|
|
|
 |
|
NOV. 3, 2004 ELECTIONS
2004 
While many factors figured into President Bush's re-election on Tuesday, it will be hailed as a victory for religious conservatives, especially the president's fellow evangelicals. Bush is the most ardently evangelical president in modern times, and Christian conservatives effectively bet the ranch on his presidency. He spoke their language on the stump and in policy debates, and they backed him strongly at the ballot box. That mix of faith and politics carries risks as well as rewards. Experts say this campaign - where religion was used as a political tool by both sides - will leave a lasting mark on American faith. This edition of ReligionLink looks at how religion-related issues may play out in Bush's second term and the fallout the divisive race may have for the rest of the country. Why it matters
Moral values trumped or at least equaled terrorism, the economy and Iraq as the issue that was the deciding factor for the highest number of voters, according to exit polls. Of the 22 percent of voters polled who named moral values as their top issue, 79 percent said they backed Bush. The other top issues were terrorism (19 percent), economy/jobs (20 percent) and Iraq (15 percent). The task now is to figure out what it means for the country where "moral values" reign. What exactly are those values? What happens when large numbers of Americans hold different and opposing values as one of their top priorities? What are the nation's "traditional" values, and how have those changed over time? What would a moral portrait of America look like, given the close percentages in polls on hot-button issues? Is that tension healthy as a nation of legislators, judges and citizens faces unprecedented value-based decisions in an era of globalization, pluralism and technology? What points of agreement exist among people of different religious practices, different politics, different ethnicities? Should the majority's morals on single issues be imposed on the minority through public policy? The study of ethics has been increasing during the last two decades. It is now woven into academic curricula on business, medicine, science, law, theology and other areas. It has also moved into the workplace, particularly in the wake of scandal. Values and character are being promoted as essential parts of schoolchildren's education. Where are moral values asserting themselves in new ways? How are they affecting the daily decisions made in this country individually, and on behalf of the whole? SOURCES
AND BACKGROUND
See previous ReligionLink tip: Though Bush won the popular vote, this is still a nation that is divided culturally, religiously, economically and ethnically. Many point to structural issues within U.S. institutions, but the campaign itself was deeply polarizing, often encouraging voters to side with "us" or "them." President Bush started his first term saying he is a "uniter" not a "divider," and he has indicated that uniting Americans will be a top goal for his second term. Can America's divisions be healed? Is there a cost if they are not? As many analysts noted on election night, so many of the issues dividing Americans are not ones that people easily change their minds on - homosexuality, abortion, war and morality. These divisions will play out within families, schools, workplaces, cities, states and, ultimately, in public policy and court rulings that affect the nation as a whole. Reconciling can mean restoring harmony, resolving differences or causing to submit or accept something unpleasant, according to the Merriam-Webster online dictionary. Do Americans - and America's elected officials - believe reconciliation is needed? What priority do they put on unity? What would the country gain from it? What do people who have experience resolving deep differences in the arenas of business, politics, race or religion have to say about the challenges and rewards of reconciliation? SOURCES
AND BACKGROUND See
previous ReligionLink tip: Faith
as a campaign tool Of the 15 states with the highest evangelical population, all went for Bush, for a total of 121 electoral votes, according a Nov. 3 story Nov. 3 Beliefnet.com storyby John C. Green and Steven Waldman at Beliefnet.com. Exit polls indicated that people who attend church once a week or more voted overwhelmingly for Bush and people who attended church a few times a year or less mostly backed Kerry. Issues to watch: SOURCES
AND BACKGROUND Evangelicals
and Christian conservatives Bush's victory is seen as a major victory for religious conservatives, especially the largely white suburban evangelical Christians who form the core of his religious base. Today, evangelicals are tied to the Republican Party almost as closely as Jews and African-Americans are to the Democratic Party, experts say. But evangelicals are a much bigger chunk of the electorate-more than a quarter of all voters (26.3 percent), according to the latest Pew Forum survey, released in September 2004. The size and cohesiveness of the Christian conservative bloc make it the pole around which religious politics will revolve for years to come, experts say. Even before Bush won, religious allies such as the Rev. Jerry Falwell were claiming that evangelical Christians effectively controlled the Republican Party after 25 years of growing political activism. See this Sept. 25, 2004, Atlanta Journal-Constitution story, posted by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. But experts also warn that success can bear the seeds of future problems, and such a strong identification with one party and one president could mean trouble for evangelicals should Bush falter politically. Also, with political success come raised expectations that conservative Christians' social agenda will be implemented. If Bush fails to do that, his support may erode. On another front, some believe the ascendancy of religious conservatives in the GOP may alienate the party's socially moderate or libertarian wing. Some polls indicate the public was growing tired of the religious rhetoric in the campaign, and that may figure into the GOP's political calculations on how much to emphasize the role of faith in public policy. Some of Bush's allies are also concerned that his election to a second term could lead to a degree of complacency among conservative believers, which could result in future losses, given the narrowly divided electorate. SOURCES
AND BACKGROUND The defeat of the first Catholic presidential candidate in 44 years does not bode well for the nomination of another Catholic any time soon. Kerry's candidacy was marked as much by criticism from within his own church - from Catholic conservatives and several bishops who even threatened to withhold communion - as it was by attacks from the Bush camp. The campaign showed how deeply divided Catholics are and how alienated lay people are from the bishops. Polls showed that 8 in 10 Catholics rejected the suggestion of some prelates that supporters of abortion rights - such as Kerry - should not take communion, but Catholics voters also did not swing to Kerry's side. No candidate has won the White House since 1960 without winning the Catholic vote. According to exit polls, Kerry won 50 percent of the Catholic vote nationally to Bush's 49 percent, but Kerry lost the election. However, Catholics who attended church weekly sided with Bush 53 percent to 45 percent. By targeting traditional Catholics, Bush garnered the support he needed to win. The fact that an evangelical Christian could draw so much Catholic support, experts say, shows that Catholics are up for grabs, and that having a Catholic candidate is of no benefit politically in drawing voters from the nation's largest single religious bloc. In fact, they say it may even hurt. The upshot of 2004, they say, is that a "Catholic vote" does not exist, except as a swing vote - like most other Americans. Stories to watch
include: SOURCES
AND BACKGROUND The election was seen in large part as a referendum on Bush as commander-in-chief - one he passed, but by a close margin. Few expect the election to quiet debates about the war, including its premise, the adequacy of the armed forces' training and supplies, their extended tours of duty, the continuing casualties and the financial cost. Incumbent presidents have always won during wartime. All five who ran for re-election during major wars won, from James Madison (the War of 1812) to Richard Nixon (Vietnam). The war on terror, which extends beyond individual countries to a shadowy network of terrorists, has presented new challenges and caused division among Americans, particularly on issues of balancing security and civil rights. Will a second Bush term mean smooth sailing for a new version of the Patriot Act? Will those who oppose the war or how it has been conducted increase their activism? SOURCES
AND BACKGROUND Election Day was a triumph for state constitutional amendments that define marriage as between a man and a woman. All 11 passed, joining Missouri, which had voted earlier. Many experts say that the issue will play out in state legislatures and, eventually, the courts. Bush supports a federal constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, but political experts say he has always left room for civil unions. Vice President Dick Cheney has said he supports civil unions and legal benefits for homosexual couples and believes states have the right to determine the nature of those unions. The prospect for civil unions and benefits for same-sex couples may become an even larger political and religious issue, with heavy lobbying on both sides. A majority of voters in the 2004 Pew Forum poll The American Religious Landscape and Politics define marriage as being a union between a man and a woman, but a majority also say "homosexuals should have the same rights as other Americans." In an election-eve interview with Charles Gibson on the ABC Good Morning America program, the president stated: "I don't think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that's what a state chooses to do so." Bush said he opposes the Republican Party platform plank that opposes civil unions. "I view the definition of marriage different from legal arrangements that enable people to have rights. And I strongly believe that marriage ought to be defined as between, a union between a man and a woman. Now, having said that, states ought to be able to have the right to pass laws that enable people to be able to have rights like others." Whether that position will anger Christian conservatives and appease gay rights activists remains to be seen. SOURCES
AND BACKGROUND Abortion opponents see Bush's win as a major victory that could usher in more restrictions on abortion and, possibly, the eventual outlawing of it. Bush's greatest impact would be through his power to appoint Supreme Court justices and bring a conservative majority to the court. Several vacancies are expected on the aging court in the next four years, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist's cancer treatment has inspired speculation about when he will retire. How aggressive his appointees would be in restricting or overturning the Roe v. Wade decision remains unclear, however. During the presidential debates, Bush said he would not make opposition to abortion rights a litmus test for nominees, and many of his previous judicial appointments have said they consider Roe v. Wade "settled law." Experts expect fierce debates over Supreme Court nominees, which they say could overshadow the ethical debate about abortion rights. State legislators may feel empowered to attempt to further restrict abortion rights. SOURCES
AND BACKGROUND Bush's win is pivotal, experts say, because so many of the central issues in the so-called Culture Wars will be decided in the U.S. Supreme Court, rather than in the Oval Office or on Capitol Hill. Some are matters of "civil religion," such as retaining the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance or posting the Ten Commandments or religious holiday displays on government property. Others are matters of individual rights, including those of homosexuals, people seeking abortions and people suspected of helping terrorists. Ultimately they are all constitutional questions that will be answered by the nine Supreme Court justices. Those justices are often deeply divided on such cases, with many cases decided by a 5-4 vote. Several justices are expected to leave the bench in the next few years, including Chief Justice Rehnquist. In addition, lots of federal court appointments are coming up. Bush's election offers him a chance to recast jurisprudence for years to come, on issues from abortion to gay rights to the death penalty. SOURCES
AND BACKGROUND Vouchers, prayer, sex education and accommodation of religious practices are just a few of the volatile religion topics simmering in public schools across the nation. The questions are emotional and complex and affect what children learn and what kind of environment they learn it in. Should taxpayer money support religious schools? How and when can children pray at school? Should they be taught about contraception? Should Muslim students be given special space for prayers? Experts expect educational issues to be one of the top battlegrounds during the next four years. Bush has strongly backed taxpayer vouchers for private and parochial schools and will certainly continue to try to expand those programs, which have the potential to reshape the landscape of public education. The Bush administration and the Republican Party platform also back the reintroduction of what they call voluntary school prayer and "will strongly enforce the Republican legislation that guarantees equal access to school facilities by student religious groups." The Bush administration has also tied government funding of sex education to the teaching of "abstinence only," with much of the money given to religious groups that provide instruction in public schools. Religious groups figure prominently in the school voucher debate. The Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in the country, considered a resolution at its June meeting to call on members to pull their children out of public schools. The Catholic Church, the nation's largest denomination, has its own system of schools, which would benefit from increased use of school vouchers. Because of church-state
considerations, many school issues will likely be decided in the courts, particularly
because lower court rulings have often been in conflict. Reducing poverty has emerged as a big priority for diverse faith groups and coalitions, many of which say the Bush administration's policies tend to favor the rich at the expense of the poor. Bush's victory - and Republicans' success in Congress - means that the GOP will control the pending reauthorization of funding for welfare, which will affect lives for years to come. Poverty is a grassroots issue that plays out at the community level, where most houses of worship engage members in helping the poor. Efforts to expand access to health insurance and raise the minimum wage are closely related. The number of people on welfare has dropped by more than half since the United States instituted reforms in 1996, but the number of people living in poverty has grown for the past three years. One in eight Americans lives in poverty, and one in six children - the highest rate of any wealthy nation. Renewal of the nation's welfare legislation has been pushed to the back burner for almost two years while war and the economy have taken center stage. Many welfare issues are closely tied to religious values. The Bush administration has increased spending on "marriage promotion" in the states and wants to increase work requirements. Debates about poverty also raise fundamental social questions about the balance between personal and social responsibility, polarizing liberal and conservative philosophies. SOURCES
AND BACKGROUND On the face of it, Bush's win is a major boost for his faith-based initiative. Bush founded the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, and he has consistently championed government funding for religious groups that provide social services. In 2003 the administration funneled more than $1 billion to social programs operated by religious groups, a 15 percent increase over the previous year. But critics charge that the funding shift has not lived up to its promises, casting doubt on its future and impact. Bush's victory will mean the government will direct more funding to religious groups, but experts say court challenges would also grow. So might potential minefields, such as government decisions to give or deny funding to ministries controlled by religious groups whose beliefs are not considered orthodox or mainstream. In many ways, the story shifts to the local level, where more states are opening faith-based offices, where more ministries are receiving government money and where more civil liberties groups are challenging how that money is spent. Critics say the important funding battles will be in Congress over government social welfare programs -that's where the big money is, they say. The larger issue is the broader decline in government money available for social programs, a reduction of billions of dollars that dwarfs the amount given to explicitly faith-based programs. SOURCES
AND BACKGROUND See previous ReligionLink
tip: Bush has pledged to continue his compromise policy that allows stem-cell research only on existing lines from embryos - a position he says he arrived at by prayerfully considering moral and religious concerns. A 2004 Pew Forum poll, however, shows that a strong majority of Americans - 51 percent to 32 percent - oppose a government ban on stem-cell research. Some prominent conservative Republicans, such as Sen. Orrin Hatch and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, have broken ranks with Bush on the issue. Could a changing tide of opinion also change Bush's policy? Many experts say Bush's decisions will have little real impact because research is already being advanced in private centers and overseas, and because adult stem cells from other sources are also being developed. In California on Nov. 2, voters approved a $3 billion state bond for stem cell research. SOURCES
AND BACKGROUND Bush is a strong backer of capital punishment, which he championed as governor of Texas, the state with the highest number of executions by far. Experts expect he will continue to appoint judges who share his view. While public support for the death penalty remains strong, there is evidence of shifting opinion. The U.S. Supreme Court banned executions of mentally retarded convicts in 2002, citing a change in public opinion, and it will rule before June on whether the juvenile death penalty should also be outlawed. Several states have declared temporary moratoriums on executions while reviewing convictions, and the spate of exonerations of death row inmates in recent years has apparently spurred juries to avoid death sentences. Read a Sept. 15, 2004, New York Times story (registration required). New York's death penalty law was ruled unconstitutional in June 2004, and numerous groups, including the American Bar Association, have called for a moratorium on the death penalty. Still, more than half of Americans support capital punishment, while a third prefer life in prison without parole, according to recent polls. SOURCES
AND BACKGROUND Bush is widely viewed as a foe of environmentalists, and his re-election augurs four years of conflict over his policies. Bush favors deregulation and a voluntary, market-based approach to the environment. In faith terms, this is not a neutral issue. An increasing number of faiths and denominations are combining efforts to promote good stewardship of the Earth on a range of local, national and global issues. The growth spurt of the religion-and-environment movement could be significantly affected by the election's outcome, experts say. Bush's win could spur religious environmentalists to greater activism. SOURCES
AND BACKGROUND Government
appointees and employees Increasingly, "strong religious beliefs" are an indicator of where people stand on the most divisive issues in America, such as homosexuality and abortion - issues that play out in government policy. People of faith have always worked in government, of course. Yet during the first Bush administration, a number of people made news for statements tied to their religious views. They range from Attorney General John Ashcroft, the son of a Pentecostal minister, to Federal Appeals Court Judge Bill Pryor, a conservative Christian. In addition, some government observers noted that the number of conservative Christian government workers seemed to be increasing - a fact that would not be surprising in a country where 40 percent of Americans identify themselves as evangelical and where the Republican Party is closely identified with religious conservatives. However, the faith makeup of the government workers who help determine and carry out policy will be an issue to watch, particularly if those workers view their faith as a shaping factor in their work. SOURCES
AND BACKGROUND African-Americans
and their churches Two political and religious realities have always guided views about African-American voters: They vote overwhelmingly Democratic, and church and faith are the organizing principles for their politics, just as they are for family and community. This year Bush and the Republicans hoped to make inroads into the African-American community by emphasizing the president's support for the faith-based initiative that was supposed to help black churches especially, his support for vouchers designed to help underprivileged children and his rejection of gay marriage, an issue on which he and African-Americans shared common ground. Also, Bush's consistent use of evangelical Christian language resonated with black churchgoers who are of the same faith tradition. But according to exit polls, 89 percent of African-Americans followed the historic trend and backed the Democratic ticket. Many said in interviews and surveys that they were angry at Bush and frustrated with his policies. Bush's success raises many questions about how African-American churches will figure into the administration's policies, as well as the GOP's future campaigns. SOURCES
AND BACKGROUND What a difference four years makes. In 2000, a coalition of Muslim organizations endorsed a presidential candidate, George W. Bush, for the first time, and Muslims provided a small but important boost that helped in the close contest. Four years later, a coalition offered a qualified endorsement for Kerry, and a majority of Muslims expressed strong disapproval of Bush, particularly for his policies on civil rights and Israel and his tactics in the war on terrorism. Conservative Christian rhetoric about Muslims was also a factor. Some experts say Bush's win could effectively freeze Muslims out of the political dialogue. Muslim leaders report that some Muslims are considering leaving the country because of Bush's win and their concern for their civil rights. Other Muslims say they are committed to pressing Muslims' concerns with the government and increasing their involvement in politics. Important reminder: Only about half of the estimated 3 million Arab-Americans in the United States are Muslim. The Muslim community is ethnically and racially diverse, made up of South Asians, for example, and a growing number of African-Americans. They all have different concerns and agendas. SOURCES
AND BACKGROUND The so-called "God gap" was one of the chief story lines of the 2004 campaign, and a major story line of the campaign's aftermath may be what will happen to the nascent "Religious Left" that began to mobilize to counter the religious conservatives who backed Bush so strongly. Led by liberal-minded believers such as Jim Wallis of Sojourners and John Podesta of the Center for American Progress, the Religious Left now faces the challenge of dealing with a major electoral setback. If the movement does energize voters, experts say it could mark a significant cultural, religious and political shift. People of faith - of many faiths and many denominations - have been organizing on behalf of "progressive" issues, such as peace, poverty, civil rights, economic equality and the environment, in ways that have not been seen since the 1960s. Those efforts were not enough to win an election, but increased activism could affect public policy in the future. SOURCES
AND BACKGROUND The Jewish vote remained solidly Democratic, according to exit polls. Jewish voters chose Kerry 78 percent to 22 percent in 2004. In 2000, when Sen. Joseph Lieberman was the first Jewish candidate on a major party ticket, the Democratic ticket won 81 percent of the vote, with 17 percent siding with Bush. The Sept. 11 attacks and the 2004 campaign was expected to shift some Jewish support toward the Republican Party. The terrorist attacks seemed to identify the United States more closely with Israel, which faces regular bombings from Muslim extremists. And Bush's vocal support for the Likud Israeli leader, Ariel Sharon; the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, Israel's longtime foe in the region; and the president's pledge to defeat Islamic radicals were expected to resonate deeply with Jewish voters in America. Jews, however, decisively backed Kerry. Experts say that may reflect a hardening of attitudes within the Jewish community. They say the reasons Jewish voters have not flocked to the GOP are complex but may boil down to the president's vocal embrace of Christian conservatives who are seen as less-than-friendly to Jewish interests, as well as his more restrictive policies on civil liberties that American Jews have always held sacrosanct. They speculate that Jewish voters may also believe the war on terror will proceed no matter who is in office. The
'nones' - secularists, atheists and humanists Just as religious conservatives were the big winners, those who check "none-of-the-above" as their religious affiliation could be seen as the big losers in light of Bush's victory. Still, they constitute a significant segment - 14 percent of the total population in 2001, according to the American Religious Identification Survey of 2001 conducted by the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. That's up from 8 percent 11 years before. The survey also noted a substantial increase in the number of adults who refused to reply to the question about their religious preference, from about 4 million, or 2 percent, in 1990, to more than 11 million, or more than 5 percent, in 2001. This is a diverse group, with just a small slice professing atheism. Others embrace various forms of spirituality, generic belief or nonbelief. Either way, the campaign's rhetoric was distasteful to them, to put it mildly, and many saw both parties as equal in invoking religious faith. See previous ReligionLink
tips: Resources |
 |
 |
© 2008 Religion Newswriters Foundation | |
