The Religious Dimension of Elections 2000

The phrase “separation between church and state” does not appear in the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights or any other official U.S. document.  It was basically extracted from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in response to a request by the Danbury, Connecticut Baptist Association for clarification on the clause in the Constitution stating that “the U.S. Congress shall not make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

In his response, Jefferson aimed at making it clear that the intention of the founding fathers in the Constitutional clause was to protect the church from the tyranny of the state, rather than to infringe on religious freedom.  He agreed with the association that religious freedom is protected by the Constitution.  Therefore, in his letter he wrote, “… believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God …  that the legislative powers of government ... should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”  Jefferson borrowed the phrase himself from a well-noted Baptist minister, Roger Williams, who theorized about creating a “wall of separation” to protect the Church “Garden” from the wilderness of the world (the invasion of the state), but not necessarily exterminating the role of religion in public life.  His and Jefferson’s philosophies were not that of a total separation of religion from state; rather, they  advocated the protection of religious freedom from tyranny, which was common at that time.  The founding fathers’ definition of secularism was the liberation of religion from state tyranny, rather than its subjugation by oppressive state apparatus (such as is the case in many countries today; e.g., Turkey). 

Subsequently, the relationship between church and state in America became contingent upon developments within science and culture.  The teachings of Charles Darwin, Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud have all influenced the role of religion in America.  Around the middle of the twentieth century, the government began adopting legal positions that increasingly built a wall between religion and state.  The social, political and economic upheavals of the past four decades have largely impacted that relationship, affecting both its direction and degree.  For example, the socio-sexual revolution of the Sixties and Seventies decades further distanced state and religion, while the conservative administrations of the Eighties up to 1992 somewhat reaffirmed the role of religion in public life.  The religious right gained substantial weight during this period, while the state strategically committed itself to bringing down the “powers of evil” inherent in the “Godless Communism” of the Former Soviet Union. 

Furthermore, the serious moral problems suffered by the Clinton administration have instigated a moral reassessment at all levels of American society.  The role of religion has thus become a vocal feature in the current elections, with Americans voicing that they want a “moral” president who will serve as a role model to their children, and inspire a “moral” renaissance that will bring integrity to government. 

In further considering the role of religion in politics, and specifically Elections 2000, it is essential to understand something about the party system in America.  Political parties have been central to the American governing process since its founding.  James Madison once said,  “No free country has ever been without parties, which are the natural offspring of freedom.”  Thomas Jefferson went further by saying, “If I could not go to heaven with a party, I would not go there at all.”  Practically speaking, America’s political parties are essentially machines designed to ensure that particular candidates win elections. 

In contrast with many other democracies, America has a two-party system (the Republicans and the Democrats), meaning that the effect of any other parties is always marginal.  In the current elections, the impact of the Reform Party, the Green Party, the American Communist Party and all others is negligible. 

However, one of the electoral blocks that are gaining ground is that of the “independents,” who are dissatisfied with both parties’ platforms and records.  Obtaining their support is a must for any of the current contenders to the White House.  Accordingly, both presidential candidates are vigorously seeking their vote as well as that of the religious right and minorities. 

The competition over this vote, referred to as the “swing vote,” is evident in the current election more than in any other.  The nomination of Joe Lieberman, an Orthodox Jew, as the vice presidential running mate on the Democratic ticket, the Republican Party’s strengthening of its relationship with its base (the religious right), and the fierce battle over the vote of minority communities, such as the Latino community, are all manifestations of the perceived importance of this “swing vote.”

Besides historical factors, there are other elements that bring the role of religion to the forefront of this election.  Religious groups are well organized, well-funded, and committed to achieving their goals; therefore, securing their support is advantageous to both parties.  Their electoral weight, concentrated in ten states (Connecticut, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Wisconsin) will determine the result of the election.

A third point to be made regarding the role of religion in Elections 2000 is the fact that religion has always been a part of politics in America.  The U.S. Congress has a Chaplain to open congressional sessions.  America is now in a period of religious, social, and to some extent economic tolerance.  Within this atmosphere, religious and ethnic diversity, justice, and economic prosperity are the talk of the hour.  Most American candidates for office have professed the importance of religion; however, in previous elections, circumstances prevented them from freely speaking about it.  In the current elections, Americans are pressing nominees to tackle the major issues confronting society; they are no longer allowing them to focus on superficial issues.  It is not sufficient to talk about crime, violence and poverty; rather, they must be approached as merely symptoms of the fundamental problems we face which, many are agreeing, stem from the separation between religion and the public life. 

Finally, Americans are seeking to reconcile two conflicting ideologies – compassion  (associated with the Democrats) and conservatism (associated with the Republicans).  Bush has come up with the slogan, “Compassionate Conservatism,” which adheres to the core values of the Republican Party while addressing the needs of women, minorities and the disadvantaged.

In consideration of the aforementioned factors, the presidential candidates are portraying themselves as pious, religious and value oriented candidates.  For instance, Gore stated that “he makes no decision without asking himself what Jesus would do” in a similar situation.  Lieberman’s emphasis of religion has become so common place that he was criticized by a Jewish organization for exaggerating the role of religion in politics.  He has declared that there is “a constitutional place for faith in our public life.”  Bush has stated that many of his socio-economic policies are influenced by his religious beliefs, claims Jesus as having influenced him the most, and has declared the 10th of June as “Jesus Day” in the state of Texas.  Cheney is also a religious person although he does not talk much about religion in public.  Thus, all four candidates advocate the role of religion in public life.

With regard to the independents, although some do not consider themselves religious, they are typically family and value oriented. 

And finally, minorities, particularly the Latino community, are important in Elections 2000 from two points of view – their minority status, and their religiosity.  One of the means by which current candidates are seeking to gain their support is through the forwarding of “inclusionary” policies in their campaigns.  The Republicans, for the first time recently, are addressing the needs of both the Latino and the African American communities.  Bush speaks to Latinos in Spanish while family members are working with Latino leaders to mobilize their support.  Such efforts have made it incumbent upon Democrats to step up their efforts in order to secure the support of minorities – traditionally guaranteed to the Democratic Party