Perry has a Christian pastors problem

Q. Texas Governor, and possible GOP presidential candidate, Rick Perry has endorsed ‘The Response’ a prayer event scheduled for August 6 in Texas. “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,” Perry wrote on the event’s official Web site. Perry’s critics are concerned about his distinctly Christian approachto public prayer as well as his association, through ‘The Response,’ with several problematic pastors, among them John Hagee, controversial for his comments on Israel, the Roman Catholic Church and Islam, and C. Peter Wagner, who has suggested that the Catholic veneration of saints is an evil practice. Should politicians be judged by the relig ious company they keep?

A. We would be foolish to ignore how a politician’s religious beliefs, and which religious figures they rely on for support, shapes their policy decisions. It is especially dangerous for religious minorities who have been rhetorical and practical targets of politically active conservative Christian leaders to pretend that people like Rick Perry won’t be beholding to them should he run for, and subsequently become, president. Due to the unique “bully pulpit” power possessed by our Commander in Chief even comments made before a politician becomes president can later be interpreted into policy by his administration. There is a strong indication this happened during the presidency of George W. Bush, who famously remarked in 1999 that “I don’t think witchcraft is a religion, and I wish the military would take another look at this and decide against it.” In this case “it” was allowing Pagan soldiers to freely practice their religion at Fort Hood in Texas, but nearly a decade later the Washington Post reported on a case involving grave markers for fallen Pagan soldiers where Barry Lynn of Americans United said that discovery documents showed “references to Bush’s remarks ... in memos and e-mails within the VA.” In Lynn’s opinion “the president’s wishes were interpreted at a pretty high level.” In short, rhetoric, especially when you go on to lead the world’s most powerful nation, does matter, as does the rhetoric of those who have played king-maker during the election.

I’ve grown used to a certain level of anti-Pagan rhetoric from conservative Christians, but the figures rallying around Rick Perry right now are creating a unique confluence of hate that shouldn’t be ignored. It certainly shouldn’t be swept under the rug should Perry, or some other figure they coalesce around, win the Republican Party’s nomination. Just look at who’s advertised as supporting “The Response”: Christian pseudo-historian David Barton, who believes that “paganism and witchcraft were never intended to receive the protections of the Religion Clauses,” Cindy Jacobs, who blamed Shintoism for the earthquake in Japan, and C. Peter Wagner, who is waging a spiritual war with the “The Queen of Heaven,” a demonic figure that manifests as pagan goddesses.

The event itself is being organized by the American Family Association, whose director of issue analysis, Bryan Fischer, claimed, like Barton, that the Establishment Clause only applies to Christians, that Native Americans are mired in alcoholism and poverty because they won’t all become Christians, and that the environmental movement is a stalking horse for Paganism. The more you dig into the official supporter’s list, the more animosity towards non-Christians you can find. You simply can’t shake all these hands, accept all these endorsements, and then pretend their views don’t matter. That they won’t be granted access and influence down the road.

I would be more than happy to leave religion out of politics, but I fear that battle has long been fought and lost. Politicians, particularly Republican candidates, have been subject to increasingly stringent moral litmus tests by a base that is dominated by politically engaged conservative Christians. The kind who see the simple reality of other faiths as an affront to the proper order of the universe. Who cannot acknowledge that other moral perspectives might have value. Whenever debate about politicians, controversial pastors, and endorsements from religious leaders come up, the 1960 race for president, and Jack F. Kennedy’s confrontation of anti-Catholic sentiments, is often invoked. But the plate tectonics of American politics have shifted so much since then that I can’t see even a fraction of “Response” supporters getting behind Kennedy’s defense:

“I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.”

There may have been a sense of decorum among religious leaders regarding political elections at one time, but we live in age where they openly band together to influence elections. In such an environment it would be a dereliction of any citizen to simply pretend the intersections between religion and politics don’t matter in this country. That politicians should not be questioned about the beliefs of those they seek support from. What happens should Rick Perry become president? What utterances will be interpreted as policy directives? Which religious leaders will be given a direct line to the president? Who will have his ear when legislation affecting Pagans and other religious minorities crosses his desk? A responsible press needs to start asking these questions on a regular basis, lest people think this is just another prayer meeting with no consequence on national politics. Candidates need to be asked directly, do you support the stances of religious leaders who endorse you? If not, why do you seek their support? The United States may be in the habit of electing Christian presidents, but they must justly govern over all citizens no matter what their faith. If there’s any indication that hostility towards any faith is “on the ticket” we must question why they are seen as legitimate candidates in a nation “where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its official.”

Jason Pitlz-Waters  | Jul 14, 2011 12:19 PM