When religion and politics mix

The Gazette Editorial Board

----

Religion and politics have never been separate in our country, Rev. Welton Gaddy told us this week. And they never will be.

No doubt. But what is the proper role of religion in our freewheeling political arena? It's an age-old question that's getting even more attention this fall as the crowded Republican presidential candidate race heads to the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses.

Gaddy, Interfaith Alliance president, spoke at Coe College on Wednesday. The title: “But God said I could be President! Is God confused or are we?” He also talked with our editorial board.

Gaddy noted the long history of tension between politics and religion. For example, Abraham Lincoln drew criticism because he thought some religious leaders overstepped their role in politics.

Religious historian William Wolf paints Lincoln this way: “His criticism of the churches of his day was that they neglected this fundamental love of God and of neighbor by too much introverted attention upon correctness in theological opinion. ...” Lincoln also believed “... churches themselves should not mix in politics. He took a dim view of preachers who used the pulpit for politics and said he preferred ‘those who preached' the gospel.'

“By this, however, he meant that the layman's task was to put this gospel to work not merely in individual piety, although certainly there, but also in responsible political activity.”

A perspective that also should apply today, Gaddy would argue.

Once part of the Southern Baptist Convention executive committee, Gaddy left when fundamentalists took over. He joined moderate Baptists, and is a nationally recognized author and spokesman about the dangers of entangling politics and religion. He sees more candidates of both major parties who are “desacralizing religion” by using it as a campaign strategy. “If their religion is important to candidates, let the voters know” but also explain how their beliefs would or would not affect policy decisions in office. But candidates should not suggest their religion is a “credential that makes them more electable because their faith practice is superior to others.”

Gaddy also worries faith groups that contract with the government risk compromising their beliefs in order to get more public funding, thus diminishing their religion and freedom of religion.

Gaddy's informed perspective should give pause to all of us, religious or not. He cites constitutional reasons to scrutinize those who seek high public office. Does their faith talk prioritize freedom of religion for all? Or is it political manipulation that devalues any or all religions?

n Comments: thegazette.com/

category/opinion/editorial or

editorial@sourcemedia.net