From Sojourners: Faith , Politics, Culture
1-14-04

The beginning of a debate
by Jim Wallis

We were quite overwhelmed with the response to my December 28 Sunday New York Times op-ed, titled "Putting God Back in Politics." The Times ran several letters to the editor, it created a vigorous dialogue in their chat room, and we received hundreds of e-mails ourselves - the vast majority positive. Nearly 20 other newspapers have either reprinted the piece or quoted it. We've learned it was discussed by several Democratic candidates and their staffs, and a dialogue with them has already begun. We also heard from the White House. Obviously, the topic of religion, moral values, and the election struck a nerve.

Since then, other media outlets have taken up the "religion question" and begun pressing candidates on their views. I've done several talk shows, and, in an interview on Fox News' "O'Reilly Factor," I was amazed to hear host Bill O'Reilly concede that poverty and the environment were issues with religious dimensions. Beliefnet has helpfully published profiles of the religious backgrounds and perspectives of all the presidential candidates, and a debate is beginning on what all that does and should mean in this critical election year.

What I am saying in interviews is that the particular religiosity of a candidate, or even how devout they might be, is less important than how their religious and/or moral commitments and values shape their political vision and their policy commitments. If one's religious and ethical convictions don't shape a candidate's (or a citizen's) public life, what kind of commitments are they? Yet in a democratic and pluralistic society, we don't want to evaluate candidates by which denomination or faith tradition they belong to (and only vote for the candidate in our group) or how often they attended church or synagogue (like a tally of votes missed by a member of Congress), but rather to understand the moral compass they bring to their public lives and how their convictions shape their political priorities.

There are already positive signs. While Howard Dean's initial forays into religion were clumsy at best (surely someone on his staff must have known that his "favorite New Testament book" of Job was, in fact, in the Old Testament), his concern about losing our "sense of community" in America is a deeply moral and religious one. Perhaps knowing what is contained in the books of the Bible is ultimately more important than knowing where they all are! Dick Gephardt is talking in Iowa about health care as a "moral issue," and John Edwards is sounding like a preacher when he declares that poverty is not only an economic concern, but is "about right and wrong," and that "poverty reduction is a moral responsibility." Joe Lieberman seems to be regaining his religious voice when he speaks about the poor, and John Kerry is talking about a "broken value system," and not just his war record. At least a few journalists think that Wesley Clark seems to be more comfortable than some of his colleagues about relating his faith journey to social justice. Dennis Kucinich has spoken of his moral values all along, and of course, Rev. Al Sharpton speaks like the Pentecostal preacher he is. All this is good. When George Bush starts campaigning in earnest, he may also have to be more explicit about how his personal faith applies to those same social issues.

In the midst of this discussion, former Christian Coalition leader and 700 Club host Pat Robertson sailed into the fray by telling his television audience: "I think George Bush is going to win in a walk. I really believe I'm hearing from the Lord that it's going to be a blowout election in 2004. The Lord has just blessed him. ...It doesn't make any difference what he does, good or bad; God picks him up because he's a man of prayer...."

Robertson and his comrade Jerry Falwell have become dependable media sources of outrageous or just plain stupid remarks about religion. Neither has deliverable constituencies anymore, but they have become ludicrous foils for those journalists eager to discredit religion. Having once claimed to control the direction of a hurricane and that liberals and feminists were the ones truly responsible for the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, Robertson's powers of discernment regarding the outcome of this election may cause some to doubt his certainty. More important, the public conversation about religious and moral values in this election year might have the potential to be a serious and thoughtful discussion, leaving the Robertsons and Falwells as the humorous asides they deserve to be.