This article first appeared in the St. Louis Beacon, Nov. 9, 2011 - The prolonged economic slump largely relegated religion and social issues to the sidelines during this year's midterm elections, but experts on the relationship between religion and politics say that won't be the case for the presidential contest of 2012.
At a discussion sponsored by the John C. Danforth Center on Religion & Politics at Washington University Monday, panelists said they expect questions of faith will draw sharp discussion -- and big money -- as Republicans try to consolidate their gains and President Barack Obama tries to win a second term.
Sometimes the issue will be raised in a subtle way, but other times it will be part of a stark contrast, an "Us vs. Them" type of argument where the right answer is anything but subtle, said Melissa Rogers, director of the Wake Forest University School of Divinity Center for Religion and Public Affairs.
She characterized the message this way, quoting from a political ad:
"We must choose an Us."
Rogers -- along with Shaun Casey, associate professor of Christian ethics at Wesley Theological Seminary in Washington, and Michael Cromartie, vice president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington -- discussed some of the more blatant divisive appeals that candidates have made to voters in recent elections. They also tried to spell out rules to minimize the effectiveness of such efforts to demonize the other side.
And they tried to put the current climate into the context of the past, noting that appealing for support in religious terms is not exactly a novel approach.
"It's hardly a new tactic for a candidate to say you should vote against my opponent because of his or her faith, or lack of it," Rogers said.
Ticking off a number of recent examples, she noted Mike Huckabee's suggestion that something was wrong with Mitt Romney's Mormon faith, or a campaign plea that Keith Ellison of Minnesota should be voted out because he is the only Muslim in Congress -- an approach that Rogers said is both wrong factually and unwise politically.
In Florida, she said, one candidate was branded with the moniker "Taliban Dan," while in Kentucky, Sen.-elect Rand Paul won despite an effort by his Democratic opponent to raise questions about his supposed membership while in college in a secret campus society that mocked Christianity.
Rogers also noted that the state of Oklahoma overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment barring courts from using Sharia. Though the amendment has been temporarily blocked, Rogers said she expected that other states are ready to follow Oklahoma's lead, despite little or no evidence that any court has used Sharia in its deliberations.
The question is not whether Americans want a president or other officeholder to have religious beliefs. Cromartie noted that more than 77 percent of the American public says they want the president to be a person of faith. They just don't always agree on what kind of faith they that to be.
So, he noted, "if you are going to be a candidate for president in 2012, and you are religiously tone deaf, you're not going to get anywhere."
Casey noted several trends that are likely to develop from this year's political races.
- The Tea Party movement helped define the GOP as more concerned about economic issues and less about social issues than in the past, though he does not expect that to continue in the next election cycle.
- The Mormon question that began with Romney in 2008 will resurface if he runs again, with followers of Glenn Beck becoming increasingly aware of his Mormon faith as well.
- Religion can be "weaponized" in campaigns, particularly with the use of big-money campaigns that he expects will "explode" and open the way for stronger appeals to religious bigotry, racism and homophobia that will overwhelm efforts for a higher level of discourse.
Rogers suggested what she called some basic rules to help religion and politics mix in a less volatile, more constructive fashion.
First, she said, candidates can discuss their faith and their convictions in ways consistent with the Constitution's ban on establishing a religion or prohibiting it from being exercised freely, to take full advantage of what she called the nation's dazzling religious diversity."
"Merging church and state is inexcusable," she said, "but merging religion and politics is inevitable."
Second, Rogers said, campaigns should discuss religion only insofar as how it would affect public policy, not personal behavior -- abortion and poverty are OK, but they should stay away from questions like whether the power of prayer could have prevented Hurricane Katrina.
Third, the public should demand that candidates not try to have it both ways, to discuss religion when it is convenient and to dismiss it when it is not. She decried the tendency where campaigns either express strong beliefs in a vague way or vague beliefs in a strong way.
Finally, she hoped that candidates who take a more dispassionate, more reasoned approach will push back more often and harder against those who want to use religion unfairly.
"We should be able to agree that no political party or candidate has a corner on values or religion," Rogers said.
All of the panelists thanked former Sen. John Danforth, who was in the audience, for his sponsorship of the center that bears his name and pointed at him as an example of the best way for religion and politics to mix.
"If you're here and you believe in prayer," said Cromartie, "you should pray that his tribe will increase in Washington, especially now."