The Role of Religion in the American Political System

American nation is very religious and, consequently, religion has long played at least something of a role in political campaigns. The United States is the first country in the world history to build its society on the basis of the separation between church and state. It is one of America’s unique presents to civilization and the main guarantor of our religious liberty.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is the cornerstone of American freedom. It states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.

However, the role of religion role has been getting larger and larger in the last two decades. Religion has become a direct, self-conscious force in the political life. The consequences of blurring the line between religion and politics have brought new groups into politics, altered party coalitions, and influenced political campaigns and election results. Religious institutions have become more actively engaged in politics. These days, many candidates seem to be running specifically as religious candidates, asking voters to support them for religious reasons.

Although most of Americans welcome religion to the nation’s political life, they feel ambivalent about the extent and contours of that involvement. More people are comfortable with churches discussing social and political matters, yet the majority admitted being uncomfortable with members of the clergy embracing their political views from the pulpit. Such ambivalence over religion and politics also shows itself in divisions over “charitable choice” — an initiative, approved as part of the 1996 welfare reform bill, which allows faith-based organizations to obtain federal funding to administer social services and public health benefits on behalf of the government. It is very disturbing that the divide between politics and religion is diminishing.

The escape from religious persecution was the aim of the first settlers that came to America. They no longer wanted to be forced to live their lives under religious law. Not surprisingly, that position was reflected in our Constitution. The separation of Church and State, as defined in our constitution, holds true when concerning the tax exempt status of the church. It ensures that private citizens cannot impose their private religious beliefs upon others, not even in the role of some government official.

However, when it comes to politics, the boundaries between Church and State become blurrier and blurrier. In all levels of government elections, there are candidates running on the moral principles of their religion.

We don’t need to delve into the history and carry out exhaustive research into the spiritual lives of American presidents to establish that the vast majority of them affirmed regularly, in a variety of ways, their belief in a supreme deity. This deity could be defined as one’s personal God who seeks intimate relationship with humans, revealed in Jesus Christ; the supreme deity of natural theology, creator and sustainer of the world; the old God of the Judeo-Christian tradition; the transcendent deity whose power and timelessness supersede the frailty of human life; the God of self-help, who helps those who help themselves; or a deistic God, the great beholder, who created the universe and left it to run on its own.

American presidents beginning with George Washington have used religious language in their public speeches. Claims of the United States as a heavenly chosen nation and requests for God to bless American decisions and actions have been commonplace. Scholars have called such discourse “civil religion,” in which political leaders stressed religious symbols and transcendent principles to engender a sense of unity and shared national identity.

Belief in God has consistently given American presidents a sense of accountability to divine authority, commitment to seek divine guidance, and the hope of heavenly protection for the life of the nation. There were several reasons why God has mattered to our presidents. They have recognized that a higher court of appeal than opinion polls evaluate their decisions. They have asserted that the advice of advisers, cabinet staff, and joint chiefs, the opinions of spouses, and the dictates of personal conscience don’t add up to enough guidance for the momentous decisions thrust upon them. Finally, in times of crisis, they have admitted that even the very best human efforts and accomplishments are not enough to secure peace and safety for the country.

This is a proven historical fact that strong religious faith has often been an advantage, especially if a candidate was a member of what was regarded as a “mainstream” faith. For those candidates whose religion was not shared by the majority of the population, personal religius belief has been more of a disadvantage than an asset.

Let’s take Roman Catholic candidates for example. By the late 19th century, a large part of the American population were adherents of Catholic religion. However, many Protestants looked at Catholics with a jaundiced eye, making it very difficult for Catholics to win presidential elections. In fact, John F. Kennedy was the only Catholic who has successfully run for the White House, although strange as it may seem, it is George W. Bush who could well be regarded as the nation’s first Catholic president.

While John F. Kennedy tried not to mix his faith with politics, George W. Bush has invited the doctrine of Roman Catholics into his office. Although his political base is solidly evangelical, Bush is surrounded by Roman Catholic politicians and priests who have been shaping his speeches and policies to a degree perhaps unprecedented in American history.

The presidential election of 2004 was the latest campaign in which candidates openly expressed their religious beliefs. Religious institutions became incredibly active in political mobilization. As for voters, they could be classified not just by their policy preferences but also by the depth of their religious faith. Such standard demographic characteristics as gender, age, income and region could not help sociologists predict who will be the President. In fact, a much more powerful predictor of votes for president then was whether a person regularly attends religious services.

As for the 2008 presidential campaign, it seems to be a continuation of the trend of the last 30 years. Candidates in both parties, well aware of the fact that consequences of being an atheist are electorally suicidal for anybody seeking public office, have talked a good bit about their faith. On balance, it appears that such discussions helped most of the candidates. Survey evidence gives us some hints as to why this may be the case. Religion appears to be a very important part of the life of Americans, and they are interested in how religiosity influences candidates. A recent poll by the Forum and the Pew Research Center found that almost seven-in-ten Americans agreed with the statement, “It’s important to me that a president have strong religious beliefs.” Moreover, an interesting relationship between respondents’ perception of candidates’ religiosity and their favorable views of the candidates was found by the same poll. The more a candidate was perceived to be “religious,” the higher the candidate’s favorability.

However, an increasing number of Americans see negative aspects to mixing religion and politics. According to the Time poll of 2004, 49 percent of Americans said that President Bush’s religious faith made him “a strong leader,” while 36 percent thought it made him “too close-minded.” Now those numbers have reversed: 50 percent say Bush’s faith has made him too close-minded, while 34 percent believe it has made him a strong leader. The number of Americans who think that Bush has used religion more to divide the country than to unite it has grown from 27 percent in 2004 to 43 percent now.

Moreover, a growing number of American voters dislike President Bush’s public expressions of faith. The percentage saying the president mentions his faith and prayer too much has risen from 14% in 2003, to 24% in 2004 to 28% currently. Criticism of Bush on this issue is most common among liberals (52%), seculars (47%) and Democrats (45%), although it has increased significantly since 2003 among mainline Protestants (+24%), moderates (+20%) and women (+19%). Slightly more than half (52%) say Bush mentions his religious beliefs an appropriate amount ¬ a 10-point drop from July 2003 ¬ while just one-in-ten believe he discusses faith and prayer too little.