wendysdsu-blog

[wendysdsu-blog]

In class we discussed at great length the influence of Evangelical Christians on American politics. It has been long standing common knowledge that Evangelical Christians are a reliably Republican voting bloc dating all the way back to the rise of the Moral Majority in the 1970’s. The article linked above discusses Presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg’s appeal to the religious portion of the American public and the implications that could come about because of this.

Pete Buttigieg has made waves not only in the democratic primary but among conservative voters as well by elevating the issue of marriage as a “moral” one. Although that talking point is not new it has raised eyebrows because it is coming from a gay, liberal, democratic candidate who is walking into territory that is usually considered Republican owned. In a challenge to traditional interpretations of marriage, Mayor Pete says that his relationship to his husband has made him “more compassionate, more understanding, more self-aware and more decent.” Adding that it has also “moved him closer to God.” In doing this, Buttigieg has been able to reframe it not as an issue between the right and the left, but rather, a discussion meant to be had within the religious community.

This issue is particularly interesting to me because I myself and both liberal and a devout Christian. It is an interesting intersectionality, and one that is not often navigated/discussed publicly in either party. I think that the argument that Buttigieg is making will only resonate with those who are Christian first, and Republican second. What I mean by this is that there are some individuals who in 2016 voted for Trump, but throughout the tenure of his Presidency had flinched every time he does something scandalous, immoral, or plainly unchristian. If Pete reaches out to this subset of voters with an effective message of moral justice, he may be able to act as a bridge between the gap of religious Americans on opposing ends of the political spectrum.

[wendysdsu-blog]

In The Latino Immigration debate and in lecture we looked at the ways in which immigration is discussed in our nation, particularly when it comes to immigration from Latin American countries. One of Huertas arguments is that much of the anti immigrant sentiment is perpetuated through the media. The video linked above serves as evidence of this point and I will analyze it through the lens of Huerta’s argument about the media and immigration.

In the Fox news video segment, Tucker carlson goes on an almost 8 minute rant on why he believes “our immigration system is a joke”. Most of what he says lacks substance and intellectual complexity; the one thing his rant successfully accomplishes is appealing to the nativist, anti immigrant sentiment that already exists in our country. Tucker begins by discussing the immigrants coming to our border seeking asylum from violence and persecution in the Northern Triangle region, ie. Central America. However, rather than provide the context or details as to why these individuals choose to make the difficult journey he merely argues that “thousands are at the border every day, and millions more are on the way.” Once again, it is important to highlight the fact that Tucker does not provide evidence for the numbers he cites. In fact when you look at the actual numbers provided by CBP, you will find that Tuckers numerical figures are not only vague but they’re largely inflated overall.

Later in the video when Tucker Carlson is discussing the immigrants already within the country he comments that “Not all immigrants are the same: some start wildly successful companies, many others go on food stamps.” This comment is problematic because it sets up a false binary in which immigrants are either wildly successful or so poor that they require government assistance. Not only that, but within this Binary Tucker alludes to the idea that the coin is likely to fall on the latter side by saying “many others go on food stamps.” This further cements Huerta’s argument that the media perpetuates fear and loathing of the brown other (p.43). When talking heads like Tucker Carlson spew their anti immigrant talking points, they are doing a disservice to their audience by further widening the already existing disconnect between Americans and their immigrant neighbor.

[wendysdsu-blog]

The Vox article linked above touches on one important aspect of representation in Congress: that is, the religious (or lack thereof) makeup of members of Congress. Not surprisingly,  Congress has had a longstanding majority of Christian congresspeople as elected officials.  The largest percentage of Christian representatives were Protestant, followed by Catholics.

In class, we talked about the various religious dimensions that exist within the United States some of which allowed me to further understand why the makeup of Congress is as lacking of diversity as it is today. The Puritan dimension views the United States as a Christian nation and they view compromise as a bad thing because to them morality is a fight between good and evil in which there is no middle ground. This Puritan worldview is present within the Republican party as the Evangelical dimension. The Evangelical voting bloc has come into play most recently in the 2016 Presidential election where an overwhelming majority of white evangelicals voted for Donald Trump. This group is a reliable right wing demographic because they are easily fired up by their opposition to social issues such as LGBT rights, abortion, etc.

On the other end of the political spectrum we find a much different approach to religion. The Democratic party is more aligned with the Pluralist worldview that we discussed in lecture. Pluralists understand that all people within a society have contradicting positions and ways of looking at life. Because of this, Pluralists understand that you must accept the cultural diversity that is instead of trying to avoid compromise and through this you create a cohesive society. As evidence of this, the current 116th Congress is the most diverse group yet both in race, gender, and religion. As the article notes “ a full 63 members, almost all Democrats, adhere to a faith other than Christianity or don’t adhere to any faith at all.” This shift in demographics is long overdue, and points to the fact that the legislative chamber is merely playing catch up to the already existing diversity among the American people.

[wendysdsu-blog]

In class we discussed the historical struggles that the LDS Church faced during its early days and the successes it has had in political influence during recent years. As written in “Religion and Politics in America” textbook, the church of Latter Day Saints has millions of faithful members both within the United States and abroad. Additionally, the religion has enjoyed a stable yet significant growth in membership. The article linked above delves into a strong reasoning behind why this is.

To be able to understand the success of the Mormon church at a time where church attendance and religiosity overall is on the decline in America, we must look at the culture that drives the LDS members. The textbook describes Mormons as being “typically middle class, well educated, overwhelmingly white, and commonly established in stable marriages with children. (p.70)” In other words, the LDS way of life is very much a traditional, conservative lifestyle. Thus, it makes sense that Mormon households are typically supportive of Right wing/ Republican politics.

The Vox article highlights the importance of a traditional family structure within the LDS church. This mentality is not a recent development, family has been ingrained as a priority fairly early on for Mormons. For example, beginning in 1915 the Church introduced “family home evening” as a weekly activity whereby familial bonds could be cemented as a necessity in the home. Also, the article mentions that 82 percent of Mormons report having a spouse of the same faith. Furthermore, Mormon families on average have larger families even when compared to traditional Christian households; this means that a strong bond coupled with a household where both parents hold Mormon beliefs and do so strongly unsurprisingly results in religious stability in membership and participation. Overall, strong families are a good thing for religious institutions because they act a support that keeps membership stable and active in the Church.

[wendysdsu-blog]

United States Senator and Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has been on the receiving end of a targeted attack coming from the Pro Israeli lobbying group AIPAC. The group has singled out Sanders by starting a petition to “remind Sen. Sanders that America stands with Israel.” This is a way of attempting to place a spotlight on Senator Sanders mostly because he has been one of the more outspoken critics of not only the influence of AIPAC on American foreign policy, but also critical of many actions of the Israeli government in handling the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Specifically, Sanders has criticized Israeli expansion into and subsequent settlement of the West Bank, a move that he characterized as violating international law. Furthermore, Senator Sanders has made it clear that he is not a fan of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. This also likely factors into the criticism that AIPAC has launched towards Sanders because AIPAC is largely seen as Netanyahu’s support base here in the United States.

Within this conversation it is important to note that Bernie Sanders is one of only seven Jewish acting Senators. Sanders has spoken about his experiences as a Jewish man whose father’s family was largely wiped out by Hitler during the Holocaust. This worldview has allowed Sanders to see the extent to which extremist policies can affect communities and the world at large, which is a theme in his criticism of the treatment of Palestinians by the Israeli government.

The voting patterns of the Jewish community as discussed in class can be applied to the specific case of Bernie Sanders and the Policies which he has advocated for not only in the case of the Israeli Palestinian conflict but among his domestic policies as well. One of the overarching themes of Jewish voting patterns is the focus on a Secular Vision of the world, which can be thought of as focusing on the things of this world and not on a spiritual world/afterlife. This lines up with Sander’s criticism of Israel and offers a stark contrast to the Right’s adamant pro-Israel foreign policy which is driven in large part by the Evangelical voting bloc within the party. Finally, Sanders also lines up with the Jewish Community’s Progressively Liberal Values. He has been a longstanding leader of the left by championing policies that seek out Economic justice (like his fight for a 15 dollar minimum wage) as well as his unbeatable track record on Civil Rights which dates back all the way his activism as a young college student.

[wendysdsu-blog]

The New York Times article, “Why Trump won’t stop talking about Ilhan Omar” focuses on a recent incident involving attacks coming from President Trump that are directed at Representative Ilhan Omar. This article serves as evidence of the broader challenges that Muslim individuals can often face within American politics.

Most of the controversy is surrounding the response to Representative Omar’s comments about the infamous 9/11 attacks. When speaking to the Council on American Islamic Relations, Omar said, “CAIR was founded after 9/11 because they recognized that some people did something and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties.” Her overarching point about how the 9/11 attacks affected Muslim American’s life within the country moving forward was lost and the narrative was then flipped by the right wing to be about them attacking Omar for supposedly “minimizing” the events of September 11. President Trump then joined in on the right wing bashing by posting an edited video that demonizes Representative Omar by making it seem like her comments were an attempt to minimize the tragedy. Additionally, the President then retweeted an account that called Omar a “sick monster.”

Although some in the mainstream and even some on the left have tried to make the case that these attacks are largely due to the current administration and the climate it has created, the material in class has given me a broader context through which I can make sense of these attacks. As mentioned in both lecture material and the textbook, these attacks against the Muslim community are not something new and especially not within the Republican party. Up until recently, Muslim Americans have not been elected into Congress in significant numbers. In a way, these attacks were somewhat expected because of the novelty of Having Ilhan Omar in Congress. One factor which drives Muslims in America towards the Democratic Party in such high numbers is that the Republican Party can be extremely hostile and insensitive in the ways which they address issues of civil liberties in the Muslim community.   

Although it is clear that this administration has exacerbated the relationship between the Muslim community and the Republican party, it is not completely out of line with what the party already stood for- both in policy and in the minds of party members.

[wendysdsu-blog]

This article analyzes Elizabeth Warren’s answer to the “faith question” that many presidential candidates face at her most recent town hall. When answering the question “What role does faith play in your life?”  Warren was able to answer the question in a way that can appeal to audiences of different religious backgrounds, while still avoiding coming across as pandering.

In order to answer the question, Warren references the bible and more specifically, Matthew 26 and the lesson that she drew out of that. This is notable in relation to class for a few reasons. First, the fact that the question addressed faith in general terms but warren took that to mean her christian identity, which is understandable but worth noting nonetheless. She could have chosen to speak of her values in more general terms, but this would have probably come across as pandering and seemingly dodging the question. Another possible reason for why she chose to highlight christianity specifically could be that it was a safe answer. As noted in the textbook, the United States is an anomaly in terms of religiosity among western nations. Furthermore, christianity is the predominant religion which explains why Warren could seamlessly dive into discussing her religious values on a political town hall and have a positive reaction. In another western nation bringing up religion within the context of evaluating a presidential candidate would seem odd, and in a way that makes sense. However, not in the United States.

Another important thing of note in Elizabeth Warren’s answer is found in the second half. Instead of delving into the ideas she derives from her faith, she chooses to focus instead on the practical actions that come from her faith; In other words, how she lives out her religious identity on a day to day basis. I believe that this point is especially important because she is a Democrat. For example, whenever religion is brought up on the right it is done so in the context of moral policy issues such as abortion or same sex marriage. However, since Warren is addressing a presumably Dem leaning audience, she uses faith as a justification for social change and compassion towards others thereby ensuring that her message will resonate well regardless of differences in moral ideals.

[wendysdsu-blog]

The Evangelical branch of Christianity is arguably the most prominent and influential arm of the Christian religion residing in America today. As noted in the text, evangelizing strategies are necessary for the survival of religious communities in America (page 9). Amongst the many religious choices available to Americans, the Evangelical sect has somewhat lost its appeal in recent years. Because of this, the Evangelical church has undergone somewhat of a “rebranding” in order to fulfill its great commission of preaching the gospel and gaining members. 

The Vox article linked above explores the rise of the "cool" Evangelical church, a great example of which is Hillsong church. The image rebranding of these churches is able to penetrate the mainstream through celebrity members like Justin Bieber, Chris Pratt, and Selena Gomez, to name a few. Figures like these have been able to give churches enough "star power" to capture clicks of those who would otherwise simply continue scrolling down their social media feed. Additionally,  the pastors of these megachurches are much more relaxed both in their physical appearance and in the way that they present their message behind the pulpit. Overall, the churches have shifted their message away from religion and instead have reframed their purpose as helping their members achieve a personal relationship with God. 

Although the look of the church is modern, a deeper look reveals much of the same beliefs and convictions that come with the traditional evangelical church. The social conservatism of the historical “moral majority” can be found just beneath the surface. A good example of this is the stance of Hillsong church on Homosexuality. Although the church encourages all people through their doors, church leadership does not “affirm that lifestyle”. Thats a soft way of saying that homosexuality is not an acceptable identity within church teachings. 

This is no more than an appeal to young people; An attempt to evangelize in the 21st century as a means to make up for declining church attendance. Overall, the rise of the Hip, Young, and trendy Evangelical church shows more than anything the need for churches to adapt. If not in its teachings, then at least in optics.