In response to an NBC special report airing tonight, which I haven’t seen yet…
I’ve been wondering for some time now, what would happen if a politician that was running for President had a clearly stated agenda that was firmly against religious interference within American politics, law and the American education system? What would happen if this politician was fully supportive of most things Science? What would happen if he or she was supportive of Gay rights and those social issues that do not seem to have any real impact on society, but that religious fundamentalists (or even the non-fundamentalists) find so offensive and feel so impelled to speak out against?
What if this politician was forthright and completely outspoken over these issues - be damned to losing the support of a pretty large voting block - and regarded creeping religious zealotry to be a genuine threat to our American ideals and freedoms, and said so, often and with conviction?
Would said politician be able to gather enough support to edge out other politicians that support the religious right, or give the rr lip service?
Or are those that are alarmed at creeping religious zealotry simply too diverse (or too disinterested) to be able to unify behind a leader with this stated purpose against it?
Of couse, this leader must have well-thought foreign and economic policies, at least equal to or just as convincing as his/her opponents, but all other factors being somewhat equal:
Would such a leader be able to prevail or would this leader get demolished?
I wouldn’t suggest such a politician would be pagan. On the contrary, this politician would be respectful of religion (could even be religious his or herself), and supportive of those that believed what they wanted to believe, as long as such belief had no political power, or no power to force others that are just as moral but not religious to believe/behave as they do.
A democrat might have a fighting chance if they were very charesmatic and mainstream on other issues. I still have my doubts that any politician could win by being areligious in regards to government or even would attempt to try. Its so ridiculously easy to pander to the religious that there is no reason not to. A few church appearances and a few God Bless Americas is all that it really takes. If a politician were stupid enough to try I doubt they would be smart enough in other aspects to make up for the deficiency.
A republican canidate would never make it past a primary. Too much of that base wants a heavily religious leader.
What I’m after here, is this: Is our country, at its core, ripe for a religious groundswell? Is the majority of our country ready to adopt the values of Evagelical Christians? Do you think that a majority of our citizens believe that our country is on a path to hell, and needs a good shot of “that old time religion?” That creationism is right, and evolution is “just a theory?”
Yes, I know that this particular point seems to be laughable to most(?) of the posters at the SDMB, but is it laughable to the majority of the voters?
Do you believe that reason does not have a chance against religious conservatism in our country? That our leaders (politicians) must always pay lip service to Christianity, regardless of their personal convictions?
That’s pretty vague. What does it mean to be against “religious interference?” Be specific. What does it mean to be “supportive of most things Science?” Be specific. What does it meant to be “supportive of Gay rights?” Be specific.
I can think of policies along those lines that would make such a candidate unappealing to ~70% of the populace, not just “religious fundamentalists”.
Hell, if he/she advocated taking “under God” out of the Pledge, he’d be creamed.
If he advocated SSM, he’d be slaughtered.
Think about it. You’re asking how would a candidate do if he advocated things that most people find offensive. He’d lose.
Take religion out of U.S. politics?- welll, there was considerable religionist participation & propagandation for (as well as against) the American Revolution, abolition of slavery, women’s suffrage (yes, there was actually Evangelical support as well as opposition to that), and civil rights, so a retroactive taking
of religion out of U.S. politics would have removed some fire out of all of those movements.
Does the general U.S. population want the Evangelical Right’s hope for America?
Obviously not- heck, I have reservations about some of the policies of my co-religio/politicos. Take what the Religious Right wants & what the (Secular or Religious) Left want- split the difference between the Right & Left about 55/45 & I think you have the general US view.
Don’t remove Evolution from schools, don’t necessarily include Creationism, but don’t exclude consideration of the Creator.
Don’t ban abortion, or even restrict it to the roughly 5% hard cases, but do regulate it for minors & give some consideration to the rights of the father, a minor’s parents, & the unborn themselves.
Don’t push sectarian faith in public forums, but don’t remove acknowledgement of God.
Don’t criminalize homosexuality, but don’t have public school sex ed programs
discount religious/moral objections to it. Also- maybe allow for gay partnerships but don’t allow marriage to be re-defined.
Demonstrations and outrage against the court in the Schiavo case and a call to remove “activist judges”;
As said above, attempts to introduce creationism in science classes in public schools; Let’s get real simple and say “Blue Laws” in some state that prohibit the sale of booze on Sundays.
Stem cell research? Evolution? Birth control or abstinence for teenagers?
I made this a bit broad. Let’s be very narrow and say simply and nothing more than Same Sex Marriage.
On preview:
I agree. And I agree with the rest of your reply.
I am not saying that this theoretical leader/politician would be anti-religion, just non-religion. I’m not suggestion a denial of religion. Yes, if taken to a completely anti-religious stance, I can easily imagine more than 70% of the voting public taking a stand against such a platform.
My question is, does a politician that espouses resistance to purely religious influence/incursion/intrusion on our freedoms stand a chance in American politics?
My guesstimate if you added up all the people who’d be alieanated.
“Activist judges” isn’t a religious issue. It certainly might encompass aspects of the establishment clause, but that’s only a small part.
But then you’re getting into an issue of federal vs state authority. AFAIK, the feds have never had the ability to regulate in that sphere.
Stem cell research is already popular with > 50% of the population. Evolution (in schools) is again a state matter. Birth control isn’t a scientific issue.
SSM = death for a candidate at the national level. We’re a good generation, at least, before that will change.
Polls consistently show that ~90% of Americans want to keep “under God” in the Pledge. Good luck separating out what is “purely religious” from what is not. I know what you’re trying to get at, but politics just isn’t that simple. I’d be happy to see religion expunged from public life, but any politician who advocated that would’t stand a chance of getting elected (at the national level).
As a nation we might be that far away but states like California and Massachusetts aren’t that far away. In my opinion we will see SSM on the state level within the next 5 years and within multiple states in the next 10. Once a few states pass SSM there will be a Supreme Court ruling invalidating the DOMA and requiring the rest of the States to honor the SSM marriages. When that happens SSM will be legal for all intents and purposes.
It was mostly the Evangelical Christians that were most vocal on this issue.
Yes, it is. Most, if not all, Evengelical Christians are advocating abstinence as the best method to prevent early pregnancy, STDs, etc., despite statistical evidence that concludes that “abstinence” is more harmful than teaching proper methods of protection.
Look it uphere
And there are tons of other sites that illustrate the weakness and failure of abstinenece - based on statistics. Statistics = science (or mathematics), no?
I know that. Politics are definitely not simple. I have posed an artificially narrow scenario in order to isolate the question: Are Americans so spiritual and religious that a gifted leader that advocated “Reason” and “Logic” and “Science”, all other considerations being equal, could not prevail?
It wouldn’t be smart to slam the religious zealots, but a smart politician might be able to respectfully disagree and explain why seperation of church and state is protection for all Americans, religious and other wise. H/she might swear to be a defender of the church in the sense of defending religious freedom for all. This might help dilute the religious “persecution” complex. Many evangelicals believe that their is a move tp repress their religious freedom or to negate their opinions as citizens. A candidate would have to be specific about supporting a students right to choose “Under God” in the pledge and praying at school. It’s not officially sanctioned by the government but the right to do so is defended.
There are Christian groups such as Sojourners and another group that is Christians for Speration, that such a candidate would be wise to court. Resepcting religion means more than just tolerating. It would mean actively seeking the council of select religious leaders, “Reverand Al Sharpton” and being seen to listen to them. I would stress seeking “What is good for all Americans”, and display the diversity of America. You might be able to demonstrate that the zealots who want to declare America an official Christian nation are “confused” or “mistaken” but still recognize their love for America, their patriotism, their passion for justice.
The abortion and gay rights issue would be tough. On abortion the candidate would have to stress understanding the feelings of those who opposed abortion. I would also stress that there are still unwanted children being born who need our care and support. If we oppose a womans right to choose then we bare some moral responsibility to care for the children of this world. Dare to raise the question. If you oppose a womans right to choose then what are you doing to care for the chiildren in need? Take the route of supporting choice but trying to offer education and financial alternatives so woman can afford to choose not to have one.
Gay rights, same sex marriage. Again, no intellectually superior or condescending airs. Acknowledge concern about the moral direction of this country. Acknowledge that balncing this moral direction and defending people’s rights is a challenging issue and find some examples. Support gay marriage as an equal rights issue, but don’t try to force it on the states.
Add these to a real concern for working class America and you’d have an interesting fight.
Even walking a careful line and being smart it would be very hard for this kind of candidate to get elected, but I’d love to see some smart person with a ounce of guts and integrity really try. What seems to happen is that being in Washington s corrupts the integrity of all but the select few. Add to that the fact that Americans can’t seem to focus on any issue for very long and it gets tricky.
I was with you up to this point. I think with teenage pregnancies still too high I think sex education is something we need. Not that it will solve every problem, but I think it’s an important part of education.
religious interference? You can’t campaign to discount and suppress the feelings and opinions of people simply because it’s based on their religious beliefs. If people want to protest something because of their beliefs they have every right to do so and any candidate needs to support and defend that right. What you can stress is that we pass laws based on what can be logically shown to be in the public interest not based on religious belief.
When people cast their ballot, the source of their feeling and opinion doesn’t matter. Creationism in school would violate this since it is specically a religious belief but a community should be able to limit liquer sales if they choose to.
These issues need to be discussed in terms of the rights of all those involved. What about parents rights concerning their kids. Do I want my daughter to have the “right” to get an abortion without even telling me, or to get birth control pills without parental consent or knowledge. It’s not a simple issue of religious interference.
I think people would disagree on what is purely religious influence. You also have the issue of supporting the majorities right to decide certain issues.