Mike Huckabee on NBC's Meet The Press 5/18/08:
"I've always said that's the only thing that matters is authenticity and honesty. If you are a person of faith, let us know that. If you're not, be honest and say, 'That's just not that important to me.' I can still vote for you, if you aren't. What I can't do is vote for you if you're not honest with me."

Reverend Jeremiah Wright on Bill Moyers Journal 4/25/08:
"He's a politician, I'm a pastor. We speak to two different audiences. And he says what he has to say as a politician. I say what I have to say as a pastor. Those are two different worlds. I do what I do. He does what politicians do. So that what happened in Philadelphia where he had to respond to the sound bytes, he responded as a politician."


What's your take? Do you agree that what is most important is that a political candidate for elected office (or a nominee, in the case of an appointed office) be honest about his/her religion? Even if he belongs to a religious faith that polls consistently show would put him at a significant disadvantage in the quest to attain office?

Most people accept that certain kinds of fibs or misrepresentations are forgivable on the campaign trail.
Is dishonesty about one's religious beliefs ever one of those kinds of forgivable misrepresentation? Or is lying about your religious faith always inexcusable, even if it means losing an election or being rejected from nomination and appointment?


(Note that I do not mean in any way to suggest anything about Huckabee's or Obama's personal faith. I am just using quotes from the current Presidential election to help frame the questions of this discussion. Also note that the quote from Rev. Wright, as I read it, was not directly dealing with a question about dishonesty about one's faith.)

To get an idea of just how negatively a candidate's faith could impact the public's willingness to vote for him or her, check out (for example):

NPR 2/8/07 - look at the poll results summaries on left

Gallup polls summaries 1937 - 2007


In Gallup polls, nearly 50% say they would be unwilling to vote for an otherwise excellent candidate who is an atheist.
Even the 5 - 10% who would be unwilling to vote for a Jew, or the 4 - 8% who would be unwilling to vote for a Catholic, could mean all the difference in a tightly-contested election.

I hope to include in this discussion fibs and misrepresentations such as a Christian candidate saying he places his faith in the literal reading of the Bible, when in reality he does not.

I come down on the side of honesty. A candidate shouldn't fundamentally misrepresent him/herself. That said, there are lots of audiences in a nation, each with its own viewpoint, language, and sometimes understandings. So I think it is OK, even good, for a candidate to map his/her underlying truth to different audiences. I don't think that is bad, dishonest. It's not always spin.

I have no problem with what either of those pastors said, and don't see what they said as contradictory. BTW, "politician" isn't always an epithet.

Alright, how would your knowledge of that kind of misrepresentation affect your vote in a tightly-contested election in which the fib was being told by your party's candidate (assuming again that that candidate had a record of excellence in government, reliably supporting positions you favor, while the opponent had consistently taken positions you do not agree with)?

Would this kind of dishonesty lead you to vote for the opponent? To stay at home and not vote at all? To just withhold campaign fund donations? To hold your nose and vote for the candidate anyway?

No, I think it's a balancing act in the interim. So, I'd dock my own party's candidate for dishonesty and de-rate his appeal to me, in spite of his policy positions.

I don't think this is black and white. What I do believe is that everyone does better if the electorate knows what/who they are really electing. The flip side of that is that everyone does better when the electorate is constantly learning and evolving (since then it is more difficult to manipulate them); I believe that being honest is part of what supports learning.

So at any instant, it doesn't tell you what to do, but if we trend toward honesty all the time, then the two principles I called out above tend to become more and more true over time.

Huckabee defending Wright

Hmmm. Maybe I should have masked the identities of the authors of those quotes in the opening post.

I'm really more interested in how people feel about this issue philosophically than how they feel about specific players in the current campaign.

This reminds me of a tangential issue.
GCurry, how do you feel about the argument often used by government officials (notably the US President) that protecting national security interests sometimes justifies lying to the public?

Consider the case of Thomas Jefferson.

The evidence is that Jefferson was not a Christian, to the extent that he did not accept the divinity of Jesus Christ.

Jefferson wrote:
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."

Jefferson even went so far as to literally cut out those parts of the Bible that seemed dubious to him, such as the reports of miracles Jesus performed, to leave only what Jefferson felt was a realistic biography of a very wise, but not divine, mortal man. According to Brooke Adams in Moral Minority, "Indeed, <Jefferson> had done it twice: first in 1804*, creating a document he called "The Philosophy of Jesus," and then again, far more extensively, in 1820.... Needless to say, Jefferson himself was cagey about these activities of his, confiding only in trusted and like-minded friends such as Adams, Priestley, and Rush. It was his lifelong policy, reinforced by bitter experience in the political arena, to keep his unorthodox religious notions to himself." <emphasis mine>

*Note that Jefferson was President from 1801 - 1809

Based on recent polls, if Jefferson were campaigning today and were honest about his religious views, he would have been soundly defeated.

Oops. I quoted Brooke Allen's (not Brooke Adams') book in that previous post.

Well, 3 thoughts:
(1) For the most part, this phrasing is used to obfuscate real motives and programs, in which "national security interests" is a euphemism for wealth-building interests of friends of the regime in power. So that is obviously bad and happens a lot.
(2) Sometimes it is legitimately the case that strategic issues shouldn't be pushed down too far to the people, since they can't do anything about it sometimes, and it panics them. Not such an important case.
(3) In general, I think it is good and useful for citizens to be able discuss, evaluate and help choose from strategic choices. As I wrote in another post, I would have liked us to be able to have said "no" to pre-emptive attacks, or any number of changes that Bush has secretly initiated and which were kept secret from us because of 1. But the grass roots have to discuss and learn before they are really able to evaluate strategic changes.

This is a tough one. I accept the fact that candidates spin, weasel and occasionally knowingly lie. Spin, weasel and lie about what? That that would be the question for me.

If a candidate who was an atheist claimed to be otherwise I would wish that there had been honesty but I would mark it up to being a matter of survival in our religion-obsessed society. If those voters for whom a man or woman's lack of religion and public piety would be a deal breaker are deceived I would say fine. They deserve to be deceived for demanding that a candidate for office in a secular state assure them of his or her religious orthodoxy.

I would be much more concerned about lies like the ones Nixon told and Reagan told. Lies meant to deny and cover up wrongdoing. Or lies like Bush tells to justify war and killing. Even the lie Clinton told about Monica makes me think less of him, and trust him less than I might have if he hadn't done it or I'd never heard about it. I guess I'd call them material lies. Lies that affect the well being of the nation and the people and the trust they have in government.

Going through the motions in a church on Sunday even though you are not really one of the faithful doesn't bother me much. "She was a good Christian woman with a large respect for religion, though she did not, of course, believe any of it was true.” I think that this is kind of how non-believing politicians have to be in this country right now, although I wish it were otherwise and I cheer the bravery of those who refuse to conform.

I would not say that the ends never justify the means. I can come up with scenarios where it would.

But on this issue, honesty seems to be the best approach...both as a means and towards a positive end result.

If we demand that politicians be honest and open about their religious beliefs, then Thomas Jefferson would not be the only casualty.
Abraham Lincoln could not have been elected either.

This webpage takes a a very detailed look at Lincoln's religious beliefs.

Some very interesting excerpts:

The last witness quoted by Colonel Lamon is Mrs. Mary Todd Lincoln, wife of the martyred President. She says of her husband's religious views: "Mr. Lincoln had no hope, and no faith, in the usual acceptation of those words." (Life of Lincoln, p. 459.) She also made the following statement to Mr. Herndon: "Mr. Lincoln's maxim and philosophy were: 'What is to be, will be, and no prayers of ours can arrest the decree.' He never joined any Church. He was a religious man always, I think, but was not a technical Christian." (Herndon, Religion of Lincoln.)

(snip)

"Mr. Lincoln was never a member of any Church, nor did he believe in the divinity of Christ, or the inspiration of the Scriptures in the sense understood by evangelical Christians." (Life of Lincoln, p. 486.)

(snip)

"The community in which he lived was preeminently a community of Freethinkers in matters of religion; and it was no secret, nor has it been a secret since, that Mr. Lincoln agreed with the majority of his associates in denying the authority of divine revelation. It was his honest belief, a belief which it was no reproach to hold in New Salem, Anne Domino, 1834, and one which he never thought of concealing. It was no distinction, either good or bad, no honor, and no shame. But he had made himself thoroughly familiar with the writings of Paine and Volney -- the Ruins by the one, and The Age of Reason by the other. His mind was full of the subject, and he felt an itching to write. He did write, and the result was a little book. It was probably merely an extended essay, but it is ambitiously spoken of as 'a book' by himself and by the persons who were made acquainted with its contents. In this work he intended to demonstrate --

"'First, that the Bible is not God's revelation.

"'Second, that Jesus was not the son of God.'

"No leaf of this volume has survived. Mr. Lincoln carried it in manuscript to the store of Samuel Hill, where it was read and discussed. Hill was himself an unbeliever, but his son considered his book 'infamous.' It is more than probable that Hill, being a warm personal friend of Lincoln, feared that the publication of the essay would some day interfere with the political advancement of his favorite. At all events, he snatched it out of his hand, and threw it into the fire, from which not a shred escaped." (Ibid, pp. 157, 158.)

"As he grew older, he grew more cautious; and as his New Salem associates, and the aggressive Deists with whom he originally united at Springfield, gradually dispersed, or fell away from his side, he appreciated more and more keenly the violence and extent of the religious prejudice which freedom in discussion from his standpoint would be sure to arouse against him. He saw the immense and augmenting power of the Churches, and in times, past had practically felt it. The imputation of Infidelity had seriously injured him in several of his earlier political contests; and, sobered by age and experience, he was resolved that the same imputation should injure him no more. Aspiring to lead religious communities, he foresaw that he must not appear as an enemy within their gates; aspiring to public honors under the auspices of a political party which persistently summoned religious people to assist in the extirpation of that which it denounced as the 'nation's sin,' he foresaw that he could not ask their suffrages whilst aspersing their faith. He perceived no reason for changing his convictions, but he did perceive many good and cogent reasons for not making them public." (Ibid, pp. 497, 498.)

(snip)

The next witness quoted by Colonel Lamon was Colonel James H. Matheny, who was not only a friend of Lincoln, but for a while his political manager. He said:

"I knew Lincoln as early as 1834-7; knew he was an Infidel. He and W. D. Herndon used to talk Infidelity in the Clerk's office in this city, about the years 1837-40. Lincoln attacked the Bible and the New Testament on two grounds: first, from the inherent or apparent contradictions under its lids; second, from the grounds of reason. Sometimes he ridiculed the Bible and the New Testament, sometimes seemed to scoff at it, though I shall not use that word in it's full and literal sense. I never heard that Lincoln changed his views, though his personal and political friend from 1834 to 1860. Sometimes Lincoln bordered on Atheism. He went far that way and shocked me. I was then a young man, and believed what my good mother taught me. Stuart and Lincoln's law office was in what is called Hoffman's Row, on North Fifth Street, near the public square. It was in the same building as the Clerk's office, and on the same floor. Lincoln would come into the Clerk's office, where I and some young men -- Evan Butler, Newton Francis and others -- were writing or staying, and would bring the Bible with him; would read a chapter, argue against it. Lincoln then had a smattering of geology, if I recollect it. Lincoln often, if not wholly, was an Atheist; at least bordered on it. Lincoln was enthusiastic in his Infidelity. As he grew older he grew more discreet, didn't talk much before strangers about his religion; but to friends, close and bosom ones, he was always open and avowed, fair and honest; but to strangers, he held them off from policy. Lincoln used to quote Burns. Burns helped Lincoln to be an Infidel, as I think; at least he found in Burns a like thinker and feeler.

visionari, the thing about Lincoln is really interesting. I knew that the founders were largely skeptics, deists and atheists but I didn't know about Abe. Wonder how many prominent "discreet" questioners and non-believers there are in our past?

In our past?
Heck! What about IN OUR PRESENT? (And I am speaking about the whole of American democracy, not just presidential politics.)

Oh I know there are lots in the present But remember, this was a "Christian Country" founded on Christian principles and populated almost exclusively by good faithful Christians. The more evidence that we have that this has always been a country with lots skeptics and non-believers and that our Christian heritage has been exagertated and distorted by the Fundies the better off we are.

What I find very troubling is that, if I am correct in inferring that most voters feel honesty about one's religious beliefs is the overriding concern, someone like a Mitt Romney or a Harry Reid or a Orrin Hatch, as a Mormon, has close to zero chance of becoming President if he is honest about his faith.

Well, if we're serious about people electing their leaders, then, unfortunately, only leaders who are electable need apply. The real key is in educating the electorate, not hiding aspects of a candidate which make him unelectable. That's my 2 cents, anyhow.

My dear GCurry, your 2¢ are always worth far more than 2¢.

Educating the public is a noble goal. Except that much of Americans' formal education is dependent on policies of elected and appointed officials, locally and nationally. (The evangelical and fundamentalist Christian communities have learned this very well.)
Catch-22.

Wow, that statement, when you let it sink in, really packs a wallop.

I wish we could educate people. Or I wish that people qualified and skilled at educating people could educate people. But when attempts to reason are treated as threats and affronts to God and Biblical truth what can you do?

The Christian right in creating its version of American history and society has done pretty much what the Communist did in Russia and China. And also what Bush has done with the war and international relations. Twist the facts to fit the vision. And if an inconvenient fact is untwistable, either ignore it or come up with an acceptable replacement.

I agree. If political exigencies are such that a candidate who I otherwise agree with on issues of fundamental importance has to lie about his/her faith or lack thereof, I have to overlook that.

By "educate" I don't mean formal education. I really mean learning. One of the most important kinds of learning, IMO, is neighbors talking to each other and really suspending judgment and considering what the other person has to say. I am very encouraged this election cycle because there is a lot of that going on. I think that people doing that can get pretty close to the truth, even if the media is broadcasting propaganda 24/7. It helps to have a great educational system. But even if we all only had high school, we can still inform ourselves from each other, and can still be critical thinkers. We can still be moral individuals, and we can still insist that government operates on our behalf. I think TV insidiously slows learning AND propagandizes, and that's why it's so dangerous. It slows learning in a way by isolating us; each TV viewer has a personal relationship with the TeeVee that can consume a lot of waking hours. And then, to add insult to injury, in propagandizes to us in that mezmerized state. Once people understand that, they are no longer the slave of media. Lot of people nowadays are simply turning it off and taking back their power.

Of course the ends justifies the means. How else do you gauge if an action is worth the effort without comparing it against the end benefit.

I would much rather have a closet atheist kiss the pope's ring and be in office than an open atheist lose his seat. In the former position he can at least block things while in the other he is powerless.