Do Christian Candidates Face Prejudice, and Is It a Matter of Culture Wars?

Whether or not self-described Christians face prejudice in US elections may well depend on two things: 1) Which of the Christian religions they follow, and 2) How much emphasis they place on their Christianity when they are defining themselves to the public. It isn't just too much talk about one's Christianity that makes many Americans uncomfortable. It's too much talk about, and emphasis on, any religion. The reason for any prejudice they face, however, may have nothing to do with any "culture wars".

With regard to the matter of more prejudice toward some Christian religions than others, many people are comfortable enough with a politician who is a member of his local Congregational, Methodist, Episcopalian, or Catholic church. In the US these are usually viewed as "mainstream" religions. In general, many of us tend to view members of these religions as people who "believe what they believe", attend church services regularly, (ideally) practice what is preached, and otherwise aren't much different than most other people.

I think many Americans have similar reservations about what can be perceived as "too much fervor" for any religion (Christian or otherwise) or even for absence of religion. When it comes to people who run for public office, many Americans are just uncomfortable with what they perceive as "extreme".

Many people are very respectful of others' religious beliefs in day-to-day life. Americans tend to be a very tolerant lot. Also, to the best of my understanding, a large percentage of the population believes in God; and many of those who do not still express having sprituality. From what I've heard, Americans often favor politicians who have a religion (to the point where I suspect many politicians exaggerate the degree to which they're truly involved in the religion they call their own). Even though - time and time again - being affiliated with a church (or even being a priest or minister of that church) does not necessarily mean a person is of particularly superior moral character, many people generally associate belonging to a church as having some minimal level of morality.

In general, mainstream religions can be very similar in many ways. Protestants don't think much of the statues and crucifixes in Catholic churches, and Catholic folks think Protestant folks should be going to confession every two weeks; but, when all is said and done, everyone believes many of the same things. For the most part, anyone of a Christian faith who attends Sunday service or Mass, at an old church with a steeple, is likely to be viewed as attending a mainstream religion. There are, of course, exceptions, but this "rule" applies often enough.

Then there are the Christian religions that are viewed by many people as "extreme". These non-mainstream religions can range from Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints sect that was in the news not long ago to religions that prohibit birthday parties for four-year-old children. Some non-mainstream Christian religions (or other religions) discourage people from remaining close to family members who don't belong to the religion. Members of some of these religions live in compounds. Others live in "regular" homes, but have made religion so much a part of their thinking they can't seem to be able to discuss their favorite color or favorite kind of lettuce without bringing Jesus Christ into the conversation. I once babysit for a family of three little girls, and the rule was, "No reading anything but Bible stories. No television. No dancing or singing."
I was thirteen years old, but I respected the right of this family to have their own religion. Similar respect was not given to me, however, because I was essentially told that I'd be going to hell because I attended Catholic church with my father. My parents told me to stop babysitting for that family, because they were angry that their thirteen-year-old daughter was being told such things.

What makes mainstream Christians and non-Christians uncomfortable about some non-mainstream, Christian (or other) religions is the fact that people of such rigid, fundamentalist, and/or extreme religions often do not have a respect for others who don't belong to their religion.
People of religions that are considered "extreme" who quote the Bible or Jesus Christ several times in even the briefest conversation make it clear to others how much their religion plays a role in their life; but the problem is, when someone runs for office, a lot of Americans are uncomfortable with an elected official for whom religion is so much a part of every little action someone takes, every few words he speaks, and every little decision he makes. The person who belongs to what is perceived as an "extreme" Christian religion (or other religion) is so "wrapped up" in his religion it would seem he would be incapable of separating himself from that degree of being "wrapped up" in his religion in order to make objective decisions in elected office.

There are, of course, people of such religions who will say they could easily function properly in office and "leave the religion out of it"; but if they can do in order to function in public office then they're either going to be in conflict with their own religion if they do, or else they are not as committed to their religion as they claim to be. An awful lot of people may like the person who belongs to an "extreme" Christian religion (or a non-mainstream one). A lot of people would like the non-mainstream Christian as a friend, neighbor, or co-worker. The "nervousness" shows up, however, when the matter of electing someone to public office arises. The conflict (for some Christians) can occur because their religion may tell them to be very public in talking about their beliefs and about Jesus Christ, while many (perhaps most) voters are uncomfortable with too much "religious talk" from people running for office.

People do wonder whether it's possible for someone, for whom religion plays such a major role in everything they do, to put that aside while making decisions in office. Also of concern can be the question of whether someone who, for example, believes in "The Rapture" can truly ignore their belief that an awful lot of citizens are apparently headed for hell, and then make appropriate decisions in governing. Again, many people reason that such a candidate either cannot separate his religion from his work; or else is not as religious as he claims to be.

Then, too, there is the matter that many people are almost afraid to mention - the fact that a lot of people simply do not believe that Jesus Christ was more than a man (a very good man, a very intelligent man, a very holy man, and a man who wanted to bring a level of morality to the world in a time when it was very much needed - but a man, nonetheless). There are people who would go so far as to believe that Jesus Christ was, in fact, the son of God; but such people may add that they also believe every human being is a child of God. Also, whether anyone likes it or not, there are agnostics and athiests (many of very high moral character, even though they believe no God is watching and judging them). Of course, too, there are people of non-Christian religions. People from any of these groups, in addition to many people of mainstream Christian religions, are often not comfortable voting for a candidate who seems "a little too wrapped up" in his religion.

To be blunt and not very diplomatic about it, I think a lot of people would sum up their feelings about candidates this way: "If you go to church I see that as "normal". If you mention Jesus once in a while, I'm ok with that because I can respect your religion. If you make too big a deal out of your religion, and if you mention Jesus way too much for most people, I'm not going to be comfortable voting for you."

Americans take separation of church and State very seriously. A candidate who cannot separate himself from his religion cannot separate church from State. Many Americans believe that women are equal to men. Many religions do not. There are religions that teach that beating children is not only acceptable, but desirable. Most Americans see beating children as a crime.
There are religions that teach that couples should have as many babies as "God gives them". Many Americans believe that God would understand if a couple who wouldn't be able to be good parents, or wouldn't be able to provide well for a child, prevented pregnancy. There are religions that tell people they must think and act that way a religious leader says Jesus would want them to. A lot of Americans think and act in a way that would be considered very "Christian", even though nobody ever told them to. A lot of Americans believe that their church should be a place to worship the God in whom they already have faith - not an institution that tells them if their children read, "The Little Engine That Could", someone is headed for hell.

When it comes to candidates running for office, apparently Americans seem to favor those who belong to a religion and prefer those who say they believe in God. The nation is full of people who attend mainstream church services/Masses regularly, people who have strong faith but don't attend church, and people who don't believe in God but respect those who do. I don't believe most of these people (from any of the groups mentioned) have prejudice toward candidates to happen to attend a Christian church. I think, instead, the candidates who are more likely to face prejudice are those who belong to a church that is perceived as extreme (less politely, "too weird") or too "all-consuming".

Perhaps what some Christian candidates face isn't so much "prejudice" as it is "concern" or even "fear" that any individual seemingly so removed from mainstream America could not/would not be able to represent the people without introducing religion into the equation. In fact, I tend to believe that most Americans are so respectful and tolerant of all religions (and no religion) that their concerns about a candidate who seems "extreme" aren't so much prejudice against a Christian candidate but, instead, concern for the rights of all Americans.

Finally, another concern people may have about candidates who exhibit signs of being "extreme" Christians is this: Many people would have concerns about any candidate who appears to be too much of a follower and not enough of a leader. If they perceive a candidate's involvement in his religion as "mainstream", rather than "extreme", they won't necessarily view that candidate as someone who is "too much of a follower". Many people, however, believe that a person who is happy to belong to an "extreme" church has a "follower's personality", rather than a "leader's personality". The belief that a leader would not be able to so faithfully remain part of a church by virtue of his inability to accept everything his religion teaches is a common one. A lot of people are comfortable enough with a religion that allows for a little flexibility and autonomy, but not with very strict, fundamentalist, religions that leave no room for minor differences in beliefs, practices, or lifestyles.

As far as culture wars go, readers may or may not be surprised to learn that I am generally on the side of Conservatives, share many of the concerns about morality that "The Religious Right" has, and am generally very concerned about the direction the nation appears to be going. I'm not a member of "The Religious Right" by any means (and there are issues on which I disagree), but I'm not at war with them either. Most people would count me among "mainstream Americans" (whether Liberal or Conservative). From here in "Mainstream America", I do think "extreme" Christian candidates do face some prejudice, but I don't think it has anything to do with culture wars. I think, instead, it has everything to do with Mainstream America's commonly shared preference (and commitment to the Constitution's guarantee) that religion be kept out of government. That simple idea does not constitute a war on religion, God, Jesus, morality, or anyone of any faith. In fact, and to the contrary, it may show that many Americans are committed to the idea of preferring to vote for candidates who seem most likely to be fair about the differing beliefs among all Americans.

View my other Xombytes at: http://xomba.com/user/lisa_hw