Churches in Politics vs. Political Attack Ads
Some in the liberal blogs are excited that a new Pew study shows a majority of the US population thinks "churches should stay out of politics," but do we want to really prevent one of the few places where Americans gather together in a broad community to discuss and debate politics? (which yes, implies being active through those institutions as well). It just seems similar to the rightwing bemoaning that unions are active in politics, since the reality is that the workplace is one of the other main places where people gather together for extended and repeated times together in our society.
Subtract the churches and unions and you leave a political landscape where the 30-second attack ad is the main conduit of political consumption by Americans. Is that really better than Rick Warren's Saddleback conversation? Sure, a lot of discussions in churches are rightwing, but other churches are where strategy for the civil rights movement was planned, opposition to wars have been articulated, and denunciations of poverty have been deepest.
We need more unions, more churches, more organizations of any kind where people gather together face-to-face, involved in politics. Otherwise, the attack ad really will be the dominant mode of politics for all but a tiny minority of Americans
That's a good argument except for the existance of a constitutional amendment that attempts to guarentee the separation of church and state.
On the surface your comparison of church and union seems to be a good one except that the two institutions exist for entirely different and unrelated reasons.
August 22, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is similar where neither union membership or church membership are a requirement to holding a job.
August 22, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm actually not sure what the point is here, since regardless of whether you belong to a church or a union, no one loses their job or usually is kicked out of a church because the union or church leadership endorses a candidate or policy position.
Which somewhat addresses the separation of church and state idea; the point is that the GOVERNMENT can't discriminate based on your religion; it doesn't mean that individual voters can't or won't have preferences for people who share their values, including religion. It doesn't mean folk won't vote for people of different faiths, but like many things, sharing certain beliefs in common makes many voters more comfortable with a person.(And before someone goes there, notably unlike race, religious affiliation is a choice even if it's a choice embedded in family traditions.)
August 22, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
No Campaigning through church funds!
Separation of Church and State is to keep the state from turning into a theocracy. i.e. "My god is better than your god, and we've got the army to make it so.
That's the whole problem in Iran. It's a theocracy. You don't agree, you don't live.
Also churches with endorse a candidate relinquish their tax exempt status. This is supposed to keep religions impartial and above mundane laws. I
If not, then when do we start burning witches, executing adulterers, outlawing homosexuality, silencing women's voices in church, and forcing widows to marry their dead husband's brother.
August 23, 2008 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink