When Markos invited me to join the guest post team, I made a conscious decision to bring up religion. I'm not here to be a Christian apologist, but religion is my profession, it's what I've chosen to pay attention to. The other reason is that it is news. The intersection of religion and public affairs can work out well: Catholic Charities and Lutheran Social Services are among the largest social service agencies in the world, they do things and go places no one else will ever go. In the Islamic world, the Red Crescent Society is the help of last resort in countries which, for the most part, provide next to no social safety net.
Americans, whether they claim a faith tradition or not, are frighteningly illiterate about religion. This has public policy implications as our society becomes ever more diverse, ethnically, linguistically and religiously.
This is the headline today at alt.muslim.com. The iftar is the meal (frequently quite elaborate and communal) with which Muslims break their fast each evening during the month of Ramadan.
White House Iftar Splits US Muslim Leadership
A few years ago, in the days before September 11th, the Clinton White House started an annual tradition of hosting a Ramadan iftar, inviting heads of various Muslim organizations who would gladly pose for photo opportunities and share a few words about community concerns. The iftar took on new meaning immediately after 9/11, when Bush used it to reassure Muslims that he valued the American Muslim community and would not let the war on terror adversely affect them. Now, after a few wars, Patriot Acts, a Daniel Pipes, and a General Boykin, the iftar held last Tuesday became a political battleground - at least for those who were there.
Even before the iftar, there was debate among many Muslim groups as to whether they should attend if invited, with some saying that it was necessary to maintain good relations through disagreement and others decrying a "photo op" that didn't address Muslim concerns. 92 Muslims attended the dinner, including the Republican-supported Islamic Institute, the American Task Force on Palestine, and (surprisingly) the American Muslim Council, which is rapidly disintegrating in the wake of the arrest of former director Abdurrahman Alamoudi.
"Let President Bush eat by himself at his Ramadan dinner," said Najee Ali of Project Islamic Hope, one of the groups that spearheaded an iftar boycott which resulted in a rival iftar held in the park across the street for those who chose not to go - although most were not invited in the first place. "We are not taking shots at those who intend to go," said Mahdi Bray of the Muslim American Society. "But we don't want to give the president a photo op to the Muslim world saying all is right with Muslims in America. All is not right. Our community is not on sale for dinners or anything else."
While it is simplistic to reduce the world to "the enemy of my enemy is my friend," it's worth noting that it isn't just the secular, Jewish and Christian progressives who won't be voting for W next year. The "uniter not a divider" has become the most polarizing president in modern times.
Washington write Amy Sullivan, who holds degrees in both divinity and Sociology write frequently from the intersection of religion and politcs for The Washington Monthly and blogs politics at Political Aims. This is from her June, 2003 TWM article about what Democratic candidates need to do to appeal to religious voters:
Do the Democrats Have a Prayer?
For Bush and his political guru Karl Rove understand something very important about the religious vote. The President has solidified his standing among highly committed evangelicals, who, though originally wary of his conservative credentials, have been rewarded with the appointment of such religious conservatives as John Ashcroft to top administration jobs as well as through grants distributed under the faith-based initiative. But Bush has maxed out his support with conservative evangelicals; 84 percent voted for him in the 2000 election. To win reelection, he will need to hold onto the votes of another group which supported him in 2000: religious moderates--one of the least-appreciated swing constituencies in the country, and one whose allegiance is more up for grabs than most people realize. They include Muslims, most Catholics, and a growing number of suburban evangelicals, all of whom are devout, but many of whom are uncomfortable with Bush's ties to the religious right, whose agenda--from banning abortion to converting Muslims--is deeply disconcerting to them. Many of these "swing faithful" have also begun to wonder if Bush's rhetoric of compassion and justice will be matched by policy substance.
They could be courted by the right kind of Democrat--one who, like Bush, can speak the language of faith sincerely. Yet those who hope to challenge Bush in 2004 have uttered scarcely a word about religion--or how faith informs their stances on issues such as health care and the environment--during any campaign event so far, including the first primary debate last month in South Carolina. In part, this is because Democratic voters are so multicultural that candidates fear they may alienate some part of their base, especially religious minorities, if they invoke faith in any way whatsoever. Moreover, organized religious groups aren't very active in Democratic primaries. Candidates feel little pressure to speak to the concerns of faith communities, while they do feel compelled to address the issues of secular groups, like the ACLU.
But it is telling that Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, the only Democratic nominees to have won the White House since 1964, both went out of their way to discuss issues of faith and to speak before congregations early during their respective campaigns
. Whereas Republicans seem almost obligated to campaign with Jesus as their running mate during the primary season, Democratic candidates today feel they must keep a lid on religious talk in order to win.
Well, Holy Joe is the exception, of course, but he's managed to talk his faith in a way that even annoys me, and I'm predisposed to be a little more forgiving than many. The point Amy makes about Carter and Clinton is telling. We are going to need everything we can find, every possible edge and advantage against the money machine Bush is going to create. This is one edge that is being utterly ignored.
Read the whole thing and take a look at Amy's blog. She's a fluid, natural writer and takes on thorny subjects with directness and nuance. She has become one of my most important resources.
