|
few days ago, an ordained minister launched a committee to explore
a presidential campaign. A few weeks before that, his party's leader
in the House implored colleagues to vote against a procedural rule
"in the name of God and common sense."
If the people
in question were Pat Robertson and Dick Armey, commentators would
complain of GOP religious extremists. Alan Dershowitz would urge
rejection of the party leader's position as "a vote against
fundamentalism" (his actual words in attacking Clinton's impeachment).
But since these stories involved Reverend Al Sharpton and Representative
Dick Gephardt, they've eluded the punditocracy's guns of August.
The silence
is typical. Religious influence on the Democratic party ranks among
the least-reported aspects of American politics. That influence
has a long history. The Social Gospel philosophy of the late 19th
and early 20th centuries inspired the settlement-house movement,
which in turn supplied an important model for the New Deal. Since
the 1930s, black churches have been a key power base for the party,
producing political leaders such as Adam Clayton Powell and Andrew
Young.
Apart from
Michael Dukakis, every Democratic presidential nominee of the past
three decades has had visible religious roots. George McGovern and
Walter Mondale were the sons of Methodist ministers, and both bore
the mark of Social Gospel teachings. Jimmy Carter introduced the
term "born again" to the national press corps. Al Gore
told a black Baptist group that life's purpose is "to glorify
God." And of course, Bill Clinton had a thorough command of
Scripture — though he seemed to regard the more salacious passages
as a "how to" manual.
Liberal Democrats
are just as free to consult their faith as conservative Republicans.
A couple of years ago, loggers claimed that that limits on timber
sales resulted from pressure by religiously motivated environmentalists,
and so were an unconstitutional establishment of religion. A federal
judge dismissed their suit, saying that the right to petition is
not "restricted to citizens whose motivation is only secular."
Religious leftists are wrong because they are leftists, not because
they are religious.
Democrats,
however, often regard any religious motivation as illegitimate if
it comes from the other side. During the recent debate on cloning,
Representative Zoe Lofgren of California said: "Our job in
Congress is not to pick the most restrictive religious view of science
and then impose that view upon Federal law. We live in a Democracy,
not a Theocracy." She was echoing another Democrat, Senator
Stephen A. Douglas. Objecting to a petition from a group of ministers,
he said in 1854: "It is an attempt to establish a theocracy
to take charge of our politics and our legislation." The ministers
were opposing the spread of slavery.
And while Democrats object to the injection of religion into politics,
they have frequently used religious language to demonize political
foes.
In 1982, Representative James Weaver of Oregon denounced President
Reagan's policies on arms control, saying: "I see Armageddon
coming. It is as clear as anything. We are going to have Armageddon
at any moment." Actually, we didn't have it until 1998, and
it came as a Bruce Willis movie, not a nuclear war.
In 1984, Democratic
vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro said: "The President
walks around calling himself a good Christian, but I don't for one
minute believe it because [his] policies are so terribly unfair."
When even some liberal commentators said that she'd gone too far,
she responded that she was only talking about Reagan's policies
— as if that absolved her from self-righteousness.
In July of
last year, Reverend Jesse Jackson said of Dick Cheney: "Beneath
the veneer lies an individual of extreme views." He added:
"Jesus warned us to beware wolves in sheep's clothing."
The remark takes on a nastier edge when you consult the New Testament
verse (Matthew 7:15) to which the Reverend alluded: "Beware
of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly
they are ravening wolves."
The prize for
faith-based hatchet work goes to Rep. Pete Stark of California.
This spring, he called the Bush budget "the embodiment of the
anti-Christ," saying that it was "infamy" to use
the Easter season to release a budget "that flies in the face
of all Christ's teachings."
So Mr. Stark
thinks that George W. Bush is the grown-up version of Damien from
The Omen and that Christ had a position on budget subfunction
451. How can reasonable people respond? With forgiveness, prayer,
and the name of a good psychiatrist.
|
