1 of 42

Write now Article Tools

Page 3 of 5

by church involvement and a people's definition of their beliefs being declared upon the political issues. As Johann Baptist Metz is quoted as saying in Johnson's article, "It is impossible to privatize the eschatological promises of biblical tradition; liberty, peace, justice, reconciliation. Again and again, they force us to assume our responsibility towards society."

Candidates are known for their ideals, policy stance, and personal faith, as is clearly evident in the religious declarations echoing across the political landscape of the current crop of political hopefuls. Politicians are taking the Oath of Office upon their personal religious icons rather than the traditional methods. Democratic seekers are often found in front of congregations declaring their commonality of faith in seeking the votes for the political office they desire. The political process is such that the people, if they so choose, can vote against a candidate that doesn't reflect their values, ideology, or theology and give it to one that does. It is ridiculous that the governmental bodies that we elect declare that the very bulwark of our faith, the church, cannot speak about political issues that are affected by the understanding of their faith because it would support or oppose candidates seeking public office.

The Republic, designed to be a government of the people, for the people and accountable to the people governed, has become a government body of dictatorships out of synch with the general public. Politicians who are supposed to represent the people shun traditional nods to the faith of the majority by declaring personal preference in taking the oath that is supposed to show their understanding of the representation they've been entrusted with.

As Johnson points out, "There is a healthy pluralism of approaches to involvement in politics in American churches." Some churches go out of their way in the cultural sensitive style they promote to stay out of political discussions while others jump upon an opportunity to mock the Johnson Amendment of 1954 by running the line between personal endorsement and denominational endorsement of a candidate. Typically, the congregations that pay the salaries of the leadership have the leadership they desire and the political opinions of that leadership reflect the political opinion of the congregational majority. If not, the leadership is replaced or the congregation moves elsewhere.

Isn't it governmental endorsement of religion to silence the

• << previous page
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• next page >>

Add your voice

Know something about Role of faith in politics?
We want to hear your view. Write now!