Post by Seany-D on Nov 10, 2004 9:12:39 GMT -5
Shaken by the notion of a faith-based nation
By Diane Winston
Originally published November 10, 2004
THE PURITANS WON.
Just like the faithful who fled England some 350 years ago, voters placed their faith -- and government -- under God. Proving what conservative pundits claimed for the past year, the 2004 election showed that Americans care as much -- or more -- about the spiritual and moral health of the nation as they do about its social and economic well-being.
For those feeling as blue as the votes they cast, the lesson is clear: Religion and values are as much a part of the political calculus as tax cuts, health care and national defense. Political strategists are nothing if not quick studies, and we can expect that future candidates will add attention to ethical ideals and spiritual aspirations to politicking on governance and policy issues. For their part, journalists and pundits will need to become savvier about the questions they ask and the answers they report on religion's role in society.
The Bible tells us that without a vision, the people will perish, and with this election, the people -- evangelicals and their friends -- indicated that vision transcends mere peace and prosperity. In fact, President Bush's insistence on morality and ultimate meaning -- God continues to bless America -- won him a second term, despite problems in Iraq and a lagging economy. While many Democrats hold an equally robust religious world view -- albeit one that leads to a different set of social and political positions -- few expressed it with compelling directness.
The Democrats are ill-prepared for this new, faith-based world. With its diverse base and secular outlook, the party's image of tolerant open-mindedness is the mirror opposite of the Republicans' good-vs.-evil spiritual warfare perspective. Moreover, Democrats lack the support of an articulate religious leadership. Where are the moderate-to-progressive clergy proclaiming a theology of hope as an alternative to the gospel of fear? Where are the minions of mainline Protestants ready to turn out the vote?
And then there's sex.
Both religious and political conservatives understand its capacity to undermine authority. That's why they closet, contain and regulate sexual activity. But Democrats don't seem to get it. Whether defending abortion rights or supporting gay marriage, they consistently underestimate the impact of their actions on those who fear ungoverned sexuality. Democrats don't understand that these issues are red flags to the religious right, and they need to define the morality of their positions.
In his concession speech, John Edwards dropped hints of a new Democratic religiosity. He invoked Jesus' compassion for the poor, citing those -- the factory worker, the uninsured mother, the person of color -- who need America's help. He affirmed the national belief in a unique destiny: "We're America," and "everything is still possible."
And he reminded supporters that "the battle rages on."
If this battle is, as I suspect, as much for hearts and souls as for volunteers and votes, can the Democrats effect their own political resurrection? Will the media have the ears to hear it and the eyes to see it?
Should some blue-staters feel disinclined to fight on, we've been this way before. The Puritans fled the Old World to build a society in which religion governed every aspect of life. Participation in civic life depended on being right with God; citizenship and church membership were one and the same.
Galvanized by their deep faith, the Puritan experiment began with a great sense of God's blessing, but within a generation, the group's impossibly high standards of belief and behavior doomed its society. The theocracy could not sustain itself or accommodate the growing diversity among the colonists. Church and state were disentangled, and the Puritan dream became the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Diane Winston holds the Knight chair in media and religion at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Southern California.
By Diane Winston
Originally published November 10, 2004
THE PURITANS WON.
Just like the faithful who fled England some 350 years ago, voters placed their faith -- and government -- under God. Proving what conservative pundits claimed for the past year, the 2004 election showed that Americans care as much -- or more -- about the spiritual and moral health of the nation as they do about its social and economic well-being.
For those feeling as blue as the votes they cast, the lesson is clear: Religion and values are as much a part of the political calculus as tax cuts, health care and national defense. Political strategists are nothing if not quick studies, and we can expect that future candidates will add attention to ethical ideals and spiritual aspirations to politicking on governance and policy issues. For their part, journalists and pundits will need to become savvier about the questions they ask and the answers they report on religion's role in society.
The Bible tells us that without a vision, the people will perish, and with this election, the people -- evangelicals and their friends -- indicated that vision transcends mere peace and prosperity. In fact, President Bush's insistence on morality and ultimate meaning -- God continues to bless America -- won him a second term, despite problems in Iraq and a lagging economy. While many Democrats hold an equally robust religious world view -- albeit one that leads to a different set of social and political positions -- few expressed it with compelling directness.
The Democrats are ill-prepared for this new, faith-based world. With its diverse base and secular outlook, the party's image of tolerant open-mindedness is the mirror opposite of the Republicans' good-vs.-evil spiritual warfare perspective. Moreover, Democrats lack the support of an articulate religious leadership. Where are the moderate-to-progressive clergy proclaiming a theology of hope as an alternative to the gospel of fear? Where are the minions of mainline Protestants ready to turn out the vote?
And then there's sex.
Both religious and political conservatives understand its capacity to undermine authority. That's why they closet, contain and regulate sexual activity. But Democrats don't seem to get it. Whether defending abortion rights or supporting gay marriage, they consistently underestimate the impact of their actions on those who fear ungoverned sexuality. Democrats don't understand that these issues are red flags to the religious right, and they need to define the morality of their positions.
In his concession speech, John Edwards dropped hints of a new Democratic religiosity. He invoked Jesus' compassion for the poor, citing those -- the factory worker, the uninsured mother, the person of color -- who need America's help. He affirmed the national belief in a unique destiny: "We're America," and "everything is still possible."
And he reminded supporters that "the battle rages on."
If this battle is, as I suspect, as much for hearts and souls as for volunteers and votes, can the Democrats effect their own political resurrection? Will the media have the ears to hear it and the eyes to see it?
Should some blue-staters feel disinclined to fight on, we've been this way before. The Puritans fled the Old World to build a society in which religion governed every aspect of life. Participation in civic life depended on being right with God; citizenship and church membership were one and the same.
Galvanized by their deep faith, the Puritan experiment began with a great sense of God's blessing, but within a generation, the group's impossibly high standards of belief and behavior doomed its society. The theocracy could not sustain itself or accommodate the growing diversity among the colonists. Church and state were disentangled, and the Puritan dream became the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Diane Winston holds the Knight chair in media and religion at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Southern California.