Religion and Politics

There is an unspoken rule in America that there are two subjects that should be avoided in conversations among friends: religion and politics. But why is this so? Everyone seems to have an opinion on both subjects, and it seems reasonable to say that we could all benefit from a healthy dose of civil discourse. Unfortunately, civil discourse is not easy to come by, and tempers usually flare when interlocutors discover that there are irreconcilable differences in their respective worldviews. Even more volatile conversations take place when both religion and politics are mentioned in the same breath.Needless to say, in a pluralistic society, there are many different opinions on the role of religion in politics. For purposes of discussion however, we will focus mainly on two polar extremes. On one end of the argument, there are those who say America was founded on the Christian religion, and that the very identity of our nation rests on this fact. To them, religion and politics are are inseparable.

 

Others say that the founding fathers were wary not only of the effect religion would have on politics, but also of the effect that politics would have on religion. To them, separation of church and state is an integral part of our form of government, and is vitally necessary in a country with a people of all different cultures and creeds.Those that subscribe to the "Christian nation argument" see Christianity as the driving force of our collective morality, and a necessary aspect of American cultural literacy. They point to quotes fro m the founding fathers which seem to imply that they agreed with the concept of a Christian nation. For example, George Washington said that "It is impossible to govern... without God and the Bible". Recently, this argument has come to prominence due to the advocacy of such high-profile figures as Jerry Falwell . Proponents of this view also worry that the Christian religion has essentially come under attack by secularists on the other side of the aisle. They point to incidents where organizations like the ACLU have lobbied to remove the words "under god" from the Pledge of Allegiance. Under this view, religion is being endangered by secular politicians, and religion and politics are need of closer coordination.

 

On the other side of the aisle, there are those who emphasize the importance of the separation of church and state. To them, not only does religion have a damaging effect on politics, but politics also poisons religion. Organizations like the Secular Coalition for America lobby for an increase in the separation of church and state. They point to cases where they feel that the Christian religion has been imposed on people of other creeds and non-believers alike. The Boy Scouts of America, for example, is an organization that has come under fire by those who believe it should not receive public funding due to its official adherence to Christianity. Some even go so far as to argue that we should remove all allusions to the Christian religion from our public currency, pledges, and public property. They cite the establishment clause of the Constitution to support their assertion that America is not, in fact, a Christian nation, and that religion and politics should have a clear wall of separation.

 

There are those who take a more pragmatic stance on the issue. President-elect Barack Obama, for example, has argued that while religion is a necessary and unavoidable factor in the political decision making process, we should respect the views of those with all different belief systems. Public issues should be framed and argued based not on dogma and scripture, even if these might be influential factors to the individual making the argument, but they should be cast in secular terms in the public discourse. Many also take a practical stance on issues like "under god" in the Pledge of Allegiance and "in god we trust" on our currency, holding that these phrases are part of our national history, and shouldn't be removed on the basis of a secular ideology. In this view, religion and politics cannot possibly be separated entirely, but government must be cautious not to impose any particular religion.

 

No matter what your personal view on what the coordination of religion and politics should be, it is evident that this is a debate with enormous implications. If America is, in fact, a Christian nation, what follows from this realization? Conversely, if separation of church and state should be absolute, how do we reconcile this with the views of the religious right, and what do we do about the references to Christianity on public property and in the American tradition? This is a debate that will undoubtedly be contested for years to come, and one on which it is worth developing an informed opinion.

"G" Ad

The new "G" ad campaign featuring rapper Lil' Wayne as the narrator have taken over the hearts and minds of many, as they are so vague that just about nobody knows what they are at first view. What are they, and what product do they represent?

What do the "G" TV Commercials with Lil' Wayne Mean?

With popular athletes like Dwyane Wade, Serena Williams, Bill Russell, and Muhammad Ali featured in the commercial, a major tip-off can be seen for the "G" product commercial.

The commercial actually represents a bold new advertising campaign for Gatorade sports drink and it is a branch off of the G2 drink that was marketed in a more sophisticated way on TV commercials as a lower-calorie alternative to Gatorade.

 

"G" TV Commercials and Gatorade.

The new Gatorade logo is expected to feature a bold "G" logo from the commercial with Lil' Wayne and a smaller, accented lightning bolt logo on top to complete the sleek new look.

It appears as if Gatorade is trying to use these commercials along with G2 to promote itself to a new segment of the population as not just a sports drink but a casual drink that anyone can enjoy at any time. As comedian Mitch Hedberg once said, "You do not have to be sweaty and holding a basketball to enjoy Gatorade. You could just a be a thirsty dude."

The new "G" commercials are all about trying to make that vision a reality.

Iran and US

As part of President Obama's pledge to meet with terrorist nations like Iran in negotiations, the State De partment is working on a draft of a letter to be sent to the Iranian government that will promise that the US will not seek to overthrow it.

Instead, the Obama administration will entreat the Iranian government to change its behavior. That behavior includes support for terrorist organizations such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iraqi Shiite militias, the latter of which was engaged in a terrorist campaign against the Iraqi government and American troops that are deployed in Iraq. Iran is also engaged in a program to develop a nuclear bomb capable of not only wiping out the state of Israel but Iran's Arab neighbors.

The proposed letter is seen as an attempt to unfreeze US-Iranian relations in advance of the Iranian Presidential elections that will pit the current, hard line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad against the more moderate former President Mohammad Khatami and former Parliament Speaker Mehdi Karoubi as well as hard liner current Tehran mayor Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf. c has the backing of Iran's supreme spiritual leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Iran's armed forces chief General Hassan Firouz Abadi.

The United States would prefer that a more moderate Iranian politician became Iran's President, so it is possible that the proposed letter is seen as a means to influence things in that direction. Moderation, in Iranian politics, is a matter of degree. No one in public office in Iran is publicly in favor of moderating Iran's theocracy, which dictates strict Islamic law on its citizens.

The diplomatic approach being adopted by the Obama administration represents a departure from Bush administration efforts to covertly disrupt Iran's nuclear bomb program and destabilize the control of the Iranian government. Ahmadinejad has already preemptively responded to the Obama letter by suggesting that among the preconditions for face to face talks includes an official apology for "crimes against the Iranian people" and a withdraw of American forces from around the world.
The proposed letter to Iran runs to risk of becoming an attempt at appeasement of the Iranian government, much in the way Neville Chamberlain tried to appease Nazi Germany before World War II. By pledging that the United States will not try to overthrow the Iranian government, the United States would seem to throw away a means of leverage against Iran to force it to moderate its behavior. The pledge could also be seen as an abandonment of the Iranian people, including student groups and ethnic minorities, who have been resisting the theocratic rule of the Iranian government.

The letter might well have the opposite effect intended, of emboldening the Iranian government by showing weak resolve. The Obama administration has also signaled Russia that it is dialing back on efforts to build a missile defense system in Eastern Europe designed to defend against Iranian nuclear tipped missiles. That in turn tends to undercut European governments which have supported the missile defense system. The Obama administration may well find itself facing a nuclear armed Iran without the means to counter it aside from making diplomatic entreties. That in turn would spark a nuclear arms race in the Middle East or even a war between Israel, the primary target for Iranian nukes, and Iran.