During Bono’s infamous 2006 Speech at the National Prayer Breakfast, he remarked, “I was cynical… not about God, but about God’s politics.” Several images speed through my mind when I reflect on this comment, the first being God sitting at a roundtable having a beer with Barack Obama and George W. Bush.  I also picture Henry Louis Gates and his policeman friends knocking at heaven’s door looking for the “beer summit,” and being redirected toward the White House by President Obama, who promises to join them shortly.  After Gates and company leave, I hear God initiating a dialogue between the incumbent and former presidents, booming, “Listen guys, can’t we all just be friends?”  Maybe that sounds more like something Santa Claus would say (admittedly, in my mind, God has a big white beard too), but to me, God’s politics are pretty simple: Love your neighbor as yourself, and love your enemy. That said, I believe God to be a-political.  If His message is love thy neighbor as thyself and everyone were to do just that, honesty would actually be the best policy, love would easily triumph over hatred, and politics, as we know it, would cease to exist.  However, like Bono, I am cynical about the Christo-political melting pot that has been simmering in America for well over a century.  So a more appropriate version of God’s question might be, “Has religion in America really been reduced to a political weapon wielded by those seeking to establish clear boundaries between political lines and to create ideological enemies?”  Many people would contest the notion that George Bush and Barack Obama, and for that matter, conservatives and liberals, are enemies, instead arguing that heated debate is a necessary and natural part of the democratic process.  This may be true, but the only reason that Obama and Bush are seated at my fictitious roundtable in the first place is to engage God’s question in a heated debate to prove the role religion plays in preventing friendly bi-partisan relationships in politics.

As I have said before, ONE is primarily an advocacy organization, meaning that changed is achieved by holding world leaders accountable for the commitments they have made to fight extreme poverty, campaigning for better development policies, and for more effective aid and trade reform.  ONE staff and members engage in politics everyday through advocacy, so politics are invariably tied to ONE’s effectiveness.  And as I have also mentioned, my role at ONE is primarily advocacy in the faith relations department, where I am asking church leaders and members to engage with these same politicians.  Therefore, I have become extremely interested in the particular ways that faith and politics interact.  I have also learned that there is an inseparable, and often times, tense bond between religion and politics that extends throughout American political history and holds firm today.

Historically speaking, the Right in America has held tight to its useful monopoly on the language of faith to propel its political agenda and to garner support from religiously minded constituents.  Many politicians, most notably Ronald Reagan, have used the language of faith to mobilize a group that has been termed “the religious right” to advance a variety of political causes such as pro-life, pro-equality, and even pro-rich.  The Left hasn’t fared any better, largely ignoring the undeniable connection between faith and politics by continually separating moral discourse and personal ethics from public policy, and by isolating pro-life, categorically religious voters. As Jim Wallis puts it in his book, God’s Politics, “While the Right argues that God’s way is their way, the Left pursues an unrealistic separation of religious values from morally grounded political leadership. The consequence is a false choice between ideological religion and soulless politics.”

Two Blue Moons later (in passage of time and type of beers consumed), it seems that the only thing President Obama and former President Bush can agree on is the usefulness of religion in garnering political support.  In fact, both men admit to using religion as a means to attract a very particular contingency of voters that have traditionally aligned with the more conservative candidate.  During his campaign in 2004, former President Bush made a statement to an Amish community in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, claiming, “I trust God speaks through me. Without that, I couldn’t do my job.”  Actual job performance and sincerity of belief aside, Bush was appealing directly to religiously minded constituents, connecting his ability to do his job with a belief in God.  Similarly, in an interview withChristianity Today prior to his democratic presidential nomination, Barack Obama confessed, “Accepting Jesus Christ in my life has been a powerful guide for my conduct and my values and my ideals.”  In that same interview, he also pointed to the moral repugnancy of using religion as a political weapon and denounced those who would play the Machiavelli card.  But given the historical connection between religious views and voting tendencies, it does not seem strategically sound to deny the use of religion to gather support, particularly in swing states.  And history seems to align with Jim Wallis’s argument that calls the separation between religion and politics “unrealistic.”

This subject hits close to home, particularly now that I am trying to gather support for ONE by mobilizing faith inspired congregations to take action on behalf on ONE’s political goals.  So in a sense, I am also guilty of perpetuating the use of religion to yield political results.  I am part of a project that has the expressed goal of asking a variety of different faith congregations to get involved in politics in an attempt to secure a hefty Global Fund replenishment.  Again, the Global Fund is an effective mechanism for giving aid to those living with HIV/AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis worldwide, the continued success of which depends on pledges from world governments, particularly the United States.  While I am not trying to win votes, I am encouraging faith inspired individuals to take political action by writing letters to their local representatives concerning the urgency of the situation in developing nations: AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria patients are dying every day because of lack of access to treatment.  In light of this realization, is it really morally repugnant to reach out to people who are already attuned to the message of social justice and humanitarian action to gain a strategic advantage?

To clarify this question, I would like to introduce another figure to my fictitious roundtable: the former Anglican Archbishop of South Africa, Desmond Tutu.  Today, July 21, 2010, the New York Times published an article written by Tutu himself, imploring President Obama to reconsider his pledge to help individuals with HIV/AIDS in Africa.  While Tutu speaks to the number of individuals whose lives have been spared thanks to aid programs like the Global Fund and Pepfar (President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief), the most interesting thing about the article is its pointed focus on the contrast between funding provided during the Bush Administration and the pledge made by the Obama administration.  Mr. Tutu points out that during the Bush Administration, about 400,000 Africans received treatment every year, and that President Obama’s current strategy would reduce that number to about 320,000.  This seems counterintuitive, given that democrats are much more likely to support aid for overseas development.  But even more than that, here is one of the most influential clergy members of all time leveraging the inherent conflict between Bush and Obama, and therefore, between conservative and liberal efforts, to [hopefully] push President Obama to reconsider his rather meager pledge to fight preventable disease in Africa.  At this point, Mr. Bush looks up from his game of hearts (or is it spades?) across the table at the former archbishop Tutu with a distinct smirk, and President Obama looks rather put out.  Mr. Tutu exchanges a cursory smile with God, and then all four return to their card game, which comes closer to resembling Hearts the longer I observe.

Through my observation of a very interesting and dynamic roundtable discussion, I have learned that religion is not a weapon, but it can be a useful tool.  A weapon is used to shed blood, but a tool is used to build and construct.  Given the inherent and undeniable connection between religion and politics, it actually makes sense to encourage faith minded individuals to take action on behalf of humanitarian goals, even those proffered by the government.  Religion should NOT, however, be used by politicians to manipulate voters and to divide constituents along distinctive partisan lines, nor should it be the deciding factor when voters determine their political affiliations.  Contrary to popular belief, a person can be a Christianand a democrat.  I am not so naïve as to think ingrained social and political dynamics will change overnight, or that there are certain aspects of party affiliation that incline religiously minded voters to associate themselves with one party and not the other, such as views on abortion.   But if religion and politics could learn to co-exist, we might all be a little less cynical.

And by the way, God won the game of Hearts, in case anyone was curious.