Political Rhetoric and Religion

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands: one nation, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all”. The Pledge of Allegiance was originally penned in 1892 by Francis Bellamy and has since had many revisions. In 1954 the pledge was modified to what it presently says, including the phrase, “under God”. The Pledge of Allegiance is mostly used in public schools and is recited by school children according to a law that says schools must offer the Pledge on a daily basis. In the past when one would think of the Pledge of Allegiance they did not see it as a religious decree, rather it was seen as an obligation we, as citizens, had to our country. In recent years, however, there has been uproar in regards to the “under God” utterance in the Pledge of Allegiance because this phrase offers a religious suggestion to all who utter it. In this paper I will look at rhetoric and religion in the political sphere, and whether or not it should have a place in our governmental policies and practices.

When our founding fathers established the United States of America, they were all rather religious people. Out of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, the document that our nation was built upon, 30 of them were religiously affiliated to the Episcopalian religious sect. The remaining 26 signers of the Declaration of Independence were affiliated with various other religious sects including Catholic, Congressionalist; Unitarian, Quaker, and Presbyterian. Considering the fact that all of the founding fathers clearly were religious people, then it is understandable why God played a role in the phrases and documents upon which our nation was built.

The United States’ national motto is, “In God We Trust”. This motto has been debated many times in recent years because of the religious sanctions it implies in regards to U.S. citizens. What about those citizens who consider themselves to be un-affiliated with any religion, or those who believe in a religion, but do not worship God? To those people, and other outraged citizens, a belief in God should not play a role in our government and should be removed from both the national motto, and the Pledge of Allegiance, and any other document or phrase penned by our government that suggests any religious affiliation.

In a recent debate over religious sanctions in governmental proceedings, The American Center for Law and Justice Website has an article about the religious phrases used in our government motto and the Pledge of Allegiance. The article, titled ACLJ & Members of Congress Defend National Motto & Pledge at Capitol Visitor Center and published under Jay Sekulow’s Trial Notebook, discusses how in the new visitor center at our nations capitol has the national motto, “In God We Trust” and the Pledge of Allegiance which contains the phrase “under God” both engraved in the new center which has posed a threat to the non-religious visitors of the center. The group opposed to the engraved phrases is the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF). This group says that the phrases engraved goes against the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The ACLJ, however, believes that the lawsuit should be dropped stating that their position is clear: “The fact is that Congress acted appropriately and consistent with the Constitution with the inclusion of the national motto and the Pledge of Allegiance in the Capitol Visitor Center. These expressions echo the sentiments found in the Declaration of Independence and recognize the undeniable truth that our freedoms come from God” (ACLJ Website). Clearly there are confrontations over whether or not the government and government buildings have the right to insist on having religions phrases posted as decorations, however, since the national motto and the Pledge of Allegiance are depictions of our nation as a whole, should it be accepted? Some agree that it should.

Although the previous examples of religion in politics are traditional examples that have been in effect for many years and will most likely not change, there are many current examples of rhetoric and religion in politics that mainly come from the staunch Conservative side of the political spectrum. Case in point, according to a Boston Globe article by Brian MacQuarrie titled, Dobson spiritual empire wields political clout, Dobson stated, “Two starkly contrasting worldviews predominate today's moral and cultural debate. One side defends the traditional values that have made this nation great for more than 225 years; the other works to chisel away at that foundation” (MacQuarrie). The sides that Dobson is referring to are the Democratic and Conservative sides in which the Conservatives are the ones that hold the traditional values, and the Democrats are the ones that are working to “chisel away that foundation”. MacQuarrie continues by saying, “Dobson stands in the vanguard of a crusade by evangelical Christians to place their agenda at the forefront of public debate over presidential and congressional elections, judicial appointments, gay marriage, and the ''life issues" of abortion, euthanasia, and embryonic stem-cell research” (MacQuarrie). Many religious conservatives agree with Dobson on the issue of religion being a motivating factor in politics, and these are the voters that are believed to have played such a crucial role in the re-election of President George W. Bush in 2004.

Though religions conservatives may have helped play a role in winning the election for their favored party, it is hard to say that these religions groups still have the same effect on elections as they used to. In the last election a democrat was elected, and although a groups such as Dobson’s’ strongly disapproved, President Obama still won. These days it seems as though the religious extremists are just getting bashed in the news for their outrageous comments and ideas about the government being corrupt. This leads me to believe that religion and politics should not mix because the country is full of so much diversity and there is not way to appease all religions in relation to the government.

The traditional aspects of our government that were based on religion should stay in place because that is what makes us the country we are. Our founding fathers were the ones who established this nation, which was based on the religious views they currently held. With time, however, more religions have emerged in our country, which is what makes us the melting pot that we call the United States. Religious beliefs of a particular politician should not play a role in determining the fate of our nation because this will only end in destruction. This does not mean that all people who have religious beliefs should be thrown out of the government, rather, politicians need to set their religions agendas aside when making decisions that regard the nation as a whole so that they can attempt to accommodate all religions and walks of life in our nation.

References:

"ACLJ & Members of Congress Defend National Motto & Pledge at Capitol Visitor Center." American Center for Law and Justice. 13 Nov. 2009. Web. 18 Nov. 2009.

MacQuarrie, Brian. "Dobson spiritual empire weilds political clout." Boston Globe 09 Oct. 2005. Print.

"Religions Affiliations of the Founding Fathers of the United States of America." Adherents.com. 04 Nov. 2005. Web. 18 Nov. 2009. .

Politics Online

In an age of Twitter, Skype and Facebook, many of the older generations have been forced to conform to what the younger generations already know and understand. Though the Internet did not really take off in the political realm until a few years ago, it has since then skyrocketed in the number of candidates using it to boast their political agenda and themselves. “E-campaigning has been upgraded from novelty to necessity in the blink of an eye. Candidates must now compete in the wilds of the web, a world with its own rules. Politics and governing may never be the same” (Newsweek). Along with being a great asset to politicians since it became popular, the Internet has also contributed to many problems that arise with candidates. In this paper I will discuss how the Internet is a benefit to politicians when they are looking to reach a wider audience, but also how the Internet can be a hindrance when it comes to information politicians do not want the public to know about.
For the most part politicians use the Internet to better their standing with voters. They use the Internet as a political platform to get their views across, and to encourage citizens to take a bigger role in local and national elections. Voters began to use the internet in order to gain further information on the candidates they were interested in. According to an article from Newsweek on September 20, 1999 titled Pressing the Flesh Online, “Half of all adults now have access to the Internet either at home or at work, and more than half of them at one time or another have used the Net to delve into political topics. By the end of last year, more than 36 million Americans were getting news at least once a week from the Internet--more than triple the number of three years earlier” (Newsweek). Voters look to the politician’s personal websites to gain a better understanding of that candidates agenda, and in order to get to know that candidate at a more personal level than in the past.
In the last few Presidential Elections the candidates have used personal websites as a commonplace to keep in contact with their supporters, and to make it seem as though they know each other on a more personal level. For example, on Al Gore’s website there was an area devoted to just kids, and an area where citizens could gain information on voter registration in their specific state by clicking on that state on a map. Many candidates’ websites, in the past, and currently, have had a Spanish speaking version, and also links to outside news sources. According to the same Newsweek article, “The Gore and Forbes sites are perhaps the most elaborately organized; Bush's the most intent on showing off the candidate himself. Campaigns tend to reflect the candidate, says Phil Noble, an online-politics consultant. And so do the sites” (Newsweek). Political campaigns focus the website of the candidate on their personality, and the beliefs they hold. These websites cater to specific audiences, which is a major way they have been gaining support from voters.
Another way in which the Internet is used in politics is in online news sources. People rarely have time these days to watch the news on television, or read it in the newspaper. Therefore, the Internet has become a massive news outlet since every news source in the country has established an online site that gives voters easier access. As opposed to TV or newspaper news, online news sources are immediate, and always available. They are constantly updated with the latest news stories, which is very beneficial to politicians. The Newsweek article previously mentioned states, “Television--broadcast, cable and satellite--remains the overwhelmingly powerful vehicle for mass-market, passive, one-way selling. But the Internet is fast becoming a Virtual New Hampshire: a quirky but pivotal place where campaigns are launched or scuttled, where savvy organizers and voters roam in search of action, answers and influence” (Newsweek).
In contrast to the Internet being a beneficial outlet for politicians, it can also have severe hindrances on campaigns, and damage the image of candidates. As addressed in the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights, Freedom of Speech is a right that all citizens of the United States possess. With this a few problems come about when we are talking about politics on the Internet. Much of the political content on the Internet is created by average citizens who want their voices to be heard. This, however, can backfire on politicians when the information citizens are putting on the Internet is not in their favor. For example, the Newsweek article states, “Last fall Exley bought the domain name gwbush.com for the standard $70. Bush staffers then rejected his offer to sell them the site for $350,000. Now Exley has turned it into a savage parody of the Texas governor, including a fake picture of the candidate snorting coke. I figured Bush would be annoyed, and it would be fun to haggle with his campaign, says Exley” (Newsweek). This type of thing happens all the time, especially as we are coming up with more technological advances. Fake pictures, viral videos, crude comments, these are all aspects of politics online that do little to help the candidates win support. Because the Internet is immediate, there is no way of stopping certain things from being shown to millions of Americans in a matter of minutes.
Along with slanderous websites, there are websites that contain videos such as Youtube, which play host to millions of videos ranging from music, to home videos made in someone’s living room, to clips from TV shows and news broadcasts of politicians making fools of themselves. Once a politician says something insulting, or misuses a word an any way, it is immediately posted on websites such as Youtube, where in a matter of minutes people are watching it and sharing it with their friends and family. Eventually these videos and other embarrassing items caught on camera, can lead to the downfall of some candidates. One main example of these viral videos and slanderous comments made on the Internet were about Sarah Palin, the recent Vice President Elect running with John McCain. Since McCain chose Sarah Palin to be his running mate, there have been numerous accounts of poking fun and spoofs that relate to her politics, her past, and even the way she talks.
Despite the disadvantages that the Internet provides in regards to politicians, many times if something is put on the Internet that is so horrible, charges will be filed, and eventually that image or video will be removed. For example, the Newsweek article discusses how with the “Bush snorting coke” fake picture was so offensive and untrue that Exley was ordered to remove the picture and “cease and desist” using that logo for his website. Although the photo was eventually removed, it was still viewed by hundreds of people, and the effect still remained as a part of the Bush Campaign.
The Internet can have strong advantages and disadvantages for politicians looking to be elected. Internet websites that are used to help candidates with their campaigns end up being very valuable when candidates are looking to gain support from voters. It is really just the websites made by individuals, and comments and media added to these websites that decrease the public’s interest in a certain candidate. The question, however, remains: should there be censorship on the Internet in order to protect politicians, or should they just suck it up and deal with what is said about them?



Works Cited:

Fineman, Howard; Vistica, Gregory; Brant, Martha; Alter, Jonathan. (1999). Pressing the Flesh Online. Newsweek Magazine. September 20, 1999.