Gadfly is Marty Aussenberg, a columnist for the weekly Memphis Flyer. Marty is a former Securities and Exchange Commission enforcement attorney, currently in private law practice in Memphis, Tennessee. .
Let me begin by saying that I’m neither a Republican nor a Democrat. In fact, I’ve managed to alienate my friends of both persuasions, Republicans by my vocal criticism of the current administration, and Democrats by my active support for Ralph Nader in 2000 (the perennial whipping boy for their candidate’s loss). That said, I don’t hide the fact that I want to see the Republicans in Washington lose the monopoly they’ve enjoyed (and abused) for at least the last six years. It’s time for them to go.
I have my principles, though, and one of them is I cannot vote for, or support, a candidate who wears his/her religion on his/her sleeve, or worse, who panders to religiosity to get elected. And that, unfortunately, is what the Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate in Tennessee is doing.
Continued below:
I know I live in the belt buckle of the bible belt. I’m reminded of that every time I attend a secular event here that begins with a denominational prayer. But I don’t want my elected representatives to have any calling in their official capacity other than representing me (and my fellow constituents) in whatever body we elect them to do so. So, when the Democratic senate candidate talks, as he has, about how he serves a higher master (and looks upward when he says that—in a manner reminiscent of the famous Hebrew National commercial), quotes biblical scripture when he’s on the stump, or makes campaign commercials using his church as the set, that makes me very nervous. He hands out a business card that has his information on one side and the Ten Commandments (the public display of which he favors) on the other, heaven help us. Then, to make matters worse, I see where his father, a former congressman himself, remarked during a recent campaign stop for his son that “Memphis is a “Christian city,” and made great pretense of the fact that Sunday is “our religious holiday.” This myopic view of the world is not surprising, coming from the man who once famously referred to East (i.e., white) Memphians as “devils.”
There is no issue of public policy that can’t be adulterated by the injection of religion. Whether it’s terrorism, abortion, capital punishment, gay rights or the content of what we read or see on TV, once religion rears its ugly head, all rationality goes out the window. It’s impossible to argue the merits of anything with someone who believes what they do because their religion tells them to. If you don’t believe me, just try to have a rational discussion about evolution with a religious zealot. Nothing is truer than that which is true because your belief system tells you it is, and if someone disagrees with you, that same system can make you believe your adversary is destined to eternal damnation for his perfidy.
We recognize the excesses of religion when it suits our purposes. Witness the marginalization of an entire religion by the Bush administration in its calculated use of the term “Islamic fascism”, or the Pope’s invocation of a 14th Byzantine emperor for the proposition that Islam is spread at the point of a sword. And yet, this same administration (much less the Catholic church) would chafe if you were to point out that throughout history, “Christian fascism” has been responsible for the deaths of many more millions than any misguided followers of Islam have been. But I digress.
I’ve watched, with some glee, as the engineer of the debacle in Florida during the 2000 election, Katherine Harris, has imploded during her run for the Senate. Her most recent statement, namely that electing non-Christians will result in legislating sin, and that the separation of church and state is a lie intended to keep religious people out of politics, was scary, even for someone who’s known for her scariness. Well, she does’t need to worry about the Tennessee Senate race; we’ve got at least one die-hard Christian in contention. It’s the other candidate who should be worrisome to the likes of Ms. Harris. He’s been so low key about his religious beliefs—at least by comparison—it’s obvious he’s in favor of legislating sin.
The amazing thing about the use of religion (and a particular one at that) by our Democratic candidate is that you would think, of all people, he would recognize the evils associated with pandering to a majority. Yes, the majority of Tennesseans are probably Christian (which may also be why Tennessee is a “red state”), but there is a significant percentage who are not. And there are many Christians who are just as tired as non-Christians of the misuse of religion in politics, and the holier-than-thou hypocrisy that usually accompanies that misuse. How, I wonder, would our Democratic candidate feel if his opponent announced that Tennessee is a white state (not unlike the way the mayor of New Orleans intoned his “chocolate city” paradigm)?
Now don’t get me wrong: I have nothing against Christians in general, or even against Christians running for or holding public office. Hey, some of my best friends are Christians (no, seriously: my best friend used to be a nun). I just don’t want religion to dictate, or even be involved with, public policy. That whole “faith-based initiative” program is, as far as I’m concerned, an end run around the separation between church and state (a well-established jurisprudential principle, notwithstandinging Ms. Harris’ ignorance about it). It didn’t surprise me to discover, according to the recent book about that program, that it was a way this administration played the religious right for political advantage. Lesson: manipulate not, lest you be manipulated.
Religion, and the religious right’s issues, have been successfully used by Republicans to create so-called “wedge” issues. It’s surprising to see a Democrat take a page from that book. Does he really think he’s going to attract die-hard religious (and also predominantly white) Republican voters by his tactics? Does he not realize that, along with his many “centrist” (and not exactly “Christian”) votes (e.g., bankruptcy “reform,” tax cuts for the wealthy, legalizing torture), he is going to alienate far more of his traditional support than he can possibly attract from religioholics? If I were him, I wouldn’t take much comfort in polls that show him ahead of his Republican opponent. Polls involving black candidates are notoriously inaccurate (just ask Dinkins, Wilder and Bradley), apparently because more respondents say they’re going to vote for those candidates than actually do.
Now, given that the Democrat’s victory in Tennessee is pivotal to changing the balance of power in the Senate, and that I’ve announced my desire to throw the Republican bums out, you may wonder why I would put my principles ahead of my politics, and the answer is very simple: I don’t want to see either party, ever, have a total monopoly on government. The past six years have shown just how bad that can be, and I see no reason to believe the Democrats would be any more benevolent as despots than the Republicans have been. Just as the legislative branch is supposed to be a balance on executive power, I believe the two branches of the legislature must be a balance on each other. So, I will be pleased if the House changes hands, but I won’t be disappointed if the Senate doesn’t, especially if that is the result of voters rejecting religiosity as a qualification for election.
Cross-posted at The Memphis Flyer.
I agree with everything you’ve said here except for your conclusion.
If we have any hope of getting a decent Supreme Court judge (should one come open) we are going to need Pat Leahy, not Arlen Specter, in charge of the judiciary committee.
No judge can get out of Leahy’s committee without the approval of the Democrats on that committee, and Harold Ford will not be anywhere near that committee. At least, I hope not. So, I don’t really care too much that Casey and Ford are not my kind of democrats. If they serve to hand the committees to the Dems for the remainder of Bush’s term, they will have served their purpose.
As for Ford’s strategy, it seems to be working fairly well. Would he be doing even better if he was more moderate and less ostentatiously Christian? I have no idea.
I think he has attempted to neuter any conservative objection as a way to leave only his color as an obstacle to his election (and that is not something people can bitch about publicly).
It looks like it has worked because Corker doesn’t have much material to work with.
Winning isn’t everything, and it is yet to be seen whether Ford will win. I’ve found the race interesting mainly from the point of view of what Ford’s transformation (over the last 18 months) says about what it takes to win down south. He’s more military than Patton, more religious than Jesus. That he thinks this is necessary and that it is working for him says a lot.
That’s why a posted the diary on all the southern seats coming up for re-election in 2008. Are we going to see more and more senators acting like Ford in an effort to pick up more southern seats?
I hope not.
Are we going to see more and more senators acting like Ford in an effort to pick up more southern seats?
If Ford wins I think it is inevitable that we will see more of this.
I tend to agree with gadfly that if there is an issue that violates your core principles, you should not compromise it with a strategic vote. I understand what you are saying about the committee structure and I do hope that the Dems take both houses of Congress, but I think that some people have to hold down the edges of the debate lest the whole thing slide so far to the right that we have no real choices available.
Many Dems have decided that liberal votes are not important, that people who are currently too disgusted to vote are not important. I applaud any voter who educates herself/himself and votes with integrity. If that it integrity leads to the conclustion you lay out or the one that gadfly does so be it.
I, personally, believe that for many politicians religion is a suit of clothes they put on to impress people. Whether or not this is true for Ford I don’t know.
If one is smart, I don’t need to be told that. I’ll be able to see it. If one is generous, I’ll see that. If one is moral, I should be able to see that, even without business cards emblazoned with the Ten Commandments.
well said.
Ford’s religiosity is a reflection of the culture of the state he has to run in. Attempting to remove religiosity from society by not voting for candidates like Ford is like my roommate in college who decided to smash the smoke alarm with a baseball bat because it went off every time he cooked something. (True story! I pointed out that removing the battery has been known to work well, too.)
It might be more effective to look for the real cause of the problem and address it there – in the schools, for instance, and by returning the fairness doctrine to broadcasting. Unfortunately, that’s a job that will take at least a generation. In the meantime, I’ll hold me nose and vote for Ford to keep the Republicans from putting another Scalia-clone on the Supreme Court, or to tie Bush’s hands as far as Iran goes. Besides, I suspect Ford’s at least partially just donning kool-aid colored robes for public display.
What I often wonder is why the fear of terrists makes us act more and more like exactly what we fear? What if someone was saying that Tennessee was a “Jewish” state of a “Muslim” state? What if folks had portions of the Koran printed on their business cards, or wanted public financing to go to Muslim schools? That would NOT be tolerated.
We have a locally elected official running here in the Twin Cities who is a Muslim. He is being pilloried for it – his opponent is trying to tie him to all kinds of groups that he thinks are unsavory – because of his religion!
So its NOT about doing away with the separation of church and state – its all about doing away with the separation of Christianity and state!!
There is no issue of public policy that can’t be adulterated by the injection of religion. Whether it’s terrorism, abortion, capital punishment, gay rights or the content of what we read or see on TV, once religion rears its ugly head, all rationality goes out the window. It’s impossible to argue the merits of anything with someone who believes what they do because their religion tells them to.
This people is why I hesitate to vote of young Bob Casey in PA even though he may be okay on some issues. On the major issue of separating his religion from public policy that he will support and which is forced on everyone, he fails the freedom test! Supporting such Dems that cannot either recognize or abide by the separation of religion and state concept poisons the ability of the party to really achieve major changes and progressive goals, and we should all realize this.
As usual it’s the “go along to get along” types vs the leader types. The former way can make the going pretty easy, at least for a while until it all collapses as it did for Delay, Foley, and hopefully for the likes of Ralph Reed. The latter can be riskier but offer much richer rewards in terms of integrity, strength, and openness to change and growth.
I don’t know which is worse: a true believer in “biblical truth” about evolution, gays, etc., or a pol who cynically panders to such individuals. This culture needs to get over the idea that “faith” is an all purpose excuse and justification for voluntary ignorance, bigotry, and anti-democratic ideology. Jesus told his followers to get in a closet by themselves when they wanted to pray and quit showing off — one of the many lessons studiously ignored by the loudest and most aggressive Christian politicians and other con artists.
There does seem to be, at long, long last, some movement among Christians to reclaim their heritage instead of leaving the field to the Pharisees. I think too many of us who are not sympathetic to the Christian culture find it easier to attack the whole shebang than to work with those who share our ideological/political views. And then struggle to explain the likes of ML King, the Berrigans, or Bill Moyers. Bottom line, it doesn’t matter where our ideas come from — the Bible, Marx, the Koran, Buddha, L Ron Hubbard, whatever. It’s the quality of the ideas that matter. If we just stick to those in our political lives and keep our faith or lack of it to ourselves when in the political arena, we can reach our goals and find the new paths we so desperately need right now.
Very well said.
I don’t object to faith as a source of conviction. I object to faith as a substitute for rationality. And, when faith trumps logic (which it frequently does), intelligent discourse/debate is the victim.
And, as for the comment (by another commenter) that separation of church and state is a stalking horse for separation of Chritianity and state, in this country, sadly, that is the church/religion that many seek to impose on the body politic, so as they sow so also shall they reap. But I would have the same problem if Joe Lieberman wrapped himself in the Jewish flag, or a politician of any other faith did the same.
NPR’s report this Fall on Does Religion Even Matter Anymore in Politics started with the indignant reaction of Sen. “Macaca” to questions about his mother having been born Jewish. The editor-in-chief of the Jewish Daily Forward, which broke the news, said that their readers play the game of Jewish geography (it’s pure Woody Allen. Guess who’s Jewish? Sandy Koufax? No kidding!).
One of the Forward‘s readers, Sonny Goldreich, wrote:
VERY FUNNY!
I empathize with George Allen’s phobia/schizophrenia.
My mother, a Holocaust survivor, for years sent me to school with bag lunches that occasionally contained what she told me were corned beef sandwiches. It wasn’t until one of my observant friends told me my sandwich appeared to be ham that I confronted the reality that my own mother was lying to me.
Eventually, she sheepishly admitted the ruse, but never offered an explanation. I suspect it was because ham was cheaper than corned beef, and even though we didn’t keep kosher in our home, she never wanted to admit her black-letter indiscretion.
For better or worse, to this day, I prefer a ham sandwich to a corned beef sandwich. Mea culpa.
Ah, America! I once had a mother-in-law whose idea of keeping kosher was a separate pan for the bacon.