Anyone who watched Wednesday's debate will undoubtedly have been struck by the prominence played by faith in both John Kerry's and George W. Bush's answers. Since religion has been a point of contention in American politics since the nation's inception and before, it should come as no surprise that each trotted out his respective credentials as far as piety is concerned. Both cite faith as a guiding light for their political careers but shied away from the suggestion that they govern as Christians. But make no mistake?a wide gulf exists between the role that religion plays in each man's public life.
John Kerry has been attacked recently on his assertion that his personal feelings on abortion are a personal "article of faith" that he cannot legislate. Though he is a Catholic, Kerry chooses to avoid the imposition of his personal religious beliefs on others. There is nothing radical or confusing about this statement; his position rests upon the American political traditions of religious freedom and personal responsibility. Those who see Kerry's Catholicism as incongruous with his pro-choice politics judge his faith unfairly. What would Jesus say? Perhaps he would respond with a passage from the Bible's Book of Matthew: "Thou, hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote of thy brother's eye." Kerry is intelligent and compassionate enough to recognize the hubris in legislating his personal morality to others. Ironically enough, his critics seek to judge his personal conviction because he refuses to serve as the judge of others.
Meanwhile, President Bush comes from a far different perspective. Though paying lip service to the separation of his personal views and public decisions in recent statements, his actions prove otherwise. Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose report in their book Shrub: The Short but Happy Political Life of George W. Bush of an incident where Mr. Bush, a born-again Christian, called Billy Graham in an attempt to convince his mother that non-Christians could not, in fact, be admitted to heaven. Since that time, Bush has attempted to soften his rhetoric, explaining that as in Kerry's case, this is his personal belief, or the belief of his church, not his guiding political philosophy. Of course, who can forget his famous assertion that Jesus Christ is his favorite political philosopher? Or perhaps more radically, his speech on September 20, 2001, where he declared: "God is not neutral."
Though the President is clearly very devout, he too has sought to minimize the extent to which it appears as an element of his public image. Nonetheless, many skeptics have not been surprised that his stances on the Pledge of Allegiance and gay marriage mirror those of America's Christian right-wing. There is clearly a murkier disconnect between the President's religious credo and his public political stances. In contrast to John Kerry, the President's political rhetoric draws heavily from Christian symbolism. Where Kerry offers nuance, Bush offers morality in black and white.
It is no surprise that under his tenure the nation has returned to a state of extreme polarization. This "blinders-on" mentality is frightening, even dangerous to the nation, as it has left us increasingly isolated from Europe and other nations who agree with portions, but not all, of the administration's positions. It is here where Kerry's respectful personal religious model is so useful; his attitude reflects a thoughtful, non-judgmental worldview that is far more inclusive of others. What some see as "flip-flopping" or hypocrisy in the face of his role as a Catholic is actually a respect for dissent, a refusal to condemn the views of others. In sharp contrast, the President offers us the "with us or against us" model. Unfortunately, the world does not conform to such a binary system; we operate in a world of grey, where moral clarity is not always so easily divined.