Nelson Jones

Belief, disbelief and beyond belief

Syndicate contentRSS

Too much of a God thing

Should American politicians revisit their assumption that God is necessarily a vote-winner?

In 2001, a mere 12 per cent were turned off by politicians doing God. It's now 3
Too much of a God thing. Photo: Getty Images

After a political season dominated by questions of religion to an extent unusual even in the United States, it appears that Americans may finally have had enough. Polling data released yesterday by the Pew Foundation points to a huge increase in the number of US citizens who complain that their politicians are too eager to talk God.

In 2001, a mere 12 per cent were turned off by politicians doing God. It's now 38 per cent, and rising. As you might expect, the feeling is especially strong among Democrat voters. Fifty two per cent agreed with the statement that there are "too many" expressions of religious faith and prayer by political leaders. President Obama has, after all, been the target of much faith-based criticism from the leading Republican candidates, whether it's Mitt Romney damning his "secular agenda" or Rick Santorum muttering darkly about his "phony theology". But a significant minority of Republican sympathisers feel the same way -- 27 per cent. The feeling is stronger among Romney supporters, a third of whom would welcome less religious talk from politicians.

On the other hand, 40 per cent of Republicans apparently believe that politicians should talk even more about religion. It's hard to know what would satisfy them; unless, of course, they were just joining in with the Santorum line on Obama. A clear majority -- 55 per cent -- of his supporters are in the "too little" camp, as opposed to under a quarter of Romney-ites. This looks like further evidence that Santorum appeals to a very particular (and committed) subset of the electorate: enough to make him look a serious challenger to a Romney nomination but unlikely to be much help to him if he wants to win the all-important centre ground.

Among mainstream (as opposed to Evangelical) Protestants, white Catholics and (less surprisingly) the religiously unaffiliated, there has been a noticeable increase in the past year in the proportion saying that there has been too much discussion of religion by political leaders. This looks like a reaction to the way in which the campaign has played out so far.

An even more striking finding is that almost two-thirds of Democrat voters and almost half of Republicans (but including 57 per cent of Romney supporters) think that churches should as much as possible keep out of politics. The poll was carried out earlier this month, coinciding with the Catholic Church's campaign against the administration's proposed requirement for all insurance schemes to provide birth control.

The Church has sought to base its arguments on the constitutional principle of freedom of religion rather than on its longstanding opposition to contraception per se, a manoeuvre that has not convinced everybody. (Democrat Congressional leader Nancy Pelosi called it "an excuse".) Another recent poll, by the Public Religion Research Institute, found that most Americans did not believe that there was a threat to religious liberty in the country (although significant majorities of Evangelical Protestants and Tea Party members did). There continue to be majorities in favour of forcing religiously-affiliated hospitals and colleges to provide contraceptive coverage for their employees, including a majority of Catholics. The Church leadership's campaign may well have alienated as many people as it has won over.

Another interesting finding of the PRR poll is that a majority of Americans favour legalising same-sex marriage, including 59 per cent of Catholics (a higher proportion than in the population as a whole).

Taken together, these findings suggest that the picture of America that increasingly comes across on the campaign trail, as a devout nation ever-more demanding of public displays of religiosity from its political leaders, may be significantly wide of the mark. It may be a long time before an avowed atheist stands much chance of being elected President. But most Americans see the value of the constitutional separation of church and state, and any politician -- or, for that matter, church leader -- tramples on it at their peril.

19 comments

HendersonDenis's picture

Politics is in practice also essential for human society, and very often deals with moral issues. On one day this week, in a country that has an established religion, the morality of its health service was at issue; on the next, the morality of taxation was the subject of much concern. But there was little or no religious involvement in the debates, not because participants are not religious, but because here religion is not to be cited as authority over anyone, despite an established faith. The reason for this is that this established religion does not require obedience to human authority, but to what amounts to private conscience. http://www.squidoo.com/best-blenders-reviews

mzaryta's picture

anim3snipe
sadt3ars
animeonlye
nsf7
3solat
mnoms
magicians4all
animexyt
mexyt
delegnet

hesham15's picture

anim3snipe
sadt3ars
animeonlye
nsf7
3solat
mnoms
magicians4all
animexyt
mexyt
delegnet

Ronald's picture

Surely having a president that believes in a supernatural god, a belief with no evidence or logic behind it, is a bad place to begin with?

Would people vote for a president that believed and had faith in Father Christmas?

Graeme's picture

Yes.

John Cheese's picture

No one can explain sin, suffering or death. Christians choose answers in the Bible-from God. Some just ignore the questions. We all make do in our own way.

Frederick's picture

Jackass you Islamist fart - you'r still alive? I thought it was you that the French cops took out in Toulouse last week!

MartinC's picture

Politicians that talk up their "God credentials" I find disingenuous, and pharisee-like. Better to be judged by your acts and intentions, than by your assertions.

Like wearing patriotism on your sleeve, advertising your attachment to God is potentially the sign of weakness, as Samuel Johnson said... "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel".

Luke 18:10-14 ESV

“Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee, standing by himself, prayed thus: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.’ But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, a sinner!’ I tell you, this man went down to his house justified, rather than the other. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”

Frederick's picture

At least American Christians don't go around stoning women to death and hanging Gays from cranes in public squares. Odd how the loony British left seem to tolerate all aspects of islamofascism - Christianity in the US wow it's just beyond the pale.

Sir Michael's picture

Ronald - "Surely having a president that believes in a supernatural god, a belief with no evidence or logic behind it, is a bad place to begin with?"

You mean like ethics? Morals have no evidence or logic behind them, so surely a utilitarian tyrant who knows how to benefit society without worrying about unprovably concepts of good or evil would be the best candidate for president in your view?

Keir's picture

What Christianity in the US?

jankaas's picture

"Jackass you Islamist fart"

sorry Fredprick, i guess you didn't get the message i gave you? it's quite simple;

this thread is not about islam.

geddit? this thread is not about islam.

and again and again....this thread is not about islam.this thread is not about islam.this thread is not about islam.this thread is not about islam.this thread is not about islam.this thread is not about islam.this thread is not about islam.

now read all that again Fredprick, and then tell me what this thread is not about.

jankaas's picture

"Odd how the loony British left seem to tolerate all aspects of islamofascism"

funny that no matter what the subject matter, the usual loonies demand that every single thread be about Islam. take a day off, stop obsessing and engage with the topic of the thread. this one aint about Muslims...

do you do this all day long Frederick? you know your neighbour says what a lovely spring day it is, and you shout at him "but those Muslims are eating babies in the name of Allah"

Anonymous's picture

How about all the voters who believe in ghosts? Where are the politicians ready to get some ectoplasm on their faces? Oh! How about the very important pixie or leprechaun demographics, can't forget about them!

Keir's picture

Morality is a consequence of evolution. It is a necessary consequence of human society, and society is essential for the survival of the human species.

Politics is in practice also essential for human society, and very often deals with moral issues. On one day this week, in a country that has an established religion, the morality of its health service was at issue; on the next, the morality of taxation was the subject of much concern. But there was little or no religious involvement in the debates, not because participants are not religious, but because here religion is not to be cited as authority over anyone, despite an established faith. The reason for this is that this established religion does not require obedience to human authority, but to what amounts to private conscience. There is even legal provision for the head of this country to give no allegiance to a particular religious authority, which legality may be said to be extensible to any such authority.

But in the USA, Santorum and Romney, prominent members of religions that are noted for their authoritarianism, are competing to fill a position of leadership in which loyalty to their religion and loyalty to their country may come into conflict. This potential problem, rather than general dissatisfaction with religion in politics, may be the real source of disquiet among Americans. A Methodist or even an Episcopalian president they can accept, but they may perceive that the much prized principle of separation of church and state could be insidiously undermined by either of these two runners.

John Cheese's picture

Freedom of religion in the town square- that's the American way! You Brits have a hard time with that...

jankaas's picture

"Morality is a consequence of evolution."

same as height is a consequence of evolution. so what? doesn't mean it's the 'right' height. how can you tell if human morality that is the consequence of evolution is correct?

Latest tweets