Religion and politics

There are two subjects we’re told to avoid mentioning in public: Religion and politics. In America these days, the two are virtually inseparable. Here in New Zealand, they’re practically enemies.

When Ronald Reagan won his first term as US President, fundamentalist Christians began taking control of the Republican Party. Now, most of the Republican Presidential candidates are conservative or fundamentalist Christians (the two notable exceptions being Mitt Romney, who is Mormon, and Rudy Giuliani).

It’s often been alleged that Republicans are hypocrites on “morality” and “family values” issues and Greg Sargent over at The Horses Mouth has shown one way in which this is demonstrably true: The top four Republican presidential candidates all oppose gay marriage and say they support the “sanctity of marriage”. Yet among them, they have a combined total of four divorces and nine marriages. Do as they say, not as they do, apparently.

And the Democrats? You know, the party that Republicans say is anti-family? The top four Democratic presidential candidates have had four marriages and zero divorces. They all oppose same-sex marriage, but at least they practice what they preach.

Of course, hypocrisy around religion and politics isn’t limited to Republicans, nor to America.

Here in New Zealand we had the spectacle of the then-leader of the National Party, Don Brash, voting in favour of the Civil Union Bill, then suddenly leading the charge against it. What changed? The election approached and National’s poll ratings were sinking. By adopting the wedge politics that George Bush’s campaign used in the 2004 US election, he guaranteed the support of far right groups, including a secretive right wing religious sect that strongly opposes gay rights, and marriage in particular, in addition to promoting other far-right issues.

That secretive fundamentalist sect—whose members are forbidden to vote—went on to spend a couple million dollars, give or take, on a smear campaign directed at the Green Party and the Labour Party. Brash denied ever meeting sect members, then admitted he had met them. He denied knowing anything about the campaign, then had to admit he did.

It was likely this closeness to the sect that cost National the last election, a point not lost on the man who deposed Brash as leader, John Key. Key—who’d been tainted by contact with the group, too—declared that the party would have no dealings with the sect in future elections.

Recently, the deputy leader, Bill English, was revealed to have met sect members. When he was criticised about it, he angrily declared that he didn’t and wouldn’t ask about religious beliefs when meeting constituents. Given how much trouble that sect caused his party in the last election, one would think that an angry retort was probably counter-productive, making him sound both overly sensitive, and possibly like he has something to hide. One can’t help but be suspicious after the sect’s attempted secret interference in the last election.

There have been other times in recent years that fundamentalist Christians have attempted to influence politics or public policy in New Zealand. They’ve failed each time. Speaking of the recent controversy and the attempts at influence by Christian fundamentalists generally, the New Zealand Herald said in an editorial:

No party could ignore public distaste for the secrecy of such involvement and, more importantly, the blurring of the line between church and state. The record of Christian political parties shows that New Zealanders do not like public affairs served as a stir-fry meal of politics and religion. They prefer each part to be clearly distinct on the plate.

That editorial describes the main difference between America and New Zealand when it comes to religion and politics.

In America, right wing religious views are treated as mainstream, despite all evidence to the contrary. It leads American politicians toward hypocrisy as they pursue the votes of the religious fringe. Many of them get away with it and even prosper.

In New Zealand, where religious identity is already weak and getting weaker, politicians who try and pander to the religious right fail miserably, like Don Brash did. Hypocrisy is also punished by New Zealand voters, as well it should be.

In New Zealand, we rarely speak about politics and religion. Perhaps here, we don’t need to.