Introduction
The relationship between politics and religion has been painted over the years by political scientists and historians alike. Indeed, the relationship between Christianity and the legal and political institutions stems right to the maiden days of the church (Rosenblum 2004). That being the case, there some Americans are of the opinion that the two ought not to be mixed up, arguing that a line should be drawn between what is political and that which is religious (Wallis 2005).
For as long as the United States of America has been independent, religion has always had a major influence on the voting patterns of political candidates. An emerging trend amongst the main political heavyweights in the United States is that the Republicans, who have adopted the politics of conservatism, have also been shown to be increasingly inclined towards embracing conservative theology, then the democrats (Suarez 2006).
Main body
According to Wallis (2005), the politics of the people of God differs from that of God’s people, but this should not really be the main concern when addressing the issue of faith and power; what should concern us really is how our politics and societies are influenced by our religious faith. Again, Wallis has gone ahead to demonstrate that a majority of the non-church-going voters during the 2004 American presidential elections, overwhelmingly voted for the republican party’s then-presidential candidate; George W. Bush, perhaps due to the party’s stance with regard to matters of sexuality and moral issues.
On the other hand, the Democrats have always viewed religion as a private matter, and Wallis argues that God himself is not private, but rather is personal (Wallis, 2005). It is important to note that everyone in the United States is not religious, but this should not mean that a major leeway should be given to secularism. Although it has always been seen like too much power leads to corruption, when used and harnessed with the interest of the common good at heart, then a lot can be achieved, as was witnessed by the resolve by Nelson Mandela to fight for the freedom of South Africans. Closer home, Martin Luther King Jr. serves as a perfect example, over his fight for the civil rights of the then black minority (Wallis 2005).
Being faithful to both a political party and a religious group may seem like a daunting task, yet, it is still possible for an individual political candidate to draw a line between his/her religious belief, and those articulated by their political parties. In the case of democrats, for example, Wallis (2005) opines that their view on religion as a private matter denies them a chance to see the role of religion in their political lives.
However, this did not prevent Martin Luther king from publicly articulating his faith, against the beliefs of his party. At times, politicians have also left their churches as a result of a clash of their faith with the doctrines of the church. These are the kinds of politicians who do not let their politics be interfered with by their religious beliefs. Some of the historic social progress in the United States have been made possible by religious faith, a history that stems from the slave trade abolition, coming down to women suffrage and now, the issue of civil right (Wallis 2005).
For anyone to draw a line between the church matters and those of the state, it serves no purpose for the religious believers who have an eye on politics from publicly addressing the moral values and other issues that they feel should be articulated. In fact, these are the very issues that give shape to politics, a fact that was rightly recognized by the founding fathers of the United States of America.
If this is the case, it seems right then to argue that a politician can as well separate his/her policy-making decisions from the religious beliefs that they hold dear. This way, the politicians will then have a genuine course to support equal opportunity for all in terms of health care provision, education, and employment. This would then be a reflection that our political leaders are walking their talk, by showing their concern especially for the less fortunate members of the society.
For this reason, we ought to have more politicians campaigning for justice, in terms of dealing with military polities, and addressing foreign issues. Such an action would demonstrate that there is still a consistency between spiritual and democratic values. In addition, political leaders should be morally obligated to address the issue of national security, such as a support for the war against terrorism, as it is not just a threat to the Americans, but could be disastrous to especially the third world countries that may not be in a position to defend themselves against terrorist attacks.
As a result, Americans ought to feel it as their moral duty to defend the rights of others against such heinous acts, as well as be committed to the fight against poverty. In order to embrace such policies and choices, the shape that they will assume will often be dependent on the faith held by the candidates and the citizens alike, and necessarily they do not have to cross the line between religion and politics (Welch 2008).
Perhaps it would be safer to hypothesize that the church and other religious institutions are often depicted by the politically correct as a perfect venue for addressing the enormous problems bedeviling the members of a society (Welch 2007). In as much as there is a desire by voters to have their political leaders like say, the president, to be a person of faith, there is still a large crop of faithful who are often uneasy with matters of politics and politicians. Even then, a majority of the voters who are more likely to root for a political leader are in more cases likely to be women.
Young people and especially the male folk have also lately tended to demonstrate a desire to have their political leaders demonstrate their religious beliefs. As can be seen, there is quite a marked distinction with regard to the view of religious groups on the extent to which their political leaders are religiously affiliated, a perfect indication of the extent to which Americans have divergent views on the influence of politics on religion (Wallis 2005). In addition, further divisions come into foe when the issue of whether or not politicians should be allowed to bring political discussions in religious forums.
Even then, the politicians of today more than in any other past generation, are receiving a massive endorsement from renowned religious leaders, in a quest to further their political ambitions. However, the senior members of the society are usually very reserved when it comes to the issue of inter-marrying politics and religion. Even then, the question as to whether or not the faith of elected officials should be a private matter continues to be a burning issue. More than anything else, the issue of according the electorate justice in the face of a multitude of religious beliefs, has added more fuel to this debate, more than anything else.
According to Wallis (2005), leaders affiliated with the Republican Party are more likely to address religious issues and values in public, with a possible assertion that their faith will indeed have an effect on their policies. Perhaps this is the same reason that saw President Bush initiated the community and faith-based office. The noble idea towards such an initiative was to enable the federal government to make their contributions to religious organizations, a symbolism that proved to be far too strong in politics and religion. On the other hand, the democratic candidates were shown to have been ‘too private’ in matters of faith, arguing that faith and religion ought not to be tied together (Wallis 2005).
For a democratic country that is in the same league with the United States, it has always been the feeling of some political leaders that the conviction with which they hold their religious beliefs should not stand in their way for drawing a line in the execution of policy decisions with an inclination to politics. According to Wallis (2005), the issue of poverty is depicted as a religious issue, and when leaders fail to address it, the failure becomes a religious one, as is the act of going to war based on false claims, as well as the failure by the Bush administration to offer support to the illegal immigrants and their families.
Nevertheless, Wallis (2005) has demonstrated that it is still possible to shape and give forms to some of these contentious policies, without trespassing of the boundaries that give distinction to the church and state. To the extent that a political candidate is religious, their staunch belief in their moral conviction and the religious right will more often determine their height of involvement in matters of faith (Welch 2007). For example, some churches, based on their cultural beliefs require that their members frown on such contentious issues as abortion, same-sex marriages, and divorce.
According to Wallis (2005), it is quite possible to fight such vices as terrorism on a religious platform. At the same time, the author has opined that the faith and convictions of individual political candidates can still be expressed, and still be in a position to respect the political pluralism in the united states, as a democratic nation. For the staunch faith believers, who plunge into politics, their party policy positions have at times been watered down by their faith, thus invoking a religious-political tussle (Wallis 2005).
In their wisdom, the founding fathers of America deemed it fit to separate the state from the church. Nevertheless, it should be appreciated here that religion has continued playing a significant role in the politics of Americans, and the individual presidential candidates starting from George Washington, up to the current reign of George W. Bush, have seen to this (Wallis 2005). This is a demonstration of the focus that the political parties have put in terms of religious matters. Another earlier demonstration was the clarion call by Lincoln for forgiveness over the civil war. in addition, King, when he had been imprisoned at a jail in Birmingham, wrote a letter to the nation, calling on them to embrace their political and religious ideals.
Conclusion
There are times when political candidates have found themselves torn between their personal religious beliefs and the political stance that their political parties have assumed, with regard to the making of policy decisions (Rosenblum 2004). At the same time, the question of focus on faith by political candidates has not been received well by all Christians, with some seeing politicians as opportunists, who are out to forward their political course under the guise of faith. Still, religion and politics are inseparable, and it would deem appropriate then if their individual associates would learn to tolerate and integrate with one another.
Works cited
Rosenblum, Nancy. “Religious Parties, Religious Political Identity, and the Cold Shoulder of Liberal Democratic Thought”. A journal of ethical theory and moral practice. 6.1(2004):23- 53. Web.
Suarez, Ray. The politics of faith in America. New York: HarperCollins publishers, 2006. Web.
Wallis, Jim. God’s politics: why the right gets it wrong and the left doesn’t get it. New York: HyperCollins, 2005.
Welch, Reed. “When should a political Candidate’s Religion Become a Campaign Issue?” American communication journal. 9.3 (2007). Web.