Why do all of God's messages magically align with Bachmann's already existent views and policies? Why is it that the messages that God is telling her and nobody else coincides with her whole political campaign? Is it coincidence God agrees with her views so perfectly, or is this just yet another propaganda ploy? If continuing to follow this line of questioning, the question - Is America a christian nation? - comes into play. Bachmann is constantly bringing religion into state affairs while our government is suppose to be composed of a distinction between state and religion. Now, I'm not going to go into the past arguments on this topic, but simply point out that this topic is still very fresh and present in modern-day America.
Bachmann isn't the only politician who uses God and religion to help propel a career and climb to the top. Along with Bachmann, Glenn Beck, the former Fox News personality connected God and the natual disasters during his radio program last week. He said the natural disasters were intended for the American people and that they served as a preparation for future disaster. Beck stated, "this hurricane is a blessing. It is a blessing. It is God reminding you — as was the earthquake last week — it’s God reminding you you’re not in control."
Unfortunate for many conservatives, most of the people who tend to mix religion and politics are Republicans such as Bachmann and Beck; which, in the eyes of many, makes Republicans seem less equipped to protect the citizens and their equal rights. However, for religious citizens, the incorporation of God into politics brings a sense of hope and commonality. The ability to share the same faith as the President and other leaders can be awfully comforting, especially in a time of fear (Which for most of America is all the time because we live in a society of fear. Even John Adams said that "Fear is the foundation of most governments." Politicians kindle and inspire fear just so they can put out the flames to help "add" to their credibility but that's a rant for another time for I digress). I can see the appeals of using religion and the appeals of not, but I would prefer to be ignorant of politicians' personal beliefs. I imagine it being ideal being solely influenced by a politicians philosophies and policies, and not letting personal beliefs come into play.
The article cleverly brings up that "both Bachmann and Beck appear to be tapping into a deep but often unspoken fear in many Americans that the country is crumbling from within, financially and morally, and increasingly vulnerable to outside aggressors or to internal disorder." Striking fear and linking to religion for hope and having people rely on their form of Government appeals to a broad audience which I briefly touched on previously. Politicians are brilliant when it comes to propaganda and it's rather obnoxious for most people just eat it up like candy. Anyhow, Bachmann and Beck both exemplified the cross between religion and state and helped prove that we couldn't escape the question of the christian nation. Despite us not identifying with a single religion, it appears that religion, if not always, will play a part in society. It seems inevitable. Is America a christian nation? To be honest, I don't know, but there doesn't seem to be and exact distinction of influences. Nonetheless, religion is still used in politics for better or for worse. Also, with the extinction of religion nearing as the atheism rate rises, what kind of effect would be made on politics?
3 comments:
I agree with the majority of Sammy’s points. A similar situation occurred about a month ago, when Texas Republican Governor Rick Perry, who has considered a bid for the 2012 Presidential Election, hosted a rally in Houston. This rally targeted primarily Christians, and while it did not exclude non-Christians, Perry explicitly stated that the topics of the rally would bring in strictly Christian themes, even though it was a rally to discuss current political and social situations. Perry stated that "[r]ight now, America is in crisis… besieged by financial debt, terrorism, and a multitude of natural disasters. As a nation, we must come together and call upon Jesus to guide us through unprecedented struggles, and thank Him for the blessings of freedom we so richly enjoy.” (http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/151502/texas_governor_rick_perry's_bizarre,_fringe_mass_prayer_rally_--_ what_ happened_to_no_gov_meddling_in_religion/). Sammy is right, what happened to the distinction between church and state? But what bothers me most is not necessarily the evangelical aspect of the event, but the organizers’ attitude towards non-Christians. One of the organizers, Allan E. Parker Jr., gave this statement on his website: “It would be idolatry of the worst sort for Christians to gather and invite false e gods like Allah and Buddha and their false prophets to be with us at that time. … [T]his is time of prayer to the One True God through His son, Jesus Christ, who is The Way, The Truth, and The Life.” This is the part that bothers me. It is one thing to believe in the tenants of one’s own particular religion, since this is protected under the First Amendment of the US Constitution. But when major political figures disparage those who believe in other religions, and use this mockery to gain support politically, I believe this is a breech in the separation of church and state. This disdain for those of other religions can only have an adverse effect on unity across America.
As far as Bachmann and Beck's associations of recent natural disasters to acts of God, I believe that this has angered and will continue to anger many religious people who fell victim to these terrible tragedies. This attempt to justify these catastrophes in the name of God is vile, and blaming God for a horrible tragedy just so that she can prove a point, is reproachable, not solely from a religious standpoint. Whether the correlations were drawn simply to bring religion into the forefront of American politics, or because that is what these politicians truly believe, I think that trying to draw a parallel between the two is too much.
You are also correct that the issue of separation of church and state is a very relevant issue today, more so than many actually realize. In the same article I posted above, the writer comments on the use of “In God We Trust” on American paper money, as well as the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, to prove the point that whether people see it or not, religion is very prevalent in society. Like you discussed, religion is often called upon, as a refuge from the turbulence of everyday life, to try and get voters to align with certain politicians. But in the years to come, we as a country must decide to what extent we will allow religion to come into play as we make political decisions. People can choose to as you said “eat up” the uses of religion, or they can call for an end to the use of religion as a basis for political objectives.
While the specific examples we brought up had to do with individuals affiliated with the Republican Party, I am sure this problem is not strictly limited to those who identify with this party. In addition, we must remember that not everyone who calls him or herself a Republican will inevitably feel this way.
I think there should be an unspun sequel for the upcoming election because this has spin written all over it. Now, I completely respect Mrs. Bachmann's religious faith but saying that God is causing disasters to open "faithless" politician's eyes is complete malarkey. Every time i look at this post, it reminds me of the unspun chapter about UFO cults.
It's fair to say--regardless of one's personal beliefs--that we cannot blame any spiritual being for natural disasters. According to Bachmann's spokeswoman Alice Stewart, the congresswoman's comments were intended as a joke. (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700174630/Michele-Bachmann-God-warns-with-disasters.html)
I shall refrain from discussing her open jest of a disaster that has already resulted in fatalities and billions of dollars of flood and storm damage (oops, just discussed it). However, Bachmann seems to be obsessed with plugging her personal beliefs into her political beliefs.
Incidentally, Bachmann did not receive many chances to preach during tonight's GOP debate. Bachmann answered just about as many questions as Gingrich, evidence of her fading campaign. And even when she did answer, Bachmann reverted to "Republican safety mode," attacking Obama and his administration instead of debating with her Republican rivals (the point of the debate). If she's fallen to attracting support by appealing to a common dissatisfaction instead of propounding original ideas, I think it's safe to say that we'll see less and less of Bachmann and her apparently god-given political talent as the campaign drags on.
Post a Comment