Wampum

Broaden The Debate

I do not find efforts to explore the ways that a candidate’s religious faith informs (or fails to inform) his or her public policy positions to be inappropriate.

In the run up to the Iraq war, the National Council of Churches prepared and ran an ad that featured a Methodist Bishop. The ad has been described as follows:

In the latest ad, actress Janeane Garofalo says she keeps wondering: Does the United States have the right to invade "a country that's done nothing to us?' "

Bishop Melvin G. Talbert, the chief ecumenical officer of the United Methodist Church, answers: "No nation under God has that right. It violates international law, it violates God's law and the teachings of Jesus Christ. Iraq hasn't wronged us. War will only create more terrorists and a more dangerous world for our children."

The choice of a Methodist Bishop to deliver that message was quite pointed as President Bush is, of course, a Methodist.

I find nothing inappropriate about that ad. I do find it inappropriate that some networks and local stations refused to sell time to show the ad “citing the controversial content.”

Similarly, I find nothing inappropriate about the media or partisans raising the issue of how John Kerry’s Catholicism affects his public policy positions. My concern is that the debate is too narrow, not too broad. In particular, it seems to me that the efforts to explore the subject have too often focused on Democratic politicians, the Catholic faith and the issue of abortion.

Kevin T. Keith at Lean Left links to this Washington Post story in which some question why the debate is solely about abortion:

A question has been gnawing at Frank A. McNeirney since he read that some Roman Catholic bishops want to deny Communion to Catholic politicians, such as Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry, whose public positions are at odds with church doctrine.

Does this only apply to abortion?" asked McNeirney, 67, of Bethesda. "What about the death penalty?"

Expanding the debate to include issues other than abortion seems like a good idea.

Atrios, in a series of posts entitled Gonzo Journalism, suggests the debate be broadened to include Republican Catholic politicians. Atrios suggests some questions for Governor George Pataki and Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, both pro-choice Catholic Republicans:

1) Is it the Governor's position that pro-Choice politicians should not be allowed to take communion?

2) Does the governor himself take communion when he attends church?

3) Does the governor attend church regularly? Did he attend church yesterday? Did he take communion?

Atrios also wants to expand the debate to other issues by asking Catholic Republicans such as Senator Rick Santorum about their position on contraception:

Call the offices of Rick Santorum and ask them what the Senator's position on the birth control pill is. Does he think it should be legal to prescribe it? What about condoms? Vasectomies?

I find those efforts to explore the ways in which the Catholic faith affects politician’s thinking on a variety of public policy issues to be completely appropriate. I do not think that the exploration should be limited to politicians who happen to be Catholic.

President Bush has long used code words to signal to evangelical fundamentalists that he is one of them. I think that it would be useful and informative to ask Mr. Bush directly about his beliefs. For instance, I think that asking “Mr. President, do you believe that the earth is closer to 6,000 years old or billions of years old?” might elicit an interesting answer. Similarly as a belief that Armageddon is nigh could effect one’s thinking about a whole host of public policy issues ranging from environmental policy to 401k’s, asking President Bush directly about his beliefs on the subject is appropriate.

As noted above, Mr. Bush is a Methodist. The Methodist Church, like the Catholic Church, has taken positions on a whole host of issues that are related to public policy. Some of those positions seem to be at odds with the public policy positions taken by the Bush administration. It would be appropriate to ask Mr. Bush if and how he reconciles his public policy positions with his Methodist faith.

For instance, the Methodist Church teaches that:

We claim all economic systems to be under the judgment of God no less than other facets of the created order. Therefore, we recognize the responsibility of governments to develop and implement sound fiscal and monetary policies…

How does Mr. Bush square that teaching with his polices that have produced record deficits?

The Methodist Church:

We support measures that would reduce the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. We further support efforts to revise tax structures and to eliminate governmental support programs that now benefit the wealthy at the expense of other persons.

Did Mr. Bush consider that position when advocating his tax cuts?

The Methodist Church rejects “the permanent replacement of a worker who engages in a lawful strike.” Does President Bush agree?

The Methodist Church believes that:

Every person has the right to a job at a living wage. Where the private sector cannot or does not provide jobs for all who seek and need them, it is the responsibility of government to provide for the creation of such jobs.

Does President Bush’s accept the Church's position on that issue?

It is Republican doctrine that corporations exist solely to promote shareholder value. The Methodist Church disagrees:

Corporations are responsible not only to their stockholders, but also to other stakeholders: their workers, suppliers, vendors, customers, the communities in which they do business, and for the earth, which supports them.

Does President Bush accept or reject Methodist teachings on that subject?

The Bush administration is widely seen as the most secretive at least since Nixon. How does President Bush square that penchant for secrecy with the teachings of the church that “citizens of all countries should have access to all essential information regarding their government and its policies.”

There are many other examples such as school prayer, war, the role of the United Nations and others in which it would be helpful to know how Mr. Bush’s religious beliefs effect his public policy positions.

We should expand, not narrow, the debate over how religious beliefs shape candidate’s public policy positions. The debate should include Republicans as well as Democrats, Protestants (and Jews, and Muslims and others) as well as Catholics and a whole variety of issues instead of a single focus on abortion.

I think that such a debate would be healthy and informative.

Update: A couple of readers noted some usage errors. I fixed them. Thanks guys.

Posted by Dwight Meredith at April 28, 2004 01:58 PM | TrackBack