The Home Page ·  The Integral Worm ·  My Resume ·  My Show Car ·  My White Papers ·  Organizations I Belong To

Contact Me ·  FAQ ·  Useful Links

My Professional Writing Papers

Technical Writing ·  Exposition & Argumentation ·  Non-fiction Creative Essays ·  Grammar and Usage of Standard English ·  The Structure of English ·  Analysis of Shakespeare

Analysis of Literary Language ·  Advanced Professional Papers ·  The History of the English Language ·  First Internship: Tutoring in a Writing Workshop ·  Second Internship: Advanced Instruction: Tutoring Writing

Visual Literacy Seminar (A First Course in Methodology) ·  Theories of Communication & Technology (A Second Course in Methodology) ·  Language in Society (A Third Course in Methodology) ·  The Writer's Guild

Journalism

UMBC'S Conservative Newspaper: "The Retriever's Right Eye" ·  Introduction to Journalism ·  Feature Writing ·  Science Writing Papers

Articles Written for UMBC's University Newspaper: "The Retriever Weekly"

Local Article 1 ·  Local Article 2 ·  Local Article 3 ·  Local Article 4 ·  Local Article 5 ·  Local Article 6 ·  Local Article 7 ·  Local Article 8 ·  Local Article 9 ·  Local Article 10 ·  Local Article 11

Opinion Article 1 ·  Opinion Article 2 ·  Opinion Article 3 ·  Opinion Article 4 ·  Opinion Article 5 ·  Opinion Article 6 ·  Opinion Article 8 ·  Opinion Article 9 ·  Opinion Article 10 ·  Opinion Article 11

Role of religious conviction misunderstood by both candidates

Amber Sampson, Retriever Weekly Staff Writer, published September 14, 2004

This semester's Social Science Forum kicked off last week with a lecture by political scientist Rodgers Smith, entitled "On a Mission from God? The Story of American Peoplehood Today." As usual, the 7th floor of the library was an interesting place to be.

         The purpose of the lecture was to discuss the use of stories of peoplehood - persuasive stories that promote civic identity and political community - specifically to justify foreign policy decisions.

         While Smith explained that there are several types of stories that can be used to bring the electorate on board, he focused on what he called "ethically constitutive " stories - those that politician's goals are in line with constituent values because of religion, heritage, geography, ancestral vision, or whatever else. These stories, Smith asserted, are never absent from political debate because of their power and versatility.

         The premier example given of constitutive story in American politics was President Bush's use of religious language to justify interventionist foreign policies. Smith was outright about his discomfort with the President's proclamations in various speeches that the United States is enacting the "plan of heaven" and that we are only actors in the story that God has authored. He claimed that this kind of storytelling is contrary to democratic ideals because it removes the authority of people to make their own decisions, asserting that everyone needs to get on board with God's plan - no questions asked. He argued that whenever an ethically constitutive story closes of democratic discussion of moral legitimacy, its use is questionable.

         I can say absolutely that I agree with this proposition, but I can't say that Bush is the only one in the political spotlight closing the doors to debates about moral legitimacy. While the complete coupling of personal religious conviction with public action can be dangerous - as in when one's own idea about what God wants trumps all other discussion - neglect of religious conviction is no solution. In this way, both presidential candidates. in my view, fall woefully short of a proper understanding of moral deliberation.

         Senator Kerry (along with other former candidates for the Democratic nomination, including Howard Dean) has been vocal about his hesitation to connect his religious faith with his politics. This separation philosophy has been most evident in his stance on abortion. He has said publicly that his views on abortion are in conformity with the Catholic Church and that he believes that life begins at conception, but that he doesn't feel comfortable imposing that belief on non-Catholics.

         Following this pronouncement, Eileen McNamara, a legal abortion advocate and writer for the Boston Globe, questioned a "curious conscience" which allows Kerry to vote in favor of the state-sanctioned termination of what he knows to be human life. She stated that she felt more understanding toward an abortion opponent who lobbies against any legislation anti-thetical to her conscience than toward a Senator who feels that conscience has nothing to say to voting behavior.

         It's true that, as Smith points out, religious augmentation may be abused to excuse activities, which are morally questionable. However, in Kerry's case, the ever-popular "separation of church and state" can also be used to excuse the compromise of unpopular personal convictions.

         This isn't only a problem because of the Democratic Party's weakness in appealing to religious voters. It goes beyond campaign politics.

         The real problem is that religious conviction hasn't found its proper place in modern public debate. I raised the issue during the forum that most often, when people criticize the use of religious myth in the political speech or of religious conviction as motivation for public action, the conclusion they draw is that myth is dangerous, and ought to be expelled from the public sphere. The prime examples usually given of religiously-motivated actors are suicide bombers and clinic arsonists - the "radicals."

         This, of course, ignores the countless other "radical" ideas that religiously-motivated political movements have had: that people ought not to be enslaved by other people, that women's contributions in society ought to be valued, that mentally ill persons ought not to be warehoused, that racism is not divinely sanctioned, that the pursuit of wealth at the expense of the powerless is unacceptable.

         These movements far from grounded in only rational deliberation, were and are fueled and nurtured by Biblical stories of liberation. Continuing today, in all of America's impoverished neighborhoods, people of faith live out their convictions about justice and mercy, realizing that those convictions extend to the correction of economic and political forces, social systems, and institutional injustice. These people, in my opinion, have long formed the heart of the Democratic Party, but neither party this election season has revealed a remote understanding of them.

         Religious tradition has always had something to say to the way the world works, or ought to. And regardless of what anyone thinks of their claims, religious people have done far more good around the world than anyone gives them credit for. Religious conviction is not anti-thetical to democracy or freedom; in fact, a society that feels no need to act on conviction will find its democracy to be a tyranny of majority preference and popularity.

         We need to make a way for religious tradition to inform our public debates, particularly about moral legitimacy. As Smith agreed, religious story ought not to be either expelled or unquestionable, but valued in the search for right action.

Letter to the Editor: Rebuttal to "Role of religious conviction misunderstood by both candidates"

Christopher Paul, published September 20, 2004

In Rebuttal to Sampson's article "Role of religious conviction misunderstood by both candidates" it's interesting to note we both covered Rogers Smith lecture yet came away with two different conclusions. Smith spoke about the fact that leaders come into power by one of two methods. One is by Cohesive Force, an active role, i.e. "he who has power over the military takes power." Two, a leader takes power through three and not several types of pervasive stories hence rising to power by passive means. The three pervasive stories were the economic theme, or the "Promised Land/Morally Exemplar" view, the "Active Crusader" view, and Smith's additional view, the "Ethically Constituent" view which employs the use of religious stories.

         The Morally Exemplar story is filled with economic themes, "I can provide for you better, that you will have a roof over your head, food on your table, and you will economically prosper, hence, 'The Beacon on the Hill,'" which is a passive role in foreign policy. The Active Crusader story uses political power themes as its basis, i.e., "you want power, I can provide you with power." Smith, as a scholar is arguing most agree that the first two do indeed exist, but that there is also what he terms the "Ethically Constituent" view. The first two are more tangible and more emphasized, but that the Ethically Constituent view is less tangible. Ethically Constitutive stories are targeted towards either the religion, ancestry, race, cultural heritage, language or ethnicity of its citizens, and not "whatever else." When a leader cannot provide economic or power advantages, one will revert to Ethically Constitutive stories because ethical stories can be easily revised if they come under attack. Sampson claims that Ethically Constitutive stories are misunderstood by both candidates, which is a fallacy. President Bush understands quite well and is utilizing ethically constitutive stories to his advantage. There's no substantial proof that Iraq had any connection to the September 11, 2001 attacks nor is there a trace of evidence that Iraq had nuclear weapon capabilities. By using a religious theme, President Bush can modify the cause as more evidence is revealed to fuel his justification for going to war. The point that Smith was making is understand that the ethically constitutive story is what President Bush is using and how this view can be easily changed in order to meet new objectives.