Receive a daily email digest of the latest on openUSA
Part of the openDemocracy Network
openUSA sign-upReceive a daily email digest of the latest on openUSA NavigationPredictive MarketsPopular ArticlesRecent: |
The World
Most discussed articles...
Elections |
America's pious song and danceGeorge W Bush's daughter was married this month by the same minister who delivered the inaugural prayer for Bush in 2000 and 2004. He is Kirbyjon Caldwell, a Black, Houston-based leader of a megachurch who has publicly announced his support for Barack Obama. Caldwell has said that he will campaign with Obama. It's quite likely that Caldwell will replace Jeremiah Wright, who was Barack Obama's pastor until their very public split. Why is Obama's public piety so important to his presidential campaign? With the middle name Hussein, a father reared as a Muslim, and his youthful attendance at a Muslim school in Indonesia, Obama has to prove his Christian credentials to Americans, 78.4% of whom say they are Christian (see the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life for a comprehensive look at the place of religion in American politics). But even if it weren't for his association with Islam in these Islamophobic times, he would still need to flaunt his religious credentials. Americans love public professions of piety from those running for election or after public disgrace. For example, the Republican presidential nominee, John McCain has been appearing with an influential radio and television minister, Reverend John Hagee, who publicly fulminates against gays, Catholics and who knows who else. I often say that I find Europeans to be just as religious as Americans and much more likely to assume one is Christian. Parisians have asked me about my plans for Easter in Paris far more often than I've been asked in New York, and while I was never invited to a christening during a decade and a half in New York, I've already logged two during the five months I've lived in London. The difference is attitude: in western European countries like England and France, people are likely to pretend that they are less religious than they are. Americans claim that they are more religious than they are. Take the case of Tony Blair. According to one of the numerous memoirs published by his intimates, the former prime minister cloaked the frequency of his church going from the British public. He refused to admit whether he had prayed with George W Bush, which was a yes by omission. In the United States, American presidential candidates make noisy protestations of faith. To some people in Europe, the need for American presidential candidates to make protestations of faith must seem quite retro. The U.S. is more akin to places like Morocco or England, where the clergy are an integral and powerful force in politics and each candidate must display public piety, or Poland, where the Catholic Church is likened to a third political party. Why is religion - and consequently religious leaders - so powerful? Churches, mosques and synagogues are one of the few places where adults choose to gather weekly. Only school and work claim more regular attendance. These adults then willingly submit to a behavioural lecture by someone who claims to possess better, higher knowledge. And in the United States, ministers routinely tell their congregations who to vote for, making one's vote a question of morality and thus admittance to heaven. Despite the fact that church attendance in the United States isn't terribly high, estimated at only about 20% by those who have monitored congregations (20% is about half of what the figures are when people self report), churchgoers matter because they are primed for obedience and if they are told to go to the polls, they will. In the black community, the church has always been the font of power and action out of necessity. During the years of legal segregation, it was one of the few places where blacks were allowed to gather freely. The young, just-out-of-law school Barack Obama was both morally and politically ambitious. He was drawn to work in the public interest because of his mother's focus on service. While his upbringing was rich in comparative religious education he had no religious affiliation. His mother thought that religion was not something one inherited but something one chose if so inclined. Obama wrote that he was drawn to churches in Black communities because of "the power of the African American religious tradition to spur social change. Out of necessity, the black church had to minister to the whole person. Out of necessity, the black church rarely had the luxury of separating individual salvation from collective salvation. It had to serve as the centre of the community's political, economic, and social as well as spiritual life." The safest route for any black man looking to be a powerful community force or a successful politician has been the clergy, a path taken by Al Sharpton, Adam Clayton Powell Jr., Jesse Jackson, Martin Luther King Jr. and numerous other figures of the civil rights movement. Fifteen years ago, in a highly-contested gubernatorial election in New Jersey, a Republican strategist bragged that he had paid Black clergymen to encourage their congregations to stay home - not to vote in the election (it would have been too implausible for the black clergy to encourage them to vote Republican). Church leaders quickly claimed it wasn't true. But way down South, a longtime Democratic supporter told me, "We pay the ministers to tell them to vote for us too." Bush's expressions of faith seem heartfelt. He begins each day by reading the Christian Bible and praying. During his administration, Bible study is an important part of White House life, according to one of Bush's former speechwriters who felt marginalised because he didn't attend. But it might be that Bush's true piety enables him to see religious affiliation as more than a political end. Caldwell announced his support for Obama several months before Jenna Bush's wedding yet he still performed her marriage ceremony. He said that he had called Bush to tell him of the decision and that it wouldn't affect their relationship. Bush is a lame duck president with little to lose, but I began to think that he might be that rare elected figure whose relationship with religion does not fall prey to political expediency, and I shuddered with grudging respect. The left in the United States has never figured out a way to publicly divide the issues of morality and religion. They must make it clear that a strong moral core can have no basis in religion. In many parts of Europe, environmental issues have become a counter morality to the church, but I predict that it will be a long time before a green party gains traction in the United States (Al Gore's interest in environmental issues has failed to endear him to the American public. Around the time he won his Nobel Prize, the American press pointed out that at his home in Tennessee, the Gores use more than twenty times the national average of energy for their family size). Until the left manages to reclaim this moral space, each presidential candidate will go through the song and dance of public piety. Perhaps, it's time to think about venues that can claim the time that churches do. Is the internet one of those spaces?
This article is published by KA Dilday, , and openDemocracy.net under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it free of charge with attribution for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines. If you teach at a university we ask that your department make a donation. Commercial media must contact us for permission and fees. Some articles on this site are published under different terms.
Wolf E | Tue, 2008-05-20 21:29 A very interesting article, but I must disagree with the claim that religion is at least as important in Europe as it is to Americans, at least with reference to the UK. Having lived in Britain (or England, if you want to be specific) all my life it seems that christenings, church weddings and funerals etc. are far more to do with tradition than religion for many people; this is especially true for christenings, as there aren't many commonly-used secular alternatives for celebrating the birth of a new child. While some people may indeed "pretend that they are less religious than they are", in my experience they are more likely to class themselves automatically as Christians without necessarily going to church or even believing in a Christian god, but again thinking of it more culturally. Religion is temporarily high up on the political agenda in the UK at the moment with several motions going through Parliament concerning the current Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, free vote issues on which various religious groups are keen to have their say. However, religion is not usually a significant factor in politics here and it is not the case that "the clergy are an integral and powerful force in politics and each candidate must display public piety", although there are exceptions to this such as Gordon Brown's eagerness to talk about his Presbyterian father, the furore caused by Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg's assertion of his atheism, and the presence of several 'Lords Spiritual' in the House of Lords (although they are an obvious anachronism and will surely be disposed of in any future reform of the upper chamber). To the foreign observer it seems that American politics is highly nationalistic, and that this nationalism is strongly linked to religion (or, more specifically, Christianity), with candidates only needing to name-drop Jesus or God or whoever to receive rapturous applause (as I saw during a recent Hilary Clinton speech) - this is unimaginable for a mainstream politician here in England, contrary to what you might claim. I’m not quite sure how you define Europe though; you class the UK (or England, as you insist on calling it) as both in Europe in the fourth paragraph and outside it in the fifth, along with Poland, another member of the European Union. Admittedly, though, even many British people’s feelings are similarly confused about the relationship between the UK and Europe. Kanishk Tharoor | Wed, 2008-05-21 11:27 Agreed, Wolf E, but I think K Dilday's point is more to suggest that just as Europeans minimise the extent of their cultural religiosity, Americans exaggerate it. I don't think Dilday is saying that Europe is more religious in objective terms than America, but rather that the supply of American public piety may rest on an inflated sense of its demand. Post new comment |