The role of religion in the election

[Thats my opinion]

What role did religion play in the recent political campaign. It seemed far less important than we might have expected. Given the significant slice of the population made up of evangelical Christians, we have been left to wonder what happened to the social issues they had continually raised. While they played a heavy-handed part in the devastating Republican primaries, they all but disappeared in the general campaign. If they were mentioned in the debates or the ads, I missed it. Mitt Romney’s lurch to the center during the last weeks, all but seem to abandon his far right religious constituency. Or did it? My guess is he rightly assumed that their support was already secure, and that the center provided the only fertile electoral ground. But why didn’t the Christian right scream in pain at their abandonment? What happened to their religious fervor?

Until recently, one of our major fears was that these right-wing religionists would take over the GOP. Barry Goldwater once remarked,
“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the party, and they’re sure trying to do so, it’s going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can‘t and won’t compromise. I know. I’ve tried to deal with them.”

So what happened? One theory is that their power had already passed its “use-by” date.” The evangelicals were already a diminishing contingent in American culture. Billy Graham and Pat Robertson were passé. Jerry Falwell had gone to his reward. The moral majority and its successors were no more. While all that may be true, in the red states,as well as in much of the rest of the county, very conservative Christians still constituted a significant population.

Nevertheless their substantial numbers never left Romney. Why? I believe there is a reason for the silence. I find the clue in the candidacy of a committed Mormon. If most evangelical Christians had formerly been sure of anything, it was that Mormonism was a heresy—probably a non-Christian cult. Five years ago Amy Sullivan, editor of the of the Washington Monthly, wrote,
“Moderate Republicans aren't the ones who could derail a Romney (2008)candidacy. His obstacle is the evangelical base--a voting bloc that now makes up 30 percent of the Republican electorate. It is hard to overestimate the importance of evangelicalism in the modern Republican Party, and it is nearly impossible to overemphasize the problem evangelicals have with Mormonism. Evangelicals don't have the same vague anti-LDS prejudice that some other Americans do. For them it's a doctrinal thing, based on very specific theological disputes. Romney's journalistic boosters either don't understand these doctrinal issues or try to sidestep them. But ignoring them won't make them go away. To evangelicals, Mormonism isn't just another religion. It’s a cult.”

There is no indication that Mitt was abandoned by the evangelicals for doctrinal reasons. They hung with him in spite of his “cultic” identity. Here is my conclusion. For most evangelicals, religion may only be a screen behind which they hide. Their real commitment is to a radically conservative social philosophy. Religion may serve that purpose, but when push comes to shove, right-wing politics trumps religious fervor.

One sees behind this pious screen a substantial dose of racism, classism, xenophobia, nationalism, a trust in guns and their accompanying violence—and a series of other convictions buried in right-wing causes. None of these things naturally flow from the Christian affirmation. These hard right sociological concerns, not Christian faith, may be at the core of the identity of many Christian fundamentalists. So what they knew to be a cultic candidate was simply put aside because he and his Party represented far more important commitments. Religion didn’t really matter.

How conservative Christianity managed to migrate from doctrine to right-wing social theory still puzzles me. But that is a subject for a future post.

[dimbear]

1. One can obtain a view of the rightwing's disdain for Mitch's religious views by visiting

rightwing sites, after which you may opt to burn your internet device.

[Thats my opinion]

2. That's my point

Their support of Mitt had nothing to do with religion. It had to do with right-wing political postures that had nothing to do with religion. Religious conviction becomes a phony screen behind which fundamentalists can hide. It becomes clear what they really believe!

[dimbear]

3. I agree with that, and just notice as an aside that the level of anti-Mormon prejudice on some of

the rightwing sites (you know which ones I mean) made our candid observations on the Mormons look like a picnic in the park. Nevertheless they trudged to the polls and voted their postures, just as you say.