Conservatives Against Religion in Politics... When it Embarrasses Them!

A cornerstone of the GOP's electoral success over the past three decades has been the fervent support of the Christian Right — a religious, cultural, social, and political movement dedicated to reasserting traditional Christian privileges, power, and control. Because of this, conservative politicians have not shied away from emphasizing their religious beliefs, their support for traditional religion, and anything else which might prove to voters that they have the right religious qualifications for public office.

Granted, the Constitution forbids religious tests for public office, but that's only in an official sense — unofficial religious tests which exist in the minds of voters are not only permitted, but have been actively encouraged by conservative religious and political leaders. Now, however, some are starting to pull back because there is decreasing support for religious interference in politics; even worse, it's too easy to ridicule some of the religious beliefs of conservatives. That, in turn, allows for conservative politicians themselves to appear completely ridiculous — and perhaps unelectable.

Hugh Hewitt is the latest to take such a position, in this case after Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee was interviewed by Bill O'Reilly:

Bill asked the governor if he really believed in Adam and Eve. The answer doesn't matter to me so much as what the question represents: A huge breach in the previously widely respected understanding that such questions are not asked of presidential candidates and, if asked, politely turned aside as inappropriate in a nation built on the premise that religious tests are unconstitutional in law and that politics is best kept very clear of theological disputes appropriate to church debates and academic settings.

My hope is that all the candidates greet this new enthusiasm in the MSM for theological inquisitions with a common response along the lines of: "I am running for the presidency because I love this country, care about its future and the future of its people. I believe it has been greatly blessed by God. It has been blessed with a great number of people who hold widely divergent views about God's plan for the world and how that plan affects them. I think every person running for president needs to keep in mind that he, or she, will be called upon to be president of all Americans, not just those Americans with whom he or she agrees on matters of theology. I think we all need to follow the examples of our great presidents in avoiding sectarian division and the trap of suggesting that some Americans are more American than others because of their religious beliefs. There's only one size of citizenship, and it applies to all Americans. I don't think discussions of personal theology contribute to the idea of a strong and united America, which is exactly what we need in these times, so with all due respect, ____, I am going to decline to answer that question because I think it falls into the category of questions that tend to divide Americans over issues of faith and religious belief without really advancing any goal of understanding or policy."

Source: Hugh Hewitt (via Carpetbagger, emphasis added)

Hugh Hewitt wasn't to have his cake and eat it too: notice that he objects strongly to questions about specific beliefs like whether Adam and Eve really existed, but in his suggestion for how politicians refuse to answer such questions he recommends that they voluntarily expound on all kinds of specific beliefs like the existence of God, that God has a plan for the world, and so forth. Those specific beliefs which can be phrased vaguely enough to be accepted by most people should be expressed; those specific beliefs which are obviously ridiculous and/or divisive should be hidden — at least until after the election.

Andrew Sullivan points out that Hugh Hewitt is "one of the main architects of turning the GOP into a sectarian, fundamentalist organization, and demanding adherence to a set of religiously-based propositions as a condition of being a GOP nominee. Now, of course, he needs a Mormon to enforce theoconservatism, doctrinal issues are suddenly verboten. Alas, they're not. You fuse politics with religion, you have to live with the consequences."

Sullivan is right and if religion is going to be made a subject of political debate, it should be brought in all the way: there should be no bars to any questions about any religious subject or belief. On the contrary, there should be more questions, more detailed questions, and more pointed questions about the precise nature of politicians' religious beliefs. The only politicians who should allowed to refuse to answer, a per Hugh Hewitt's suggestion, are those who never bring up religion and religious beliefs in the first place.

If a politician never suggests to voters that their religious beliefs are a clue to how they will govern, then they shouldn't have to answer to the voters about what exactly those beliefs are or be expected to justify those beliefs as reasonable and relevant. If a politician does try to win over voters through references to their belief in God and/or claims that their religion will help them be a better leader, then they should be ready to answer questions about the nature of their religious beliefs, the justifications for those beliefs, and why they have those beliefs at all.

And what was Mike Huckabee's answer, which Hugh Hewitt so conveniently didn't care about?

O’REILLY: I understand, I understand this, I am on your side. But I also understand that if you say — indicate that you don’t believe that we are descended from primates, then you are going to have a hard time, because they are going to brand you. They are going to brand you and they already have. And I don’t know how you fight that. But I want to get this clear. Do you believe in Adam and Eve? Do you think Adam and Eve were around?

HUCKABEE: Yes. I think they were a real person, Adam and Eve. I have no reason to doubt that.

O’REILLY: But so you believe that God just said, OK, here is the man, I’m going to take his rib, and there is Eve. And then everybody evolved from there.

HUCKABEE: As I said that night with Wolf Blitzer, I do not know how he did it. Honestly don’t know how long it took. Wasn’t there. I could not give you the details. But I just believe he did it. And so, you know, if it turns out that I am wrong, I have lost nothing. If it turns out I’m right, it is a good thing.

[emphasis added]

So, Mike Huckabee not only firmly believes that Adam and Eve were real people, but he has absolutely no reason whatsoever to doubt it. Just how ignorant of science — all the modern sciences, including geology, biology, and physics — does a person have to be in order to believe such a thing? Almost 100% I think, and such a person really has no business in a leadership position in the government. We can't expect all public servants to be scientific experts, obviously, but we can expect them to possess enough basic knowledge to understand the difference between scientific fact and ancient myth.

I find the subtle employment of Pascal's Wager above to be interesting. Huckabee presumably means to say that he loses nothing by believing in his god, but in context here what he's really saying is that he loses nothing by believing that Adam and Eve were real people and that biological evolution did not occur. In fact, he loses quite a bit: by adhering to such beliefs he loses the ability to think rationally, he loses the ability to make informed decisions on scientific matters, and he loses any claim he might have on being a suitable leader in the modern era.

Moreover, I would argue that people who actually care about truth — who care about believing justified, true ideas rather than unjustified and false ideas — focus more on whether their beliefs have solid foundations than on whether their beliefs bring them any personal benefits. When I'm trying to determine whether or not a claim is true and/or whether or not accepting that claim is justified, I don't stop to consider whether believing it will be beneficial to me; instead, I look solely at the logic behind the arguments and the evidence offered. Frankly, I don't want a politician who keeps wondering "what's in it for me?"