Apparently, more people than we might think. According to a recent Pew poll, it is important that candidates be perceived as religious, though being seen as too religious might be a handicap. At least, it is of no real advantage. It struck me as odd that so many of the candidates are perceived as being religious. Here's a sampling:Among people who offer an opinion of the religiosity of leading Democrats, more say that John Edwards (28%) and Barack Obama (24%) are very religious than say the same about Hillary Clinton (16%). Yet wide majorities see all three as at least somewhat religious, and those who do view the candidates in overwhelmingly favorable terms.
Similarly, just 14% who offer an opinion see Rudy Giuliani as very religious, but another 63% see him as somewhat religious, and both groups offer comparably favorable assessments of the former New York City mayor. Mitt Romney stands apart from the other candidates tested – nearly half (46%) of those who express an opinion say Romney is very religious; that is roughly the same number saying that George W. Bush is very religious (43%), though many more people express an opinion about Bush's religiosity than Romney's. However, a quarter of Americans – Democrat, independent and Republican alike – say they would be less likely to vote for a presidential candidate who is Mormon. And those who say this have substantially less favorable impressions of Mitt Romney.
Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, 6 in 10 Americans say they would not vote for a candidate if he did not have a belief in god. I don't capitalize "god" there because I'm not certain whether it really matters what kind of god is worshiped as long as there is the belief in a "higher being." I think it only matters in the case of Romney because most people have at least some Christian heritage and have known Mormonism as a cult (which it is) and that "baggage" (especially regarding the word "cult") is carried over from a more Christian-dominated time in our history.
Personally, I don't put a great deal of hope in these numbers or the notion that America is still what is considered a "Christian Nation." All one has to do is look at the lifestyles and stands taken by most of these candidates and one realizes there is probably little substance behind their religious views. I understand that I come very close to sitting in judgment, but in the role of voter in regards to this topic, that's exactly what we have to be. We must determine if their "religion" is real or if it is a political strategy and if that matters when we enter the voting booth.
Let's be honest, we've never been a "Christian Nation" but we have, and apparently still are, a religious nation. It matters to us. The question is, to what extent? We have a desire to have our leaders be religious because we want them to be honest and do the "morally" good thing when it comes to feeding the poor, providing universal health care, fighting crime and the like. We don't want them to be "too religious" so that they start telling us how to live rightly. We are not a Christian nation because Christ wasn't interested in religion--that outward expression of piety backed up by nothing more than a desire to be perceived as such. Jesus was (and is) interested in a relationship with Himself that permeates the total life, making a difference not just in how our leaders campaign and not just in how they govern, but in how they live...everyday and when nobody's looking. That's when religion really matters.Labels: Christianity, David C. Price, politics, religion
David Frum (National Review Online), believes Mitt Romney has made a huge mistake commenting on the content of his faith. He says that by answering the question of "Do you believe in Jesus," he has opened up the door for "What do you believe about Jesus?" along with other questions Romney will have great difficulty answering satisfactorily, especially for orthodox Christians.
