Armed with my little blue notebook, I ventured out into Upper Sproul last week with the intention of talking to people about how the religious beliefs of our two main presidential candidates factor into the election. I was shocked to discover that I should have been asking a much more basic question: Do Mitt Romney or Barack Obama’s religious convictions even affect voters’ choices?
My investigative misstep stemmed from my own personal opinion that Romney’s Mormonism is going to be a crucial issue in this election, given that Americans have never elected a non-Protestant president, with the exception of the Catholic John F. Kennedy.
But Mormonism did not come up at all. Not at CalDems’ table, not at the Berkeley College Republicans’ table and strangely not at the Catholic Students at Cal tent either.
However, what I did learn was that religion is still part of the political discourse, a fact which is particularly evident in debates about abortion and gay marriage. Even on Sproul, I was perplexed that I spent 20 minutes debating abortion at the Catholics at Cal tent when I had intended to speak about the presidential candidates’ religions. But then I realized — religious explanations for or against abortion rights are trying to justify legal policy. These spheres intersect, and voting for a president means voting for the candidate that defends one’s moral — and therefore political — beliefs.
For John Ng, a graduate student at the Dominican School of Philosophy and Theology and a practicing Catholic, “personal (religious) convictions” cannot be separated from one’s “dealings in politics.” Religious voters do not seem to be interested in compartmentalizing their religious and political opinions. UC Berkeley undergraduate student Jacob Wells, a volunteer at the tent for Catholics at Cal, very clearly stated that he is more likely to vote for Romney because “(Romney) holds positions that are more like (those of) the Catholic Church.”
The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association just recently “unculted” Mormonism. Nonetheless, Mormonism does not seem to be cause for concern in voters when considering Romney’s ability to be president.
The absence of this issue genuinely surprised me. Mormonism does not veer too far away from the cultural norm. It shares a scriptural basis with Christianity, and Graham himself has urged voters to “vote for biblical values” such as those opposing abortion and supporting heterosexual marriage, thus distancing “biblical” voters from President Obama and his policies.
For Obama, who is a self-proclaimed Christian, religion has been a more complicated part of his presidential identity. He has put legislation in place that does diverge from the conservative Christian agenda, such as defending pro-abortion rights groups and making contraception more attainable for women through Obamacare.
But this is not the only difficulty that Obama faces from a religious standpoint. A small church in Texas recently posted the statement “Vote for the Mormon, not the Muslim! The Capitalist, not the Communist!” on its marquee. Obama is not, and has never been, a Muslim. Yet this dangerous misconception continues to float around America and misinform voters.
In an interview with me last Monday, my UC Berkeley professor Hatem Bazian, who teaches the course “Muslims in America,” explained the power behind this common misconception of Obama being a Muslim. According to Bazian, in our current political climate, Islam is often perceived as “un-American.” By projecting a Muslim identity on the president, critics are simultaneously advancing the notion that Obama is not devoted to the “American narrative.”
With this falsehood intact, the mischaracterization has the potential to influence the election outcome. According to a Gallup poll conducted in June, 11 percent of all Americans still believe that Obama is a Muslim, while 18 percent of Republicans hold this same belief. And belief translates into action.
An unpublished study by a professor at Indiana University conducted earlier this year showed that once in the voting booth, the American public is 49.37 percent less likely to vote for a Muslim candidate for any office simply because of the religion. “Obama the Muslim” is therefore not just sticks and stones – this false rumor could have a real impact on the election.
I have thus come face to face with a paradox: Religion may not emerge in the political dialogue around our presidential candidates outright, but it is employed as a mitigating and desecrating force to inform a voting public. It’s up to voters to decide whether or not we want to let religious beliefs determine who our next president is. And while I fear that religion and hot-button religio-moral issues may take precedence in deciding who to vote for, I hope that all voters consider their candidates as comprehensively as possible. We are a nation of Christians, Catholics, Muslims and more who must share one leader that represents us all.
Contact Hannah Brady at [email protected] and follow her on Twitter: @brady_hm.
Comment Policy
Comments should remain on topic, concerning the article or blog post to which they are connected. Brevity is encouraged. Posting under a pseudonym is discouraged, but permitted. The Daily Cal encourages readers to voice their opinions respectfully in regard to the readers, writers and contributors of The Daily Californian. Comments are not pre-moderated, but may be removed if deemed to be in violation of this policy. Click here to read the full comment policy.


“Religion may not emerge in the political dialogue around our
presidential candidates outright, but it is employed as a mitigating and
desecrating force to inform a voting public.”
I agree that it is employed as a desecrating force, but it is also used to attract votes by liberal candidates such as Obama and Biden who claim they are deeply religious yet do not wish to mix their faith with public policy. On the surface it sounds good to separate state from church, but in that case politicians who are not guided by their religious beliefs should not ADVERTISE their religions just to attract votes. It’s like a politician saying “I have a deep faith that global warming is going to kill us all, but as a Congressman I won’t force carbon reduction laws on people who don’t share my faith.” Or a candidate who says “I am a devout Catholic and I know my Pope says abortion is a sin, but I’m going to force every American, including Catholics, to fund abortion.” So why advertise his religion at all?
“We are a nation of Christians, Catholics, Muslims and more.” I understand what you are saying in your last line, but it isn’t correct to have a list that implies that Catholics are not Christians.
“Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal Lord and Savior?”
“Of course! Have you accepted the Blessed Virgin Mary as your personal Mediatrix?”
I have found that my Catholic friends have no idea what I am talking about when I say things like Mediatrix just as other Christians have no clue about the various theological ideas behind the various Protestant denominations. If someone goes with your first line, then I consider them Christian, and I will let the pope and theologians argue about the rest. It is interesting how little people know about their religions. Friends from one religion are always surprised when I point out that their religion’s version of god was an alien from another planet in another universe, and that because of this their religion believes in life on other planets and universes.
Oh no, I was just making a joke. Clearly Roman Catholics are Christians, and the record of history shows that they have a pretty good claim to being the original Church (of course, the Orthodox have an equally good claim).
But yeah, people can be shockingly ignorant of what their faiths teach. I was talking to a young Catholic woman once who claimed that her church didn’t worship Jesus, they worshipped God. “Uh, isn’t Jesus God?” I asked, hoping to draw her out, and she kept arguing against it. This from a person who belongs to a church which recites the Nicene Creed every Sunday–a creed which very explicitly affirms the divinity of Jesus. Maybe she texts during that part.
Sorry, that joke went right by me, because I run into a lot of people who have major issues with the Catholic church because of things like the support for the divinity of Mary that some in the Catholic church are supposedly pushing.
um, it also isn’t correct to leave the non-religious out. a growing number of us don’t fit into the ‘CCM’ categories.
You are part of the “more” category.
yeah, exactly. is is not odd that ‘and more’ is actually the majority of the world’s population?
Actually, right now estimates say that Christians and Muslims make up 60% of the population. However, there are a lot of people in the “more” category. I know that many Christians actually argue that their true number is much smaller, because they think that most Christians are only Christian because of their family or friends, and not because they have accepted Jesus as their Savior.
It depends on whose numbers you look at. A study by the CIA has Christianity 22%, and Islam at 19%.
You don’t happen to have a link for that study, because the CIA fact book still has higher numbers.
We are a nations of laws. The First Amendment to the Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”
Considering that you emphasize an amendment to the Constitution regarding making no law respecting an establishment of religion, you sure are quick to use religion to establish who shouldn’t be president. It is pretty easy to look at the religion or lack of religion of every individual, and to make that individual look like a bad person. The Constitution allows us to look beyond the religious beliefs of others to work together.
For example, you cannot look beyond those who profess to follow Islamic Sharia, as Islamic Countries do not sign on the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights because they conflict with Islamic Sharia. Muslims will sign on to the “Cairo” Declaration of Human Rights.
The CAIRO DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS has been criticized for being implemented by a set of states with widely disparate religious policies and practices who had “a shared interest in disarming international criticism of their domestic human rights record.”
Article 24 of the declaration states: “All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Sharia.” Article 19 also says: “There shall be NO crime or punishment EXCEPT as provided for in the Shariah.”
The CAIRO DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS has been criticized for failing to guarantee FREEDOM OF RELIGION as a “fundamental and non-negotiable human right”.
ARTICLE 25: “The Islamic Shari’ah is the ONLY source of reference for the explanation or clarification of ANY of the articles of this Declaration.”
In a joint written statement submitted by the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU), a non-governmental organization in special consultative status, the Association for World Education (AWE) and the Association of World Citizens (AWC): a number of concerns were raised, that the CAIRO DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS limits Human Rights, Religious Freedom and Freedom of Expression. It concludes: “The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam is clearly an attempt to limit the rights enshrined in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenants. It can in no sense be seen as complementary to the Universal Declaration.”
The Centre for Inquiry in September 2008 in an article to the United Nations writes that the CAIRO DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS: “undermines the equality of persons and freedom of expression and religion by imposing restrictions on nearly every human right based on Islamic Sharia law.”
The Cairo Declaration of Human Rights concludes in article 24 and 25 that all rights and freedoms mentioned are subject to the Islamic Shariah, which is the declaration’s sole source.
Our country is not based on the UN. I am not about to use a UN declaration to make a decision about the President of the US. If the presidential candidate does not support the Constitution, then I will not vote for him.
The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights are the same rights guaranteed to us in the US Constitution. It is a “standard” that most Countries agree to day. Islam has a whole different set of “standards” as stated in the teachings of the Sunnah and composed of Hadith of Muhammad, considered by them to be the last prophet of God.
If the rights are the same, then you can just refer to the Constitution instead of a UN document that is just a declaration. Any person who can’t take the oath of the President can’t be President. So your Sharia candidate wouldn’t be an issue. We don’t even need to confuse the situation with using anything other than the Constitution.
A president would never have to take the oath of citizenship, since presidents are required to be citizens by birth.
You said: “The Constitution allows us to look beyond the religious beliefs of others to work together.” I brought up the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights to show that some religious beliefs do not even belong in the Western world, because they are in conflict with liberal democracies, Western values, and Western Constitutions. Islamists agree, that is why they formed the Cairo Declaration.
Most religions are a problem for liberal democracies in the first place. Muslims are angry with Obama because he shows favoritism to Israel, Israel is angry with Obama because he shows favoritism to Islam, while both the Muslims and the Christian right are angry with Obama because he supports the woman’s right to choose and for gays to have equal social and civil rights. It is religious beliefs that keep us from working together. It took Europe hundreds of years to throw off the yoke of the Church.
I recognize that various religious groups do support different causes. However, I don’t think religion is a bad thing. I believe religion actually mitigates the conflicts. If not for the idea of a deity watching, I believe that a huge portion of the population would act like something out of a Mad Max movie. I know that being an atheist doesn’t mean a person doesn’t have a moral code, but I think there are a lot of people who wouldn’t have a qualm about living life without any thought of others if they didn’t think there was something more than the police in charge.
last year i saw boobs in canada i want to see boobs again
It’s all about the magic underpants!
An unpublished study by a professor at Indiana University conducted
earlier this year showed that once in the voting booth, the American
public is 49.37 percent less likely to vote for a Muslim candidate for
any office simply because of the religion. “Obama the Muslim” is
therefore not just sticks and stones – this false rumor could have a
real impact on the election.
No, it will not. These same people voted against Obama in 2008 and he won anyway.
2012 will be different because Obama has to run on his record.
Obama will lose in 2012 because of his failed economic policies (7.8+% employment rate), failed foreign policies (Libya fiasco and Iran), and hideous social policies (support of gay marriage and killing innocent unborn babies). Not because of his perceived religion.
Romney/Ryan 2012
Come November 7 I will be drinking your sweet, sweet tears of rage and despair.
Come November 7th I will be back to remind you of your comments. We’ll see who had the last laugh here.
Unless Mitt has photographs of Obama engaged in congress with barnyard animals, I think that’s very unlikely. But in the event I am wrong, I will accept correction gracefully, with only a very little name-calling.
it’s silly to label things as ‘failed’ and ‘hideous’ when the majority of the country (Obama is leading in polls) agrees with what he has done. you’re welcome to complain when Obama wins, but policies don’t “fail” anymore than opinions do.
Sorry, but I must disrespectfully disagree with what you label as “hideous social policies”.