Quote:

---

God hit the campaign trail way back in the summer of this election cycle. Rick Perry asked His blessings on President Obama while Michele Bachmann wondered if earthquakes were His wake-up call and Jon Huntsman Jr. tweeted that evolution is "part of His plan." Ron Paul invoked Old Testament warnings against anointing a king. Newt Gingrich hit hard on repentance and forgiveness. And apparent front-runner Mitt Romney said it would take an "act of God" for feisty Rick Santorum to win the nomination. Mr. Santorum, for his part, accused Mr. Romney of believing he's ordained by God to win.

As never before, religion is an issue in the 2012 election, say experts.

"Religious currents are more pervasive and more multifaceted than ever in shaping the public debate," says Allen Hertzke, a professor of political science at the University of Oklahoma in Norman. While religion historically has influenced politics, affiliation was typically the dividing line: Protestants voted Republican and Catholics voted Democratic. "Patterns now suggest something unusual in American politics – division along the lines of salience of religion" itself, says Professor Hertzke. "This year, it has intensified."

The enduring points of division seem to be legal abortion and gay marriage – issues unimaginable a generation ago, when compromise characterized politics. "If someone is a Republican or Democrat because of the abortion issue, they tend to interpret a whole range of issues through that lens," says John Green, a professor at the University of Akron in Ohio.

This year, the arena of reproductive issues and health care in general has spilled out into a battle over religious liberties. And though it roughly follows party lines, for some the issue crosses partisan boundaries.

More than anything else, the degree of "religiosity" now seems to divide voters, says Professor Green. People who are very religiously observant – those who go to worship services, read theScriptures, pray – tend to be Republicans. Secular people, along with black Protestants, nonpracticing Jews, and some practicing Catholics, tend to be Democrats. As Hertzke puts it, "Even if you ask about something as simple as grace before meals, you can tell if a person is likely to vote Republican."

Birth control: division or distraction?

Ironically, it's not the red-hot issues of abortion or gay marriage that are clashing with people's rights to practice their own beliefs, but birth control – a big yawn for most Americans. Even for many practicing Catholics, birth control has long been a nonissue, according to the Rev. William Byron, a professor in Philadelphia at both Saint Joseph's University and Villanova University's Center for the Study of Church Management. Studies show birth control isn't often mentioned in confession – suggesting many do not consider it sinful – and is not a reason people give for not going to mass. But even if they're not conflicted by the issue of birth control, Catholics have plenty of interest in Obama's mandate purely on a religious liberties basis.

As religious groups together raised the religious liberties flag over the birth control insurance mandate, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee told an audience at the February Conservative Political Action Conference: "In many ways, thanks to President Obama, we are all Catholics now."

Ever since former President Jimmy Carter came on the scene in 1976, unabashedly speaking of his born-again Christianity, candidates have talked faith so much that voters almost expect it of them now, say experts.

The anti-Christian vote

For some, a liberal vote is a vote against religion, and particularly against evangelical Christians, whom they often see as unwelcome interlopers in the political conversation. But Evangelicals – of whom 68 to 78 percent voted Republican in the past three elections, and who make up 25 to 30 percent of the population – have long been politically active, says Barry Hankins, professor of history and church-state studies at Baylor University in Waco, Texas. Evangelicals, he explains, come from the spectrum of denominations that hold a high view of the authority of the Bible. They tend to have had a conversion – or born-again – experience of some kind, and value activism in the culture.

Early in the 20th century – until liberal Protestantism took hold in the 1930s – Evangelicals actively championed such causes as prison reform, antislavery, and women's rights. When in 1976 Mr. Carter became the first president since Woodrow Wilson to be openly born-again, their hopes were raised, and then dashed, by his presidency. And 1980 saw the rise of the "religious right" and Ronald Reagan, as Evangelicals and observant Catholics – faiths once hostile to one another – came together on a number of issues, especially abortion.

Today, believers left and right are worried about a lot more than abortion and gay marriage.

Many are alarmed that the emerging challenge to religious autonomy has broader implications. For example, on a global scale, some think it may someday thwart their ability to manage church humanitarian efforts in compliance with their own reading of the Scriptures. If churches are pressed to violate their beliefs about gay marriage or abortion, for instance, the poor may have to wait while the churches defend their religion in court. Religious groups raise many billions of dollars annually from members and funnel it into virtually every corner of the globe, alleviating poverty, illuminating abuses like human trafficking, and treating disease, says Hertzke.

Ultimately, the big question is "Whom do you trust?" – or possibly, "Whom don't you trust?" – with your freedoms. Are you a "government which governs best governs least" sort? Or do you wonder where we'd be today without F.D.R.? Over the years, there have been conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans, but today each side's signature issues seem more firm, and the sides seem increasingly unable to work together. Politicians exploit the divisions, rhetoric escalates, and with candidates in constant campaign mode, voters can tend to see themselves in mortal combat with fellow citizens. The result, say observers: Long-term problems don't get addressed.More at http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2012/0401/The-faith-factor-Relig
ion-s-new-prominence-in-campaign-2012

---

Quote:

---

There’s a new slogan making its way onto car bumpers and across the Internet. It reads simply: “Pray for Obama: Psalm 109:8”

A nice sentiment?

Maybe not.

The psalm reads, “Let his days be few; and let another take his office.”

Presidential criticism through witty slogans is nothing new. Bumper stickers, t-shirts, and hats with “1/20/09” commemorated President Bush’s last day in office.

But the verse immediately following the psalm referenced is a bit more ominous: “Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.”

The slogan comes at a time of heightened concern about antigovernment anger. Earlier this year, the president's senior adviser, David Axelrod, said that Tea Parties could lead to something unhealthy. In September, authorities shut down a poll on Facebook asking if President Obama should be killed.

Still, that doesn’t push the Psalms citation into the realm of hate speech, says Chris Hansen, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

The use of Psalm 109:8 is ambiguous as to whether its users are calling for the President to serve “only one term, or less than one term,” he says.

Deborah Lauter, director of civil rights at the Anti-Defamation League agrees that the bumper sticker falls within acceptable political discourse.

For it to be considered hate speech, it “would advocate actual violence or cite scripture that was more clear in its message.”

But that doesn’t mean that it’s completely innocent.

“Are we concerned about real hostility towards [President Obama]? Absolutely,” says Ms. Lauter. “Is this a part of that movement? It may be, but in terms of this message itself, we would not criticize it.”

“The problem is you don’t know if people who are donning that message in a shirt or on a bumper sticker are fully aware of the quote or what follows. Obviously that message makes the ambiguity disappear. If they’re just referring to him being out of office, that’s one thing. If they’re referring to him being dead, that’s so offensive. It’s protected speech, but it’s clearly offensive.”More at http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2009/1116/biblical-anti-obama-sl
ogan-use-of-psalm-1098-funny-or-sinister]