After years of pushing religion, morality and faith to the back of the convention hall, the political parties are suddenly “born again”.
Some might be comforted by the pious talk, but beneath the chatter, what does it all mean?
Ever since George W. Bush cited Jesus as his favorite philosopher in one of the primary debates, religion and personal faith have swirled about this election season. In the wake of Bush’s admission, outraged pundits took to the airwaves concerned that he was “imposing his morality” on the republic. Some issued dire warnings that Bush was “an extremist in moderate clothes.” And then quietly, almost imperceptibly, Al Gore began spreading it about that he doesn’t make a decision without first asking, “What would Jesus do?” Talk of “morality” and “values” started creeping into Gore’s stump speeches. (Funny how he has evolved since his denunciations of former opponent Dan Quayle’s “family values” speeches.)
The Vice Presidential nominees are no less vocal on the subject. On Wednesday, Republican VP candidate Dick Cheney was at a St. Louis church-run homeless shelter calling for a new government/faith partnership. “Right now, only three federal social service programs allow religious organizations to apply for funding on the same basis as other providers,” Cheney said. “Governor Bush and I believe faith-based groups, whether Mormon or Methodist or Muslim, ought to be eligible for public money to advance their good work.”
When Mr. Bush first floated this idea during the primaries, the press charged him with violating the separation of Church and State. The hecklers are now silent.
With the appointment of the first Jewish-American to the Democratic Party ticket, religion is suddenly hip and welcome in the secular culture. Senator Joseph Lieberman, an Orthodox Jew, is being hailed as a savior of sorts. For the Vice President, so sullied by the Clinton shenanigans, a collaboration with the President’s earliest and most vocal critic may be just what he needs to disassociate himself from Presidential recklessness. Interestingly, no one has charged Lieberman with “being an extremist” or “imposing his morality” on others.
At the rally to announce his candidacy, Lieberman mentioned God 13 times, and even offered up a prayer. He later told ABC News, “The spirit moved me because I was just so overwhelmed by a feeling of gratitude to God for bringing me to that moment—and to Al Gore for making it possible. But, you know, that's freedom of religion.” (For the record, it’s a freedom still forbidden to public school children.)
On the surface, it is wonderful to be hearing all these candidates speaking so frankly about their faith. But warm, fuzzy talk of grace and morality is just that—talk. Leadership consists of walking the walk. The question for all of these self-professed Godly men is this: how will your well-publicized faith influence your policies?
One hopes that all this religious talk will eventually translate into just policies and a culture that protects and cherishes human life, no matter which party triumphs in November. But the signs are not encouraging. For all their moral talk, Messrs. Gore and Lieberman currently enjoy a 100 percent approval rating from the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL). Lieberman voted against the partial birth abortion ban and Gore advocated its defeat. On the Republican side, Mr. Bush has presided over the executions of more than a hundred inmates in Texas, despite his pro-life stance.
These candidates must now be very careful. Having invoked the name of the Almighty, they have brought upon themselves a great responsibility to act in accordance with Judeo-Christian moral teaching. They must either square their policies with the creeds they so actively profess, or face charges of hypocrisy and perhaps endure the wrath of God. The day may come when they will look back and wonder if all the pious talk was really worth it.
