Religion in politics is relevant

A Wall Street Journal opinion piece (November 4, 2011, page A17; online version) argued that the differing religious beliefs of Republican candidate Herman Cain and President Obama affected their campaigns and different ways of dealing with the U.S. economy. I recently argued here (and elsewhere) that religion affects all kinds of perceptions, right or wrong. Perception is reality, and perceived reality guides politics. Of course, if perception is wrong*, politics is on balance less effective and efficient than when perception isn't clouded.

* Wrong and other 'absolute' terms mean mostly wrong, not necessarily completely wrong. In politics, there is no true consensus about what most anything means.

 The A-10C

So, who do you want calling the shots in Washington: The theology exemplified by the Antioch Baptist Church North in Atlanta (Cain), the theology exemplified by the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago (Obama) or whatever makes pragmatic sense in view of the problem at hand (me)? Mr. Cain's conservative theology holds that the scripture is perfect (inerrant) and that historic Christian creeds, e.g., 1 Corinthians 15, are literally true. Mr. Obama's theology does not so hold and the opinion piece points out how their different religious beliefs could easily affect their political beliefs. Religion is usually (but not always) just fine for personal spiritual needs. But it isn't usually fine for political policy. The "theology" of pragmatism and unspun reality is best for politics. Personal salvation needs are different from public policy and the public interest.

Force an answer

Of course, President Obama would, if forced to answer the question of whether his religion affects his economic policies, would demur and say that he defends the constitution. He's  a Democrat. If asked, Mr. Cain probably would not demur like that. He would assert that religion is front and center (just like it was for President Bush). He's a Republican for whom religion is key. When under stress, he sometimes sings solo gospel songs in public, e.g., at the national press club.

 A drone

Who wrote it?

The WSJ opinion was written by Bishop Harry Jackson of Hope Christian Church in Beltsville Maryland. A reasonable guess is that Bishop Jackson isn't an evil agnostic or something worse from the religious point of view. If what he said about politics isn't true, then why did he say what he said? Why did he say that religion can explain where Obama and Cain can come from in terms of economic policy? He said it because it is true.

That looks ominous

In view of the WSJ opinion piece, at least some folks can see the power of religious belief in politics. Is it important and relevant, or not? Your choice.