Congress is set to host an important guest. After twenty
five years of trying to organize a papal appearance, Pope Francis will speak in
the House Chamber on September 24. There are limited seats and only a select
few will get a spot inside.
Immigrant advocates hope to use the Pope as a “poster child
to help push immigration reform.” However while members from both parties are
excited about the papal visit, Ted Barrett of CNN claims there could be awkward
moments due to the differences in opinions between the pope and both
Republicans and Democrats.
Those who hope that the pope will bring change could be
sadly disappointed when his speech regarding immigration does not spark any
further debate in Congress. To use the speech as an incentive for conversation
could cause more controversy than the debate itself.
Personally, I think that the aim to use the pope as a
persuasive mechanism goes against one of the founding principles of this
country- the separation of church and state. While I understand that religion
does often play a large role in the way many people feel, vote, and live their
daily lives I think it is unfair to place such a religious figure in front of a
body of lawmakers and allow him to talk about his political beliefs. Author
Esther Yu-His Lee states that it is yet to be seen “whether faith can drive
congressional leaders to act,” but I believe that even to consider the beliefs
of any religious group in the lawmaking process is to combine the church and
the state and ultimately violate the Constitution.
Congress and Pope Francis will be walking a fine line as
they meet at Washington. With roughly 69 Catholic Republicans and 68 Catholic
Democrats in the House, including the House Speaker, it will be difficult to
keep separate one’s role in Congress and one’s responsibility towards their
faith. I think it is sneaky that faith leaders are using such a powerful figure
to try and persuade Congress to agree with their beliefs. I understand every
person has a different opinion, and some may be religious based, but to have
our lawmakers be in such close contact with religious figures is a dangerous
area to tread on when taking into account the desires of our Founding Fathers
and the platform of our entire country.
7 comments:
This is definitely an interesting and important topic, especially because we tend to think of the U.S. as inherently secular in terms of government. But even though the separation of church and state is a legal reality, does it actually stop members of Congress from acting and making decisions based on their faith? Consider (as much as I'd like not to) the Kim Davis controversy that's plaguing the news at the moment. At least two current Senators (Rand Paul and Ted Cruz) have come out in support of Davis because they feel her [Christian] religion is being attacked—but it is important to acknowledge that both of these Senators share Davis' faith. Would they be as critical if someone of Jewis or Islamic (or any other) faith were in Kim Davis' place? Probably not, based on, among other things, the especially rampant Islamophobia that has been present in the U.S. in the aftermath of 9/11. So what does this tell us? That these Senators are likely acting on, and in defense of, their own religion. Thus, I wonder if the Pope is actually going to influence the Christian (esp. Catholic) members of Congress to act based on their faith much more than they already are.
---
http://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/2015/09/03/candidates-react-kim-davis-being-jailed/71645418/
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/09/08/3699420/huckabee-kim-davis/
I think it's interested to bring up this idea of whether or not politicians act upon their faith when it comes to their votes or policy decisions. One issue I think that comes to mind other than this situation involving Kim Davis and LGBT issues, is Abortion. I think it is fair to say that in many cases, politicians who do not support Abortion frequently refer back to their faith as the reason they don't. For instance, Senator Casey is a known Catholic, and frequently tells constituents that he believes life begins at conception. I think it could be said that although there is a clear obligation of the federal government to separate church and state, that many Americans vote for politicians based on religious beliefs. I think it is very possible that the Popes visit here could have significant impact on the actions of congress the month or months following his address, but I think the bigger question to ask is how long will that influence last?
The debate between church and state is an interesting topic in this secular era, as both Jeffrey and Dominic have suggested. The idea of religious figures, especially one as important as the pope, speaking in front of Congress seems to directly contrast those ideas. I got to thinking about when it is controversial for religious affiliated leaders to speak in front of Congress, and the primary person I thought of was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He spoke before a joint session of Congress earlier in 2015, and although he is not technically a religious figure, his actions and interests directly appeal to a specific religious sentiment. It is a bit different having the head of a major religion speak before Congress, but this isn't exactly unprecedented.
Even though one of the founding principles of our country is the idea of keeping the church separate from the state, it is pretty much impossible to do in our democratic system. As regions develop predominant religious beliefs, it is likely that their elected officials will embody that same set of beliefs, thus bringing an ideology based on religious doctrine into the policy making branch of government. So, when Senators Rand Paul and Ted Cruz act in defense of their own religion, they are acting in the manner that their constituencies back home expect them to act. Now, I'm not condoning such religiously motivated actions in Congress, but merely saying that they are impossible to avoid. Furthermore, the sort of religious influence that I have just mentioned is completely different than inviting the Pope to deliver a persuasive speech directly to our members of Congress. Allowing the Pope to preach the beliefs of Catholicism, in a way, officially legitimizes the influence of Catholic doctrine in Congress. Even if the Pope has no effect on Congressional members, allowing him to try to persuade Congress a direct violation of maintaining a separation of church and state, way more direct than the little bit of religious influence that results as a by product of our electoral system.
The Pope's visit and speech certainly does bring up significant issues about the separation of church and state, but I feel as if-especially recently- this idea has, in some cases, become irrelevant. As our recent readings have mentioned, the government is incredibly partisan, and as politicians become more extremist, religion has seemed to have come back into politics in some instances. In the recent first Republican Presidential debate, one of the questions even related to the candidate's thoughts on what G-d wanted for America, bringing religion to the forefront!
On a less religious note, though, Pope Francis has become quite a political figure, making bold statements about big political issues, such as climate change. I can understand the appeal of bringing him to speak to the Congress. I'll be interested to watch his speech and to hear responses from Congressmen after the fact.
Like mentioned above, the idea of separation of Church and State is a very interesting and very difficult concept to comprehend. Over the summer, I was able to intern with the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism (RAC), the legislative branch of the Reform movement. And there, we take a very strict position of Church vs. State and argue that the church (or temple or mosque) should not be involved in state matters. According to the RAC's webpage on church and state, "the Union for Reform Judaism has made the protection of religion from government and the protection of government from religion a priority." However, this summer, when the Pope released his encyclical on climate change, we all jumped up to support him. Thus, the question is raised, at least for me, when is it acceptable for the state to listen to the Pope? At least for this, the papal encyclical caught the attention of many presidential candidates.
http://www.rac.org/jewish-values-and-church-and-state
Post a Comment