay marriage and abortion.
Mitt Romney’s approach was much less overt than Huckabee’s. Although Romney, a Mormon, made efforts to avoid discussing his own religion, he strongly courted the religious right in order to compete with Huckabee’s rising popularity. In Romney’s December 6, 2007, speech on faith and politics, he began by echoing Kennedy. He stated that “[a] person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.” After this, though, Romney went on to state (1) his “belie[f] that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind”; (2) that separation of church and state has been taken too far; and (3) that “Freedom requires religion just as religion requires freedom.”

John McCain’s efforts to win the votes of the Christian Supremacy were strained and seemed to conflict with his own ideals. After stating that he did not go to church often enough, he attempted to gain the support of the religious right by courting their leaders and adopting select positions designed to please them. These included advocating for the overruling of Roe v. Wade, opposing gay adoption, and endorsing the idea that local school districts should decide whether to teach anti-evolution theories in their public schools. To bolster his position, McCain chose Sarah Palin, a first-term governor of Alaska and former mayor of the tiny town of Wasilla, Alaska, to be his vice-presidential running mate. Although she lacked any real qualification for high office, her absolute stance against abortion (including cases of rape or incest) and her longstanding affiliation with an evangelical church helped secure the support of the Christian Supremacy.

One candidate, however, adopted a new and creative approach to addressing religion. Unlike Kennedy, President Obama allowed religion to play an affirmative role in his campaign efforts, and he did so without bending to the will of the Christian Supremacy. Instead of trying to identify with the specific beliefs of the Christian Supremacy, Obama attempted to identify broad, overlapping core values in the realms of religion and politics. He encouraged the participation of religious leaders in public debate. At the same time, he advised these leaders to speak in ways that transcended their respective religions so that voters from diverse religious backgrounds would listen to their ideas. Obama even stated his intention to establish a "Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships" in the White House.

While Obama's attempts at bridging the political divide were not always successful, and many Christian leaders refused to aid in his campaign, some actually embraced it. Some Protestant leaders accepted Obama’s encouragement and preached for consideration of common ethical ideals of justice, fairness, equality, and liberty. These religious leaders asked their congregations to vote based on common ethical values rather than strict religious beliefs. As a testament to Obama's efforts, Pastor Rick Warren, Evangelical leader of Saddleback Church–a 23,000-member church in southern California–gave the invocation at Obama's inauguration. This transcendence of typical religious barriers indicates that the sharp divide in core beliefs was set aside for an opportunity to achieve the greater good.

The tale of Obama's limited yet startling achievements should not allow us to rest easy. He has taken a great risk by encouraging religious politics. But by inviting religious participation in public affairs, the Executive Branch now has the additional responsibility to assess and monitor the quality and impact of that participation, lest some extremist agenda becomes law. The American people must keep in mind that the majority of the Christian Supremacy is still working to eradicate, or at least limit, the power of the Establishment Clause. Even if its clout has declined on a national level, this group may still exercise its power in local venues as part of a continued effort to make America a Christian nation. Similarly, the American public must continue to critically monitor the efforts of the Christian Supremacy to preserve and strengthen the separation of church and state.

Jonathan Adler is a 2010 J.D. candidate of New York Law School

Please click here to read Professor Newman’s full article, From John F. Kennedy’s 1960 Campaign Speech to Christian Supremacy: Religion in Modern Presidential Politics