Do we really need organized prayer at the Democratic National Convention?
A plea for freedom from religious sermons at political events
Please God free me from being blessed when I just want to be part of the political process
What I’m Writing
NBC: AOC's DNC speech was 60 seconds. She made her point — but so did the establishment.
CNN: Why the Susan B. Anthony Pardon is Perfectly Trumpian
And of course you can still buy my book, OK Boomer, Let’s Talk: How My Generation Got Left Behind. Did you already buy it? I would be just thrilled if you would leave an Amazon review — those really matter for a book’s rankings and ratings.
What I’m Reading
A Litany for Survival: Giving Birth as a Black Woman in America
In my mind, I’m going to New Jersey
Inside the Boogaloo: America’s Extremely Online Extremists
The View From Here
I’ve been watching the Democratic National Convention, and it’s been a pleasant surprise. Yes, the leading speakers are all older and more moderate. No, I do not think we really need to hear from John Kasich, Cindy McCain, or Colin Powell, and I wish that the younger, more progressive Dems who truly are the party’s future were treated with the respect and elevation they deserve. But overall, it’s been an inspiring, well-put-together digital event, making a damning case that whatever your politics, Donald Trump is a threat to American democracy and has to be stopped.
Do we really need opening and closing prayers, though?
Plenty of people of faith are Democrats, and plenty of Democrats are inspired and motivated by their faith. This isn’t a case for silence about religion. To the extent that Democratic politicians and progressive activists want to speak about how their faith fuels them, centers them, and pushes them to be better human beings, great. Faith communities are key in organizing voters and getting people to the polls — the black church has been especially influential here. And it’s valuable to put forward a version of religious faith that looks different from the white Evangelical Christianity that is so often punitive, cruel, sexist, and racist. Religion is part of peoples’ lives. There’s no good case for excluding it from politics.
But recognizing the religious beliefs of politicians and their constituencies, and appreciating the good works of faith communities, are very different than bringing in clergy members to offer prayers and blessings.
The Democratic Party is very much the party of the religiously unaffiliated. That doesn’t mean it’s a party where people of faith have no place, but it is certainly a party where those who are not white conservative Christians can find a home. Nearly 80 percent of secularists vote for Democrats. Democrats win large majorities of Jews and “other faiths,” which I think it’s safe to say includes Muslims and Hindus. The religiously unaffiliated vote Democratic more than any religious group other than Jews.
These are the folks who are alienated by formal benedictions as part of what should be a political process.
This isn’t just about my personal dislike of public prayer or evangelism. It’s very much about how the right has latched onto a false narrative about America’s “Judeo-Christian heritage” (with the “Judeo” tacked on pretty recently) to do very real harm to women, LGBT people, Muslims, Jews, religious minorities, and others who have been traditionally boxed out of American politics and the American dream. The question of whether the U.S. is a secular nation or a Christian one is not yet solved. What it means to be religiously free — whether that can also mean being free from religion, and where religious expression crosses over into religious chauvinism — is not a solved question. Right now, thanks to a Supreme Court decision based on a law Congress passed under the guise of “religious freedom,” a boss who claims he believes birth control is murder can make it so that his employees are not entitled to basic birth control coverage in their health insurance. Employers that are religious in founding but secular in practice — nursing homes owned by the Catholic Church, for example — have taken it a step further, essentially saying that if you’re employed by one of them, not only should they not have to pay for insurance that funds your birth control, but you just shouldn’t be able to get that insurance by another mechanism. This, they say, is “religious freedom.” Similar arguments can be made for a hotel refusing to rent a room to a same-sex couple, a doctor refusing to treat a transgender patient, a religious employer firing a pregnant employee, or even a waiter whose religion says interracial marriage is a sin refusing to serve an interracial couple. Religious freedom butts up against anti-discrimination law all the time. The right is radically expanding the definition of religious freedom so that “freedom” doesn’t just end at the tip of the religious person’s nose, but extends out to all of our lives — and means that one person’s religious belief can dictate what kind of medical care, service, or job you get.
Democrats have not offered a strong counter to these claims. Yes, we’ve fought discriminatory laws in court. But Democrats have not put forth a robust vision of a secular society — one in which people are free to practice their faith so long as it does not do harm, but where politics is about policy and morality isn’t filtered through the lens of religious belief. I certainly would love to see a political party that is resolutely secular: That defends the right of people to practice their religion, but remains committed to not having religious belief dictate political policy, that keeps church and state separate, and that rejects a model of having religious faith determine who is good and trustworthy and who is bad and suspect. When we cede this ground — when we agree with the premise that religion is the primary means by which a person is good or moral, when we agree that prayers and blessings and benedictions are appropriate at a political event aimed at nominating the person we hope will be president of the United States — we are giving into a right-wing view that sees Christianity as supreme, that claims organized religion is more valuable and laudable than finding morality and community through other means, and that gives religious belief a special, vaunted place in public life. The promotion of Christianity as the epitome of morality has not been great for American Muslims, Jews, Hindus, etc etc, and it has certainly been bad for atheists. A huge chunk of the American electorate would refuse to vote for an atheist for president, while large majorities are comfortable voting for Christians and Jews (Muslims earn slightly more electoral confidence than atheists, but only by about 6 points).
Democrats could choose to treat faith as an important aspect of peoples’ lives and a connective and organizing force, among many other important aspects and connective forces. They could refuse to buy into the right-wing frame of Christian faith as rightly present in government and governance, as a necessary part of politics and projecting morality. They could essentially say that they are a party that welcomes all people of all faiths, but that they are going to govern according to expertise, experience, and evidence, not religious belief of any kind. Faith need not take a back seat in one’s personal life or one’s political decisions. But it also doesn’t need to be a front-and-center driving force in elections and political performance — especially when you consider that all faiths are not in fact treated equally, and certainly having no religious faith is not treated as if it’s just as legitimate and moral as believing in God.
One thing feminists often point to is how men sometimes see women gaining rights as a zero-sum game — that if women gain, men lose. And certainly as women and people of color have gained political, cultural, and economic power, there has been a significant backlash from men and white people who feel they’re losing something significant by no longer enjoying unquestioned and total dominance. Religion works in the same way: Suggesting that perhaps clergy should not be given a special platform at the DNC from which to sermonize is seen as some sort of major encroachment, attack, or loss. It’s not. Religious folks are and should be welcome in the Democratic Party. Religious leaders who organize their communities for justice should be applauded and recognized and, like any other activists or organizers, given platforms from which to talk about their work, including at the DNC.
But that’s all very different from inviting clergy to give prayers. It’s very different from making the decision to open and close your political event with (mostly) Christian blessings. That’s not equal treatment — it’s special, elevated treatment, and it sends a very clear message about who is more important and more welcome in this party.
xx Jill