Almost all Republican presidential candidates link themselves in one way or
another to religion (Christianity); When asked about his connections to Islam
Obama responded, "I've always been a Christian. The only connection I've had to
Islam is that my grandfather on my father's side came from that country. But
I've never practiced Islam" (MSNBC).
"'I am driven with a mission from God'. God would tell me, 'George go and fight
these terrorists in Afghanistan '. And I did. And then God would tell me
'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq '. And I did," Bush reported as saying
(Guardian).
The US is seen as the model of secular democracy in the world, yet is it really
secular?
Guest Name
David Domke - Expert in religion & politics in the US
Subject
America: Still Secular?
Date
Thursday,Dec 27 ,2007
Time
Answer
.
Name
Sara - Egypt
Profession
Question
Can the American people be religious and democratic at the same time?
Does "democratic" necessarily mean secular?
In the case of the current US system, how can democracy accommodate the
religiousness and conservatism of many Americans?
Answer
Dear Sara,
Yes, religious and democratic can be done at the same time. It often has
in the US , because this is a highly religious nation and has often been a
democratic one. The key is for religious people to approach the public arena as
a pluralistic place -- where lots of voices compete with one another. When this
occurs, religious views reside comfortably alongside other truth claims. Right
now, unfortunately, one religious view dominates the public arena, so other
religious and many non-religious views are marginalized.
I do not think democratic necessarily means either secular or religious.
I do think it requires pluralism, however. As long as everyone respects other
viewpoints, then democracy can comfortably accommodate all kinds of religious
and nonreligious people. The danger is when the state leadership gets
affiliated with primarily one viewpoint, either religious or not. That's when
democracy is shut down.
Thank you for your question.
Name
Arabian Muslim -
Profession
Question
Knowing that Bush is "guided by God", US elections have religion as a main
and effective factor in it, and Israel is a "Jewish" state ... Isn't it fair
enough to grant Iran the freedom to be "Islamic", Hamas to be the "Islamic
government" of Gaza, and Bin Laden to have his "holy" war as that of Bush?
Thank you Prof. Domke
Answer
I think your question raises a good point and highlights the problem with
the US political leadership aligning with a religious viewpoint. When this
occurs, the U.S. loses its moral authority to critique other religious nation
states. So, as long as the US government suggests God is on the US ' side, then
the US has no authority to criticize an "Islamic state," as you say.
However, the Bush administration is NOT the model I think is best for the
US , or any other nationstate. When religion and national leadership become
conjoined, then the nation loses its ability to talk openly and honestly within
its nation, and also with other nations. What is needed is for the US to back
away from its religious politics and embrace a pluralistic worldview -- that
is, one in which all viewpoints get decent hearings. This would include
allowing for Islamic or Jewish or Hindu nationstates, but those would be
expected to allow democratic debate within and across nations.
So, here's my position: a Christian/Islamic/Jewish nationstate has a
HARDER time being democratic because the religious tenor of the nation stifles
free thought and discussion. But that doesn't mean such nations CAN'T be
democratic. They just have to work much harder at it.
Last thing: no one, not Bin Laden, Adolph Hitler, or GW Bush, has a right
to engage in "holy" war just because they put the stamp of God on it. Whatever
one's religious views, a right to wage war is not a freedom.
Name
Sara - Egypt
Profession
Question
What do you think of different forms of religion-based political parties?
What's your take on cases like the "Islamic" AKP in Turkey ? Also the
Muslim Brotherhood group in Egypt (who are proposing to form a political party
but repressed by the Egyptian regime)? Also what do you think of Egypt 's Wasat
party? And Morocco 's Justice and Development party?
Answer
My position on all of these is that they're legitimate -- and that they
have to be willing to participate in a pluralistic society. If they are willing
to do this, and actually follow through on it, then of course they're welcome
in the political arena. EVERY political party has a certain set of values
underlying the party; a religious set of values is every bit as legitimate as
other kinds of values. What makes a party dangerous is not having values, but
how they wield those values. If the Muslim Brotherhood wields those values in a
way that embraces all people, regardless of their religious values, then that's
fine with me. Unfortunately, many religious parties are seeking to exclude and
limit people's freedoms, rather than expand them.
Name
Mustapha -
Profession
Question
In a speech at the University of Arkansas 2005, Professor Jeremy Gunn,
senior fellow for religion and human rights at Emory University Law School ,
described the U.S. principle of separation of Church and State as a "myth." In
this regard, words of "in God we trust" and the pledge of allegiance are
usually cited as the evidence. I would like to ask Dr. Domke whether President
Bush has only brought a long-lived but hidden dimension of U.S. politics into
the open, or whether Bush can actually be called the founder of religiosity in
the U.S. politics.
Thanks
Answer
Dear Mustapha,
Thank you for the question. It's a good one.
Religion and politics have always been connected in the US . GW Bush is
not, absolutely not, the founder of religious politics in the US . In my new
book, The God Strategy: How Religion Became A Political Weapon in America, my
coauthor and I find that God and country became most closely intertwined in the
US beginning in 1980 when Ronald Reagan was elected. That's when politicians
(in recent history) began to so closely connect religion and politics. What
makes the 1980-2007 years different from previous decades is a distinct
willingness by recent presidents to highlight faith in their political goals,
to justify policy positions based on religious views, and to emphasize divisive
policies based on religious lines. The last 4 presidents -- Reagan, G H W Bush,
Bill Clinton, and GW Bush -- have all done this, in varying degrees. The
president just before Reagan was Jimmy Carter. He was a highly religious man,
but he did not use faith as a political weapon like the presidents who came
after him. For Carter, faith was personal and private, not public and
political.
Regarding Jeremy Gunn's claim that the separation of church and state is
a "myth", there are plenty of people who believe that in the US . But it's
simply not true, not at all. The separation of church and state is there from
the founding of the nation, because if you look at the US Constitution, it
doesn't mention God and specifically prohibits a "religious test" for those
seeking political office. The US has always had lots of Christians in it, but
it's not and never has been a "Christian nation."
Name
A.R. - Egypt
Profession
Question
Thank you Dr. David for this opportunity,
Do you think that the alleged of Obama to Islam will stand against him in
the upcoming elections?
Another question if you allow me, How sincere is Bush in his belief in
God's guidence, is he playing politics with that?
Appreciated
Answer
Dear A.R.,
Let me start with the second question, because it's one I get asked a
lot: is GW Bush "genuine" or "authentic" in his religious views? My answer is
that I don't know, and none of us can know. With politicians, everything they
say is like this: we don't know if they really believe it or not. In my new
book, The God Strategy: How Religion Became A Political Weapon in America , we
make the argument that what matters is not whether a president's religious
claims are genuine or not, but whether such claims are used publicly ant
politically to advance an agenda. In this respect, GW Bush absolutely uses
faith as a political weapon. And it's bad for America and for the rest of the
planet. But he's not the first. We find that an important shift began with
Ronald Reagan in 1980; this is when religious politics became a norm in the US
. Ever since, political leaders have often played politics with faith.
Regarding Obama's alleged Muslim beliefs, I do think that this false
claim will hurt him among some voters. But such voters were probably already
inclined not to vote for him anyway, so I don't think it will hurt him badly.
But you know what, the race in both the Democratic and Republican parties is
close, even just a slight effect might be enough to tilt the outcome.
Thanks for your questions.
Name
Yosra -
Profession
Question
Has America ever been secular? I read before that the first Americans were
actually puritans who left "corrupt" England , how far is this true? and if so,
is this is the reason for the effect that religion has on politics there?
Answer
Religion and politics have always been connected in the US , since the
founding of the nation. A "connection" between the two is not a problem; what's
a problem is when the two become aligned so closely that what we have is
"religious politics" -- that is, a national political leadership that speaks of
faith as if it owns it, and justifies policies based on religious terms.
The US was founded by many people seeking the freedom to worship God as
they wished. So, right from the start religious faith was part of the American
story. And it remains a big part to today: about 95% of Americans consistently
say that they believe in God in some capacity. So, if by "secular" you mean
something akin to Europe where religious faith is almost never invoked in the
political arena, then the US has NEVER been like that. But if you mean
"secular" to mean that religious views have generally not been the guiding
force for political policies, then I would say that the US has definitely been
secular for most of its history. And it is mostly secular now -- just not the
Bush administration or a good chunk of the Republican Party.
Name
Abdullah Black -
Profession
Question
Dear Dr. Domke, How far does the threat of the "Islamization of America"
goes in the American people and are US Muslims considered as American as other
evangelicals ?
Whom do you think are the "Moderate Muslims" that the US media is talking
about these days? & thank you
Answer
Dear Abdullah,
Thank you for the questions.
I do think many Americans are, in some unspoken ways, "afraid" of Islam
and what it might do to the US -- either from inside or outside the nation.
Such Americans believe that this is a Christian nation and that God wants us to
be the launching place for the spread of the Christian faith. So, for such
people, the "war on terror" is very much seen as a religious showdown between
Christianity and Islam. I think this viewpoint is wrong and very dangerous.
I think that US Muslims are considered to be American, yes. But I think
you're right in that they're always viewed with a bit of suspicion because
they're part of the outgroup in terms of religious faith. It's unfortunate and
will slowly change, but I think it's the case now and will be until more
Muslims get into positions of leadership in America .
Regarding your last question, I think the US news media are always
looking for people who are "moderate." That is, the news media like to
highlight people who are portrayed as not extreme, but instead can transcend
their views to get along with others. I think most Muslims (and most
Christians) are moderate -- that is, they want to believe their viewpoints but
are quite comfortable interacting with others who think differently. In terms
of who such moderate Muslims are specifically (as in, where do they live and
what do they look like), I think the media are primarily referring to East
Coast and Midwest communities of Muslims that have been in the US for a couple
decades -- since mainly the late 1970s, when the first wave of Middle East
Muslims came to the US. I think these families are largely assimilated into US
culture and represent a "safe" vision of Islam in the eyes of the media.
Name
F.O.M -
Profession
Question
I am interested in the US-Israeli ties .. What makes me somehow confused
is that i know that Jews are not that liked by the Evangelicals and Christians
in general, yet the latter still support the state of Israel (for a religious
belief of some sort) .. Would you kindly explain this strange relationship
(especially that Israel is a familiar religious term for almost every Christian
in the US )?
Answer
Dear F.O.M.,
Thanks for your question.
Actually, Christians in general and evangelicals in particular have moved
from a posture of anti-semitism for most of the nation's history to one of
support and appreciation of each other. Today, the idea of a Judeo-Christian
heritage is very much embraced among many Christians. So, the support for Jews
is tied to a religious connection that has been built and solidified SINCE the
founding of Israel in 1948. I think the presence of this nation has done much
to build Christian support for Jews, because of a belief that a return to the
Holy Land is now a viable possibility.
Many conservative Christians support Israel because of such views. In
fact, a large number of reformed Judaism leaders are frustrated with their
orthodox and conservative brethren, who disagree with evangelicals on many
social issues but are allies in support for Israel -- and the Jewish leaders
often let such support trump everything else.
Name
Muslim -
Profession
Question
Do you think American Muslims are participating enough in the political
and social sphere?
Answer
Probably not. I think it is crucial for American Muslims to gain a more
public persona in the US , in order to build support for the faith and also to
create a more positive image of American Muslims. For example, we had the first
Muslim elected to Congress in 2006, and I think it would be good to have more
-- and I think this will occur. When a Muslim in the US stands up and asserts
their position as an American, it's good for all of us. So, more engagement in
the public arena of Muslims would help to diversify the religious views in the
public sphere. And that would be great.
Name
Mustapha -
Profession
Question
Dr. Domke, you have mentioned that a religious nationstate would find it
harder be a democracy allowing people to express ideas freely. For me it seems
that the modern nationstates, especially those self-proclaimed as democracies,
Have surpassed the issue of free speech only to find themselves bogged down in
a new form counter democratic condition based on religious-majority ruling. In
other words, expressing ideas freely, doesn't matter if doing that does not
change in status quo much. What is you thought on this?
Answer
Dear Mustapha,
If I understand your question correctly, then I think you're right in
that new religious-political alliances are dominating the US political sphere
(and also in Pakistan, India, and even France to some degree). And yes you're
right that everyone has the ability to express opinions freely, but that such
freedom doesn't necessarily translate to much power. But that's always been the
case. What the religious groups have done is draw upon their existing power to
build more power. Other religious groups can do the same, but it will be more
difficult, of course, for those in America which are not Christian or primarily
white, since those are the hegemonic forces in the US .
Name
Fariss - Morocco
Profession
student
Question
how do you think non Muslim people would conceive the massacres of Shiia'
on Sunnis?
Answer
Humans have a psychological predisposition to ignore the deaths and
disasters of people unlike them. That is, Christians tend to care more about
Christians, Muslims care more about Muslims, etc. And in national terms,
Americans care more about Americans, Israelis are more about Israelis, and so
on. This is simply a human reality -- that people care more about people like
them. So, my answer to your question is that non-Muslim people would care, but
would by and large be less concerned than people who more directly identify
with the Sunnis. This isn't because people "hate" people different than them,
just that it's easier to care about people who are like them.
Prof. David Domke is an associate professor in the School of Communications at
the University of Washington . He got his Ph.D in Mass Communication from
University of Minnesota in year 1996. Prof. Domke studies political elites and
news media, individual values and cognition, and social change, with particular
interest in the dynamics of post-9/11 America .
Prof. Domke was awarded numerous awards the most recent are the Washington
state Professor of the Year (2006) and the Award for Outstanding Achievement in
Research, Teaching, and Public Service (2006).
mediacare
http://www.mediacare.biz
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
