|
Other Columns by Paul M. Weyrich
Paul M. Weyrich Bio
Printer-Friendly Version
America And Her Secular Blues
By Paul M. Weyrich
March 25, 2004
Every year I get asked to participate in various panel discussions. I must decline most of the invitations for one reason or another however, I am glad I accepted the invitation of the Interfaith Alliance for a panel on religion and politics at the National Press Club. I was the token conservative of the group that included Rev. Dr. James A. Forbes Jr. senior minister of the Riverside Church in New York, syndicated columnist Clarence Page, Diana Eck, professor of comparative religion and Indian studies at Harvard University and pollster John Zogby.
Forbes is the most articulate and reasonable sounding religious liberal I have encountered in many years. His attack on the current occupant of the White House was subtle but devastating. It is a good thing for the President that he doesn't have Rev. Forbes for an opponent. Professor Eck is Director of the Pluralism Project and, with due respect, sounded like a Harvard Professor. Clarence Page, whose column I always read because he is not predictable, was reasonable and fair as usual. But the man who stole the show was John Zogby. He made the case with living detail that we have two different nations, not just in terms of politics, but in terms of religion as well. The differences between the red states (those which voted for George Bush) and the blue states (which voted for Al Gore) are profound.
Zogby's survey research should be taken seriously. He was the only pollster who picked up the shift toward Gore in the waning hours of the 2000 elections. In 1996 he was closer in his prediction of the outcome than any national pollster has ever been.
The Zogby research indicates that the intensity of religious belief is far greater in the red states than the blue. Also, those whose votes in the upcoming elections will be influenced by their religious beliefs are far greater in the red states than the blue states.
Zogby says, despite a growing Moslem population in America, there is no Moslem vote. Moslems do not vote as a religious block but rather are influenced by economic, social and defense issues the way most other voters are motivated. Zogby also insists, and his data supports it, that there is no such thing as the Catholic vote. Yet how much ink and footage is devoted to "the Catholic vote" each election year.
There is an evangelical vote, however, according to Zogby. Although by no means monolithic, it does tend to be more politically cohesive and is the driving force behind most of the red states.
Zogby says we used to have a consensus in America, but that is now no longer the case. In fact, Zogby thinks the divide is so profound that he sees no possibility of reconciliation. Taking Zogby at his word, the question is what does this mean for a President who needs to govern the whole nation. If a President is elected by an overwhelming vote of the red states, and thus owes his election to the more religious voters in the nation, how does he govern the increasingly secular blue states? If Zogby is correct, then as a President and perhaps a Congress pursues an agenda reflecting religious values, will they precipitate ever deeper divisions in the country by doing so? Drawing this out to its logical conclusion, could we have in decades to come a civil war - this time based almost exclusively on religion?
Americans have always treasured religious freedom. We have more religions functioning in this country than in any other country in the world. We have proved that despite our religious differences we can get along, primarily because our secularism was always in the forefront. But if those for whom secularism is their religion decide that religion itself is a threat, we could be in for very rough times.
All survey research is subject to interpretation and perhaps conclusions different than those served up by Zogby are possible. And circumstances could change us. Zogby said that right after 9/11 the whole nation became very spiritually focused. But it didn't last very long. Many years ago my high school journalism instructor had us all write a story about a time when life from another planet would land on earth. The remarkable thing about all of us who wrote those stories was that we universally depicted adversarial nations coming together to face a new reality.
If we are, as some suggest, in the end times then perhaps it won't just be America that experiences a religious/secular division. We may find that all over the world. Interestingly, in Russia that division is complicating its recovery. President Putin says if Russia is to regain her status as a great nation, she must revive the Christian faith. But there is a substantial part of the population who have no religious beliefs and have absolutely no interest in being converted. They are resisting the re-introduction of a religious curriculum in the public schools, among other things.
That period right after 9/11 when the churches were packed and when all of us, regardless of our politics, celebrated that we were One Nation Under God had, despite our terrible tragedy, much to commend it. Must we have another terrible tragedy to bring us together again?
--------------
Paul M. Weyrich is Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress Foundation
--------------------
Note -- The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of GOPUSA.
| 
