The less said about religion the better. Almost always when politicians open their mouths about religion what comes out is phony and hypocritical.
6
You won't hear the Democrat candidates talk about religion, because religion and abortion are incompatible and they would just sound like hypocrites. So they wisely keep quiet about it.
To Mr. Bruni's point, I noted Trump's AG Barr (unfortunately the U.S. doesn't have an AG any longer) blasting the "militant secularists" in his speech at Notre Dame.
My first reaction was amusement considering all the very secular missteps, legal problems and moral failings so evident among the religious right (including sexual, financial crimes and pedophilia). This goes up to and includes Jerry Falwell, Jr.--and the Mrs.---and their scandal with photos involving a "pool boy," recently settled for an "undisclosed sum."
But, I also had to admit: the phrase, "militant secularists," has an ugly resonance to it. Perfect for Trump and the Trumpettes. It's something he'd enjoy repeating over and over and over
2
As a Christian I would prefer God be kept out of politics it only make things worse!
3
I miss Christopher Hitchens so much right now...
7
Come on Democrats! Tell comforting lies about impotent Bronze Age deities who came to Earth as a pillar of fire to fight for the Israelites (because the people who wrote the story couldn't conceive of greater power) or who came as a baby and while here, failed to build anything, write anything, or even get in front of a single historian. None of this country's problems are going to be solved by religion, but let's talk about it anyway!
Though, I guess Trump lied constantly during his campaign. So maybe Bruni's on to something.
5
Frank Bruni should learn a little regional culture before writing a column. I'm a practicing Maronite Catholic and grew up in northern New Jersey.
It is not the culture of the Northeast to wear your religion on your sleeve as it might be in other parts of the country; in fact, it considered almost offensive to do so.
4
Meanwhile, the GOP "people of faith" embrace hypocrisy. They tolerate Trump's blunt hint contained in "My daughter is hot! But I can't marry her.) (But he CAN know her biblically?) There's story circulating that the president of a university (founded by his pastor father) and his wife are swingers. And these people would be the first to denounce Jesus and His Apostles as a bunch of swarthy, possibly gay, Jews (using crude vernacular) living with a prostitute.
The First Amendment makes us free FROM religion.
7
Far right Christians seem to think Trump is somehow ordained by God. I for one am fed up with the right wing hypocrites, democrats should steer clear. Everyone is sick of hearing about "thought and prayers" in place of action. Right wing evangelicals have sold out their integrity for power and it stinks to high heaven.
3
Most of the the half that pray to a Christian God also pray to trump.
Hey Frank, ever heard of separation of church and state?
Look it up!!
2
Let’s hope so.
I'm a simple man and need simple explanations. Here's how I imagine the conversation:
Me: If one of the candidates were Muslim, would it be a good idea for him/her to interlace their speeches with the occasional, Allāhu akbar?
Mr. Bruni: Hahaha. No! Of course not. That would kill their chances. They should only refer to the Christian God.
Me: But, isn't there Freedom of religion in the US?
FB: Well, yes, but not if one really wants to be President. If one does, then s/he needs to be Christian.
Me: Is that what the founding father's wanted when they crafted the nation?
FB: Well, no. They wanted a complete separation of Church and State, for they had witnessed the carnage that religion/politics caused in Europe. Not to mention that some of the Founders, like Jefferson, didn't really believe in a 'magical' divinity ...so much so, that Jefferson made the effort to make a new version of the Bible, in which he completely removed all references to magic/miracles and whatnot.
Me: So the dream that any citizen can grow up to become President isn't really true? A young Muslim boy or girl wouldn't stand a chance, is that what you are saying?
...
Please hold, your call is important to us....
4
Is God Skipping the Democratic Primary?
I hope so. It's bad enough that we have Russian bots and Facebook liars involved.
Dan Kravitz
2
God has nothing in common with the beliefs of this party.So maybe best,they don't put him on the front door!
God? Why would any god claim kin to such a low class humanity? Is Mankind worth saving? Doubtful.
1
So Mr. Bruni thinks the Dems should openly appeal to Allah? Or perhaps Zeus?
3
'God'...a fictional character...has no place in politics. Period.
3
Where has this God been lately?
Cuz. well, given that Trump is a good proxy for Satan, we could use some good old fashioned Bible style countermeasures, right now.
Maybe start with plague #2, an infestation of frogs at the White House.
2
Ummm, we are talking about running a government here. What are you talking about? Save religion of your private home, your church and your inner world.
5
"...it’s still the case that more than half of Americans say that they pray daily..."
How sad for them. Time they learn that nobody's listening. Better to choose humanism and take care of each other.
4
Forgive me Mr. Bruni, but I refuse to build my life around a book of Greco-Roman mythology, campfire tales, dubious family histories, and other fables written during the Bronze Age by white men who believed the sun revolved around the earth, did not know what a molecule was, treated women as property, and thought slavery was a great idea, among many more now discounted words of God. You have your faith and I have my facts. Call it a draw.
4
How many Americans know that a large portion of our Founding Fathers were affirmed Deists who believed that God created the universe and that was his one and only role?
2
Is Mr. Bruni familiar with the first amendment? I am glad that the candidates are.
3
Agreed.
It’s a huge blind spot that the Democrats avoid doing something about.
Mike Pence can start his presidential campaign with a group prayer, asking god to guide us in this darkest of times, and every single church person in the are would be in his column in an instant.
I think Democrats avoid the subject because they are all pandering to the same corner of society, Liberals and left fringe loonies.
Those folk tend to be atheists. Not out of logic or pragmatism, but out of protest against the super religious far right.
The Democrats hope this corner of society will vote them into power, and thus you will not see them mentioning religion, it would alienate the fringe left. Having failed to entice the center to their cause, they cannot lose the fringe left now. Therefore you will not see them mentioning god at all, lets they loose their last bastion of support.
From this article one might think that the Democratic candidates for the nomination are all agnostic or even atheist and, to my knowledge, no American running for the presidency has ever been elected after publicly admitting to either. By all means leave ‘god’ out of your politics but ‘heaven’ help the candidate who admits to atheism in America!
2
I believe Carter and Bush II were the real religious Presidents in my lifetime. The rest faked it for politics.
1
So? Why would a presidential candidate talk about religion? Litmus test? Rather not.
3
It's called separation of church and state, and it's called inclusion. Our country is based on freedom of religion, you can worship as you want, as long as you follow the laws of the nation. Religion should stay in church and in hearts and minds.
1
"Democrats would make it harder for Trump to vilify them as enemies of so-called traditional values if they talked a bit more about spirituality and religion — including, if applicable, their own."
Seriously -- you wrote that sentence. As if a morally bereft, lying, cheating, serial adulterer has any acquaintance with religion, decency, "traditional values" LOL. Trump vilifying anyone about anything is laughable particularly to people who have brains, eyes, and ears.
I'm sorry, I grew up in a religious family, I pray etc. but the last thing I want or expect to hear from a politician is anything in regard to religion. Just tell me about your plans for the environment, healthcare, the national debt, gun control, infrastructure and I'll worry about my religion, spirtuality etc.
4
We are electing a president, not a priest. Religious belief should play no role, and any candidate wearing their religion on their sleeve is eye-rollingly distasteful.
2
Frank, I love your perspective and your writing, and I think you are absolutely, 100-percent right about this. But how could you write a column on this matter without once having mentioned the name of Marianne Williamson, Democratic candidate for president?
@ Steven Roth New York 4 hours ago (6.50 EDT)
The Eight of the Ten Commandments that you cited are fundamental to any Occidental society. In the first ones, about "the one and only God ...", the name of God may be replaced by Eternal Morals, without negating the principles of the others.
It's high time God skips all politics in the U.S.A. The nonsensical "My superstition is superior to your superstition," trope is really getting old.
Besides whenever God gets involved in politics the effects are bad, not necessarily because of God, but because of Man.
4
If the Democratic candidates leave god out of the campaign, I say amen!
1
Republicans appear to be trying to turn our Democracy into a Theocracy. You know, the kind of government they typically have in the Middle East. I find that terrifying.
3
What quality does a belief in god bestow upon a candidate for a job that is secular in nature, a job in which the applicant would represent the will of many people who do not believe in whatever god or gods that person professes belief in?
As an atheist, freethinker, secular humanist, and an unapologetic apostate of two faiths, I put no faith (pardon the pun) in a candidate's belief in some religion. We only have to look at the examples that religion has provided us with to see that they possess no more moral authority than any godless heathen would. In fact, it seems that many who profess a belief in a "higher power" act with a great deal of immorality.
We need only look at our philandering, lying, cheating, soon to be indicted so-called President to show religious morality put to the lie. Trump claims to be a Christian and is surrounded by a cabal of Evangelical Christians who continue to support him and wave away his immoral actions as if they don't matter at all. Imagine cheating on your wife with a porn star, paying that porn star hush money, and getting a free pass from Christian leaders. What morality! Need I even bring up the Catholic Church's world-wide conspiracy of silence and cover-up of decades of Catholic priests sexually assaulting children and being moved around to continue assaulting children in other parishes like it was a Pokemon game of gotta touch them all?
1
Perhaps it is just the times we live in. Jerry Falwell and Ralph Reed and the rest give religion bad name. Oversized influence turns me off with them just like the NRA does. Trump plays golf on Sundays and prays to win confirming his world view composed of winners and losers. The Dems will be fine.
1
"Democrats would make it harder for Trump to vilify them as enemies of so-called traditional values if they talked a bit more about spirituality and religion"
OMG (excuse me) - talk about making it harder for the pot to call the kettle - - -
1
I challenge the Republican right Christians (and Democrats too) to study the end-times prophecies in the book of Revelations concerning the powerful and arrogant beast (a metaphor for nation). Without the mark of this beast on the forehead (metaphor for values) or the hand (metaphor for actions), you shall not buy or sell. What interpretations are there for not being able to buy or sell but sanctions, bans and tariffs? What values are american culture promoting? Fornification in the name of sexual liberation, abortion, LGBTQ in the name of individual rights, worshipping the fake goddess of "democracy".
Prophecies in the Bible are coming true one by one: see the formation of Israel. climate change, obsessive focus on Man himself (selfies, facebook narcissism, opoid self indulgence, etc) and now the identity of the beast revealed.
Non-believers may mock but the Word of God will be true.
It's interesting that that studies show the vast majority of people who are classified as "nones" reject the established religions, but they do believe in God/The Supreme Intelligence in a Deistic way. Since many of America's key Founders were Deists ( http://www.deism.com/deistamerica.htm ), today's politicians should bring up Deism. Thomas Paine's book on God, Deism and religion, "The Age of Reason, The Complete Edition" would be a great start.
As a devout atheist, the less said about religion, the better.
2
Well God obviously wanted trump to be president or that wouldn't have happened right? So Trump is God's chosen one then.
Or not
1
Frank,
This hypocrisy is already "owned" by the GOP. From the president who couldn't fit through the "eye of any needle" to Pence and the rest of the miserable leadership, who's professed Faith in God, fails at any cursory examination of their behavior.
Separation of Church and State has been a founding principle of this republic for the very reason Kings and Queens wrapped themselves in the flag of religion to justify their rule as appointed and anointed by god.
The deplorable "christians" who preach that trump was sent by god, should be charged with sedition and thrown off the continent.
2
Everybody knows that God votes a straight Democratic ticket.
Use religion for political advantage? I had not realized Mr. Bruni was so brazenly cynical.
2
I guess I worry more when the topic of climate change gets skipped than when the topic of religion gets skipped.
2
You forgot to mention Amy Klobuchar's account of her father's alcoholism and that "he was pursued by grace". I found her use of religious language heartfelt and authentic but she lost me when she got into her Zionism mode.
1
Reads like a Steven Colbert skit minus the humor.
2
Religion has NO place in our political system.
2
Bruni has this so wrong. Religion is shallow, silly and childish. Finally we have a group of politicians that refuse to pander to religious posturing, and instead focus on what is truly meaningful. And Bruni wants to drag us back to superstition? Why???
3
Do you feel that just one god should be mentioned more or all of them?
3
Separation of Church and state, otherwise we become like the fools in the Middle East. An American's religious choice is a private matter. Politicians use of religious affiliations are usually hypocritical and have no rightful place in politics.
1
Did you know that most Americans go to the toilet on a regular basis? And yet bathroom issues have hardly been touched on in the debates. This doesn't make them any less important; they are simply an inappropriate subject for political debate.
2
This naysaying is becoming tiring. While it makes sense to be realistic, to cover all angles relevant to a campaign, i don’t follow your posts to be washed in pessimism, to be told that there is little hope of defeating Trump and the Republicans.
4
To equate praying, faith, and religion with "good" and anti-religion, atheism, and rationalism with "bad" is simply wrong and both the past and present proves it. Why does a religion get a tax break when they have their faithful to support them? Many of their pastors are in the 1% so they have a vested interest in the money class while exploiting socialist benefits to the max. I am just as if not more spiritual and don't need god or gods to be there. I get no tax breaks for that nor should I. I respect the pre-candidates for keeping it to the issues.
9
If you want to hear about religion, you can do that at church (and a thousand other venues).
But at a presidential debate, I want to hear about what candidates would do if they were elected president. And in our country, that should not have anything to do with religion.
7
Imagine a candidate saying "Well I've rarely darkened the door of a church myself. Why? The nicest way to put it is that it doesn't do anything for me. More bluntly, I consider most of it primitive nonsense. Still, religion is a social organization that makes some people feel better, causes some to act better and to do some generous work to help others -- that's why I generally don't criticize it."
I'm waiting.
4
@Allan Dobbins, coulda' said it better myself. I'd vote for that candidate in a heart beat.
The sad thing is Democratic beliefs are inherently based on the teachings of Jesus in the gospels. I know for a fact my political beliefs are based on my rural Christian upbringing. Christianity today has no reflection of what I was taught as a child and believe in today.
I am almost certain many of the people who provided my religious teachings are hard core Trump Republicans. Having grown up in rural Illinois I can get a lot of what white working people feel, but what I don't get is how far they moved away from the Christianity I was taught and can read clearly in the first four chapters of the bible.
6
And our excessive religiosity is part of the problem. We may as well have a state religion because more than a few of our politicians and citizens are unable to separate their religious views from their views of how a government should be run and for whom.
Being religious, going to church, temple, or mosque, saying prayers, doesn't make a person more honest, intelligent, or kind. The only way to accomplish those things is to be honest, develop one's intellect, and to practice kindness towards all. I see very little of that in America now.
11
Agreed. It’s also about walking the talk too. And almost always when one hears Christian rhetoric from politicians, it comes with spine chills, it is bad news for Everyone. Basic Humanity flies out the window. And isn’t love for humanity a main tenet of Christianity?
5
The reading-between-the-lines message in this column is that Frank Bruni is enamored of Pete Buttigieg, and is using this argument to give Mayor Pete a bit of additional praise. But for that, the argument is pretty much a non-starter. I'm with Dave who quotes Article 6 of the constitution. Religion is a private matter and candidates for public office are better off leaving it out of the discussion.
7
I agree with the advice but let's not forget: Hillary Clinton featured her religious beliefs very visibly in the bio she ran at her convention. And she selected a pro-life running mate who had done missionary work. Did that help them attract more religious voters? From the results, it didn't seem to help much.
1
As a Christian, the opinion resonates with me. The separation of Church and State is there to protect society from poor policy choices, however we all live our lives based on our beliefs.
If a candidate can resonate on a religious level with individual citizens, in the aggregate that is a winning combination.
If a candidate can demonstrate the principles of Love God with all you heart, mind and soul and Love your neighbors as yourself, all else will follow.
1
The paradoxical obverse our "calling out" the coin of realm may just be the "sound of silence" now. I do wish we had more of it. The wise caution against our speaking too much—you know, of politics or religion both—holds, as do the moneyed interests behind them. Anyway, heads or tails, they mostly try to win.
A comment below said this about the lead line in Mr. Bruni's column. Mr. Bruni said:
"...The candidates’ reticence about religion is excessive and unwise..."
The reply comment said:
"...No, it's actually quite refreshing. The more that politicians make a point of talking about their religious beliefs, the less they are to be trusted..."
I for one am very much concerned about how far the Democrat Party is joyfully diverging from the country. And how the Party's propaganda arm in the infotainment media are cocooning the political actors of the Party into believing that the propaganda bubble in which the Primaries are presently being conducted are a safe basis for going to the public in 2020 seeking their approval for a change that really would be a radical departure for the country. For there are a host of political realities that the Party isn't even pretending to see.
Donald Trump's defeat would be the first sitting President to not be reelected since George H.W. Bush in 1992. That's 28 years and without a collapsed economy; and, with a choice (for a Democrat) that is so radically different from the decisive decision 2016.
I think it bodes ill for the Party to believe that an electoral college majority can be built by nationally appealing to voters who believe:
"...The more that politicians make a point of talking about their religious beliefs, the less they are to be trusted..."
There is no question that this is where the Party is. But not the country.
Come on, Frank. Republicans are going to "vilify" Democrats "as enemies of so-called traditional values" however much they talk about their own religious beliefs. The reason: Abortion. Case in point: Donald Trump. The least religious or traditional values candidate of all time who merely made up a sudden aversion to abortion and he is nonsensically crowned the candidate of traditional values. Dems - for the most part - value a woman's right to choose more than we care about convincing anyone else of our church-going bonafides. If a candidate genuinely wants to talk about their religious beliefs or values, so be it, but lets not pretend talking more about their personal beliefs will change a single vote of a single one of the Christian voters whose religion is defined by one thing above all others - not God, Not Jesus, but abortion.
4
I'm so tired of people who don't understand that separation of church and state is about institutions, not motivations.
As Bruni points out, most folks still believe in God, and if there is a God, that's relevant to conscience and thus politics. If there isn't a God, then disbelief is similarly relevant.
There are doctrinaire theists; there are doctrinaire atheists; there are doctrinaire agnostics. If the current opinion silos have taught us anything, it's that refusal to consider other perspectives is nearly universal. Secularism is not superior, nor is theism superior. So discussing one's motivations remains crucial.
3
Mayor Pete sincerely wishes to incorporate an ethic based on the noble aspects of the Judeo-Christian tradition into his rhetoric, but the responses of so many Times commentators indicate that the churches have damaged the appeal so profoundly that such remarks may do even more harm than good. Given the impacts of the priestly abuse / conspiracy scandals in the Catholic church and the dissolution of Evangelicalism due to its adherence to the prosperity gospel (did they never read the Book of Job?) and support of Trump's vainglory, it is probably better to ground an ethical argument on basic human decency and respect for our fellow human beings and for creation. Trump's rabidly conservative followers will not be persuaded to back a Democratic candidate, especially if he or she is gay and/or pro-choice on abortion - Catholic or Protestant, they would consider supporting a Democrat as a betrayal of their beliefs, and are past praying for. Nevertheless, many injustices in American history were overcome through faith and accomplished through individuals with deep faith in the Divine power working in history- consider humble Sojourner Truth and erudite Martin Luther King, for example. Faith may be the greatest gift to the human soul, while religion, unfortunately, often turns out to be destructive of the human community.
4
Brilliantly said.
I am aethiest and a liberal, and even I realize that Bruno is correct—with the caveat that he failed to mention Marianne Williamson, who brought spirituality to the debate and was pilloried for it.
Americans seem to feel the need to be hard and logical. We worship money and success, but we completely ignore our souls.
Theoretical physicists find that the more they study what we call reality, the more it appears to resemble a thought. At a molecular level, we are transparent.
Our soul is all of us, all that we are.
As a secular-humanist, I wonder why we ascribe something positive to believing without reason (faith).
2
I do not believe this to be true at all. We have Separation of Church and State. I want our Constitution respected and laws treated as sacred.
4
Personally, I appreciate the lack of religious call-outs. It makes candidates seem more credible in my eyes.
That being said, if religion is a significant aspect of a candidate's life, I would prefer they discuss it, if only to offer a more authentic view of the individual. As long as they recognize the separation of church and state, it makes no difference to me.
I wish atheistic candidates felt confident in expressing their views as well. Sadly, there's little chance of that happening for a very long time.
9
@Garbanzø Dœ: Polls consistently find that many Americans trust people who never pray, or claim to know what God thinks, least of all.
God does not belong in political campaigns. Period. Mr. Bruni, by the time we have followed all your precepts about what will endear Democrats to the most possible voters, we will have lost ourselves.
Let's take it as a given that the "Americans of faith" who are appalled by President Trump will not vote for him. And if they are capable of considering it, I doubt there's anything in the way of religious reference by a Democratic candidate that could make a difference.
8
This is all that needs to be said on religion: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Your religion does not and should not invalidate my rights. Why should religion be mentioned in a Democratic debate or a Republican debate?
7
@MPM: An "establishment of religion" is a faith-based belief, and "free exercise " of religion cannot be coerced.
MPM:
“Your religion does not and should not invalidate my rights.”
We will see if that applies when the Supreme Court rules on the abortion case they are to hear this term.
1
There certainly is plenty of room for a MORAL argument to be made in the middle of this political quagmire. G_d (my version) doesn't care what happens to the United States. The planet is three BILLION years old, so countries don't matter. Neither does religion. The lillies of the field interact with insects, weather, and the soil, and they couldn't care less if we think they're pretty or not. But WE need to identify our similarities to one another regardless of geography or other insignificant factors. The United Nations was, at least in theory, a solution to the endless conflicts and death that have plagued us for centuries. Especially with the development of nuclear weapons, the "last world war" was in full view for all of us to see- the ultimate clarifying moment. Now we have climate change on top of that problem as well. So there certainly is a Moral dilemma facing us even as the Cold War has seemingly ended (it really hasn't).
And who but the USA has more sway in the world to get things back on track? Anyone who ignores or derides other countries and their people only value wealth as the ultimate escape route from ordinary problems affecting the "rest of us". Exxon/Mobil has an ad on TV where they are growing algae meant to consume excess CO-2 in the atmosphere. Am I supposed to believe such a ridiculous propaganda campaign ("we do this so trees can be a little more like trees")?! This is a moral contradiction, and thanks to OIL we face a world-wide catastrophe.
4
@flyinointment: in line with the principle of scale-independence, the Earth needs a world government of governments.
God is already a presidential candidate. Just ask Donald Trump.
4
Anyone who knows anything about Biden knows his faith is integral and a part of his daily life. Same w Buttigeig.
3
@Dolly Patterson: Why does the US need a president who believes anything without substantiation?
1
I certainly hope the God isn't going to skip the Democratic primaries. If he does show up, I'd love it if he would bring Santa, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy along with him.
4
You know that Santa Clause, magic and God are not real. Why talking about it?
1
@Jorge Berny: Most of the fuss about abortion comes from people who believe its legality will affect their own status after death.
Just stop already ... I’m so tired of religion being used to excuse this corrupt administration brimming with sanctimony and hypocrisy. I’d settle for simple morals and some decent ethics.
6
People are sick of politicians claiming faith in exchange for votes. Look where it has gotten us - lying ineffective politicians.
4
Mr. Bruni,
1/ God does not exist. All religions are equally false. People of your degree of literacy should be ashamed not to be full atheists.
2/ If patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, religion is the first. One of the banes of American political life ever since its beginning has been its scandalous dependance on religious delusions. From slavery to Evangelical support of Trump by way of crooked preachers, it has never ceased to fester.
3/ Anybody claiming to be a Christian who has nevertheless not sold all his worldly goods and given away the proceedings to the poor, a duty made clear in the Gospels, is a hypocrite.
3
Those people whom require a candidate for public office to profess Christian faith are not voting for a Democrat, ever, especially a gay one. Probably not a woman either.
5
Please! Now Dems have to apologize for keeping religion out of politics??? Hogwash.
5
Church and State are to be divided, Frank.
4
Mr. Bruni's thoughts are not about the merits of religious faith or the lack thereof. They are not about the separation of church and state. They are not about the private or public nature of one's beliefs.
They are about winning the election and getting rid of the vile, corrupt, liar and cheater currently occupying the White House.
2
So, now, it is "smart" to take the imaginary man-made entity commonly referred to as "God" to the campaign trail? Really??
3
Glad to know god is skipping the democratic primary.
Because god, the central force of republican politics, produced a scandalous, personally reprehensible candidate who embraced bible thumpers (who in exchange have embraced him while chortling all the way to the bank). Everyone in his revivalist book burning events is oh so religious.
Why them? The entire American right, omigod, is so godly. That would be the same American right, omigod, that is so evil. Was there an injustice that the god driven American did not love? Slavery anyone?
While I read Bruni, I hear a cacophony of ayatollahs, of the people of cloth who want to defile children without consequence, the people who unfailingly speak of women as less deserving, the people who want to - eventually - kill all infidels.
Thank you democrats for defining a space outside of your religious beliefs (and not paying attention to Bruni). While your current themes of "free everything by hosing the rich" is clear crackpottery, at least you are not peddling opiates that are designed to subdue, manipulate and defraud others based on some unique insights you claim to have about what made you and the universe.
The promise of living free in America includes the promise of living free from your religious beliefs. Freedom of religion is the same as freedom from your religion.
4
Separation of church and state is necessary so we don't regress to burning witches. Also, has God given up on Trumps Evangelistic Christians?
2
TLDR; "How come you're not pandering to people who those who exude religiosity?"
All the more reason Buttigieg is the best candidate. It's a pity you just can't see him in the White House, Mr. Bruni.
1
When God speaks from heaven to take a position, then I will worry about what God has to say. Until then shut up about God. He/she/it is irrelevant to what is going down.
2
I certainly hope that God skips the Democratic Primary - he wasn't invited and is too smart to inject himself into it. Separation of church and state, remember? I am also quite certain that God does not enjoy being used as a hypocritical weapon by the corrupt right wing. Here's the thing - if any of these right wing nuts truly believe in God, they should fear for their souls and not pack much for where they are all going...it will be fearfully hot, forever. And never will an endless, fiery vacation be so deserved.
3
"While the president may have the farthest reaches of the religious right locked down, many Americans of faith are appalled by him."
Awfully sweet of you, Frankie, to try to salvage Organized Religion [not to be confused with individual belief as you attempt to do] from its connection with the most morally corrupt President we've ever had.
Won't work. The two are sinking together and good riddance to both.
4
How about if one of the candidates talked about his Muslim faith? How would that go over? Would that work for you as a a tactic?
5
Not a lot of decency or empathy in the comments toward the religious folks dems desperately need to have any hope of beating Trump.
Weird how people who demand tolerance and inclusivity are lightning quick to shut their minds and scorn the unwashed masses "dumb" enough to hope their faith might have some role in their public lives.
Reminds of that ignoramus who said people are "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights". Jeez. Probably some dingbat in a MAGA hat.
1
Why don't we just put Jesus on the ballot and be done with all the bickering? Surely he will show us the way.
1
@bemused Not qualified to be president - he didn't live to be 35.
1
They don’t talk about religion because it would be so obviously fake. Their discomfort would be palpable. You can’t spend so much time vilifying religion and driving it out of the public square and then fake like your religious. Not even Democratic voters could swallow that one.
@Thomas Aquinas
People taught from childhood to believe preposterous supernatural claims and events as having been factual historical events are people trained to be vulnerable to accepting as true preposterous claims made by avaricious hucksters claiming to be believers in the former.
1
We must get beyond religion and live according to the golden rule. Easy. Clean.
46
@Juultje I agree we should live according to the golden rule. But that rule comes from Jesus' teachings.
2
@Juultje Ah, yes. The Golden Rule. Derived from a verse in...you guessed it...the Bible. Matthew 7:12.
2
Does anyone else find it ironic that the opposing candidates need to highlight their personal connection to God in order to defeat one of the most Godless human being who ever walked the earth? Or how about the irony of the religious right backing this Godless individual and repeatedly looking the other way as he behaves in the most un-Christian way on a daily basis. And lastly, although I am personally believer, I truly feel that God takes as little interest in politics as he does in sports events (you know the ones where the athletes thank God after they win).
1
I found this surprising, rather off-putting column, to be disturbing in its suggestions to use one's religion as a tool to gain political support.
And frankly, having read Mr. Bruni for a number of years, it seems inconsistent with his general view of these things, so am curious as to what prompted it.
It's interesting that he uses this article to compliment Buttigieg as an example of what he'd like to see more of. Is it because he supports Buttigieg as a fellow gay man and he uses this article to indirectly promote Mayor Pete? Or does he think this example indirectly offers a message which says "hey, we gays can be good Christians too", and seeking acceptance through advancing this subject.
I'd be curious as to what prompted him to write it, and I wonder if he really thinks that the Democratic candidates should act more like Republicans and wear their faith on their sleeve?
Odd bit of writing indeed.....this is not an idea very often promoted in secular, educated and/or left wing circles as the way to political success.
5
Why talk about God? Really, Mr. Bruni. This argument has been over since the late 18th Century. Result: Voltaire 1 Religion 0. No overtime, no penalty shoot-out.
Next column subject: Are Some Democratic Candidates Too Mean to Rich People?
4
I cannot believe I am reading this! In the N.Y. Times!
Furthermore, I think Beto O’Rourke has a very good point. Why should any group that openly and flagrantly disobeys the law have tax exempt status?
3
@Susan There's no law requiring private parties to perform same-sex weddings. Nor should there be.
Politicians should follow the sage advice attributed to St. Francis: "Preach the gospel at all times -- if necessary, use words."
1
Thank you, Frank Bruni, for your words. I’m an atheist but I respect the beliefs of those who are not atheists or who are religious (in those two categories, however, I exclude fundamentalists, of any religion). I liked that Pete Buttigieg brought up religion; I trust that he will continue to do so, and I hope that other Democratic candidates begin to—IF they are being honest about their beliefs. I’m hoping so for selfish reasons: their doing so might, as you said, get more people to vote for them. Also, why should a candidate’s being religious be kept in the closet? I’d love it if an atheist candidate could admit freely to being an atheist, but that time won’t come soon.
The key word in the faith debate is "genuine." We have heard presidential candidates try to sound like Evangelicals, only to come off as phony. I cringed at the efforts of Al Gore, for example, to talk evangelical talk. Jimmy Carter is the only modern-day candidate and then president to truly know his way around a biblical perspective, and to demonstrate this in his daily life. Otherwise, our candidates and presidents have been religious only in the sense of Christianity as a tradition that holds some useful wisdom and records of human experience (but not strictly historical experience.) It is getting increasingly problematic to get our newer generations to take the narratives of religious writings literally, after all. Who can say with a straight face that there is a benevolent power who is in charge of human affairs (especially when humans are charging towards their own extinction?) Who can believe that, out of all the religions of the world, only the one we were born into is the truth, or that one religious narrative is the only one with truth? Modern people understand that religion is important because it is ours, it is a kind of record of our human experiences and dilemmas and our efforts to resolve those. And it is this understanding of religion that informs most candidates for president. So they do not go around talking about their "personal relationship with Christ," for example. That's evangelical talk and it is characteristic of. perhaps, 25% of U.S. citizens.
1
Separation of church and state is in the First Amendment for many reasons.
Unlike Trump, I believe in following the Constitution.
4
An inconvenient truth: Religion(s) are the engines of bigotry and war. The body count of wars that were (and are) fought in the name of religious purity is endless.
We are fortunate that our founders knew this truth rejected its presence in government.
Let’s keep it that way.....
We don’t need someone who believes in invisible, imaginary friends running our government.
2
The white evangelical churches are hemorrhaging young people who are disgusted about the leaders selling their faith cheap for a ticket on the Trump Train. At this point, they are more white than evangelical. They identify with white nationalism more than the universality of the gospel. Part of the Magnificat:
"He has shown strength with His arm;
He has scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He has put down the mighty from their thrones,
And exalted the lowly.
He has filled the hungry with good things,
And the rich He has sent away empty."
Nope! Exalt the proud, honor the powerful, kick the lowly, imprison the children, send the rich away with pockets overflowing with the latest tax cut for the wealthy. --The Gospel According to Trump. It is literally anti Christ.
6
Earlier this year we heard Pete Buttigieg, a Democrat, who spoke of his Christian faith and that is when we took notice, and now support him. He has noted God is not a member if any political party.
As a family we do not and have not pushed our Christian faith on anyone. In fact we are turned off by those like Franklin Graham, Jerry Falwell Jr., Eric Metaxas, Ralph Reed, who blatantly support Trump, whose words and deeds as President are as un-Biblical as they can be.
Pete Buttigieg for us, seems to grasp the true meaning of being a Christ follower versus a fan of Christ since he literally does believe in Matthew 25, where Christ responds when asked 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ And he said 'whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
There is nothing to be ashamed of for having a faith based lifestyle. And I wish to remind people that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr was and ordained minister. That most men and women who were abolitionists, supporters of the vote for women, legal birth control, desegregation of public schools, supporters of Americans with disability laws have been men and women of faith from various religions.
8
@Beth Grant DeRoos
It seems to me that the true test of whether or not one deserves to be called a Christian is revealed in his or her acts of benevolence and compassion to others rather than in his or her belief in supernatural credal statements.
IMO, the only reason candidates mention religion or a deity is to pander to those voters who are believers and need their inclinations reinforced. Any deity hearing all the supplications must get tired of the pleas to help their particular candidate slay the other person. If Democrats have to field DT2 in order win in 2020, our country is really in BAD shape. The problem is that even when Trump is out of the White House, his fervent, non-thinking supporters will be looking for another saviour to blindly follow. Educating those folks is a long-term project that I not sure is possible.
2
The Constitution says there is no religious test for holding public office. Religious beliefs or a lack thereof should be a private and personal matter. I understand that espousing religious beliefs is advantageous with regard to some of the electorate but most of those people are probably very receptive to the religious hypocrisy of so many Republicans.
2
I couldn't disagree more, and I say that as a person of faith with a degree in theology. Look at what using faith and God for political gain has gotten us: It has deformed faith and religion and managed to elect the most corrupt and incompetent human beings ever to occupy the oval office.
And even if the Democrats were to try what you suggest, it wouldn't help. I understand Hillary Clinton was a lifelong Episcopalian and somewhat regular churchgoer. It didn't stop the GOP from smearing and lying about her constantly. They're still chanting "lock her up" at Trump's rallies.
3
So what Mr. Bruni seems to be saying is that a lot of God talk is good politics. That may be so, since probably 80% of Americans believe in a personal god that is intimately acquainted with human affairs. Such talk might then be reassuring to most of them.
But that doesn't make it the right thing to do. I, and millions of others, think religion or lack thereof is a personal matter and doesn't belong in the public election forum. Our constitution enshrines that principle in the First Amendment.
1
I just read ALL of your piece. I couldn't agree more.
I don't think Biden has ever really talked in depth about his faith but I don't think that's what you're suggesting.
Talking about religion, especially one's own faith, does not always come easily and should only be done by someone who is completely comfortable doing so. Otherwise, it could backfire in a political campaign.
2
The problem with mixing religion into your politics is that they are, in a liberal democracy, antithetical ways of approaching the world. Anything you take as a matter of faith is by definition intellectually unassailable. There's no argument with "God says so." Politics meanwhile is the process of trying to reconcile a plethora of competing interests, too often supported by powerful rationalizations already. Nearly all policy decisions create winners and losers. When you buttress your position with faith, the possibility of compromise disappears, sort of like we've seen the last 20 years or so.
And people can believe just about anything they want and shackle it to religion. You get wealthy while your employees are working second jobs and are eligible for Medicaid. Hey, it's the Gospel of Prosperity; all that money is a sign of God's favor! Other people read the same Bible quite differently and give generously to charity. Be you homophobic or accepting of all kinds of people, there's a church out there for you. I am sure somewhere there's a Christian church out there that professes that Jesus would be a big Second Amendment supporter.
You know Frank, you may well be right that this country won't elect an atheist/agnostic president. That is only to be lamented.
2
Frank Bruni,
I don't understand your aversion to a Biden campaign.
I though there was a certain separation between politics and religion.
Do you that Senator Biden ends all of his speeches, no matter the subject matter or place, with, "And, May God protect our troops.
1
Can we just stop expecting our candidates for public office to express their religious beliefs? I genuinely couldn't care less.
5
The religious well has been poisoned by Conservative charlatans like Donald Trump, Franklin Graham, and Ralph Reed. I think Democratic candidates are better off keeping beliefs private and engaging in the broader, secular battle of ideas about our country.
7
Frank,
Politicians are simply riding the trends.
Those who are 'none's when it comes to religion were 26% of the population last year, up 52% since 2008.
Catholics dropped to 20%, and Protestants dropped to 43% of the population. If trends hold, "nones" will be the largest religious group by 2028.
Young American's have already made this transition, 'nones' their biggest religion.
And who wants to talk about the realm of Franklin Graham and his nutty gang of end of timers? (as in I hope their time comes to an end soon). That's the third rail of stupid. No need to touch that thing!
Moderate religious folk surely need to be heard, but perhaps they will settle on whom they think is the best person, the one who best combines leadership with compassion.
2
Frank we love you and usually your opinions are backed up with truth more than most. I detect you think it might give Democratic candidates a better chance at being electable if they embrace a little more religion? I get that we need to get Trump out ASAP but wearing the wolf’s clothes is not the right way to go about it. I think a candidate would be better served to come out as a proponent vocally of the opinion of “keeping religion out” of politics as much as possible. Bill Maher is probably having conniption fits after reading your latest! Religion has not served anyone well including Christ him/her self.
1
@Noel - I’m an atheist who applauds what Frank Bruni said here. Yes, if speaking even one or two sentences about her or his religious beliefs helps a Democrat win the presidency, I’m all for that—but the candidate must be telling the truth about this. Anything and everything honest and legal that can get Trump out is fair to use. Our democracy is in great peril. Let’s take a slightly lower road here. None of the candidates running is a religious fanatic, and there’s no fear that any of them will try to impose religion on our country—something I DO fear if we end up with an authoritarian government under Trump. Or Pence.
The fact that Trump enjoys unwavering support from evangelicals despite piles of evidence that he doesn't subscribe to any Christian ideals in his personal, professional or political behavior simply demonstrates how silly and inconsistent the evangelicals' "beliefs" truly are.
Yeah, I said it...
3
You are so frustrating, Mr. Bruni, in your excessively retro thoughts on gender, fear and religion. This is yet another example. Study the trends. More Americans than ever are secular. Organized religion is too often practiced as a guise for bigotry, and it is about time we truly separate church and state. Western European countries lived through the tyranny of Catholic rule and they get that religion needs to stay out of governing. Bruni, I think you were supposed to be a gay man in the 1950s. Really, get with it. Most of us did years ago.
2
Mr. Bruni's constant pearl clutching about the Democratic field is beyond tiresome. If religious moderates won't vote for the Democratic candidate because they didn't say the right words, then they either aren't religious or aren't moderates. Chasing after evangelical votes after their unwavering support of Trump is foolish.
5
Hopefully this is the start of true separation of Church and State. What god(s) you pray to has little and less to do with quality policy decisions.
2
I thought this was an absurd column. Has Mr. Bruni read the Constitution. We have a constituionally mandated separation of church and state. That is at least one thing the founders got right among so many other disastrous mistakes.
We live by civil law, not religious law in the US. We have seen how easily those prone to a belief in the supernatural can be lead by the nose into racist, misgynistic and ethnic hatred by a corrupt politican like the current POTUS. I never write his name, following in the grand tradition of Harry Potter.
I found this article way off base and, having admire Mr. Bruni's writing in the past, felt that he had some kind of change of heart and was no longer someone whose words I would trust in future.
2
Frank, just whose God is skipping the Democratic Primary? That's the rub isn't it. 'My God is not your God ' situation pits you against me and vice versa; not the way I want our Candidates to be nor the way I want our President to be.
2
Replying to GS in Berlin who says "You have to cherry-pick from the bible extremely hard to somehow convince yourself that you can be openly gay and also a 'good Christian'." Well, you have to cherry pick from the Bible to believe that slavery is not OK, too. Good grief.
2
Maybe people don't think a candidates religion is as important as you think. People have seen what evangelical Christians are about. White power and hypocrisy. Maybe people believe a persons religious beliefs are just that, their own business and don't want those beliefs turning America into some Christian Sharia nation.
2
What happened to the separation of church and state?
73
"Democrats would make it harder for Trump to vilify them as enemies of so-called traditional values if they talked a bit more about spirituality and religion — including, if applicable, their own."
Donald Trump trashes traditional values every single day, yet the people who claim to be so righteous and holy look the other way. There's really no reason to believe these voters would be persuaded to vote for a Democrat candidate, regardless of that candidate's church attendance or spiritual development.
1
@GMC Duluth
spirituality: that's for closet atheists; they no longer believe in any god, but spirituality (whatever that is) is more "socially acceptable" than atheism.
When a Democratic candidate comes along who can authentically speak about their vision, and moral and ethical beliefs, by grounding them in the Judeo-Christian narratives that most Americans share, that would be extremely powerful. Look no further than Martin Luther King Jr. to see how powerful that could be.
But if their religion is not a real force in their lives and does not animate their purpose, I don't know if it's a good thing. Maybe it is -- maybe all the Americans who think and relate in those terms would feel more comfortable if a candidate spoke that language. But politicians are generally not very spiritual people, and I think it would sound to me every bit as canned and manipulative as when Republican politicians do it.
1
@LNL
So you are discounting Mayor Pete's beliefs? If you listen to him he speaks in a matter of fact manner about how he has arrived where he is at in his life.
I find him believable and to me he is the one who is the most adult of them all. I think he's the most mature and centered of the current candidates.
Just an old man's opinion.
@Alecfinn I didn't listen to him speak, so I can't say anything about that. I think that when a candidate feels strongly, and it comes from their genuine religious beliefs, they should definitely speak up. I just think that I would prefer if they speak from strongly held authentic beliefs, not try to use religion in the way the GOP has.
Gawd, who cares? Remember when it wasn't even an issue? Make America Educated On Stuff That Matters Again.
7
*Which* god?
5
@Ashay H d
Jupiter and Neptune are passé; it must be a more recent one ("new and improved"?).
1
@Ashay H Mine!
I have no fears on the religion issue if the nominee is Biden, Bernie or Warren. They are what they are. And what they are will be respected in PA, WI and MI.
And speaking of the Democratic Primary- yesterday's big story was that Warren's "...surge..." had all the Donor bigwigs flustered.
first, quite frankly, who cares what they think?
Second, CNN today released a poll showing Biden ahead by 15 over Warren, with her numbers having fallen back to 19. Like I posted yesterday, are we certain that there is a surge?
1
@Lefthalfbach
If it was a telephone poll, then it reflects the views of people who do not mind answering questions from total strangers, most of whom don't even bother to identify themselves.
[Twice already, I kept asking: "Who is calling?" and all I got was: "It's a political call." Don't they have names? What are they scared of?]
The entire planet would be far better off if we could keep “God” out of politics and government. In case it escaped your attention, Mr. Bruni, the the most horrific atrocities humans have committed over the past few thousand years all have been committed in the name of “God” and “religion.”
Let’s try an experiment: let’s formulate and implement rational solutions to the challenges of the 21st century without injecting “God” into the mix. Let’s stop drawing lines in the sand and murdering one another on the pretext that “my God’s better than your God,” and its corollaries “my race is better than your race” and “my tribe/nation is better than yours.”
It might just save billions of us an enormous load of grief.
2
The letters I read here from so called Christians who claim homosexuality offends the Bible or Christ show a blatant ignorance of the New Testament and the story of Jesus as I have come to know it.
My Jesus is about love, forgiveness, and acceptance.
I think of him In front of his disapproving disciples, washing the feet of Mary Magdalene, showing them by his actions what he meant by accepting, forgiving and loving someone accused of being a prostitute and a despicable person.
The fact that so many Christians repeatedly spurn this lesson to his first followers makes me feel they really don't care about Jesus' message of love and acceptance. All they care about is putting down other people to make themselves feel better about themselves.
Kind of like Donald Trump.
3
When you consider the damage that religious zealotry has already done to our nation, Booker’s fleeting mention of his bible study group is all that needs to be said on that topic.
3
Religion is a private matter and should remain that way. No one wants to hear people yapping about their god and their religious beliefs. It has no relevance to our democratic society if someone believes that Mary was a virgin or if bread is flesh and wine is blood. It just starts trouble. The Democrats are smart to stay clear of it.
4
You know, I am an athiest. I find a lack of focus on religion extremely heartening and refreshing.
It gives me hope that no one (at least at least among the Democrats) is going to try and shove their beliefs on me and try to force me to dance to their god's tune.
As for the Republicans, well, I know that they would just as soon stone me to death or burn me at the stake as look at me. I don't have a religion, so I must be something evil to be stamped out.
3
“Democrats would make it harder for Trump to vilify them as enemies of so-called traditional values if they talked a bit more about spirituality and religion — including, if applicable, their own.”
Like Marianne Williamson does, Frank?
2
Christianity was created as a rebuke to the violence and arrogance of the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem as well as brutal acts of the Roman Tetrach and legions in Palestine. Jesus represented the common man's resistance and he preached compassion, mercy, forgiveness as well as simple human dignity. Today you witness cynical religious partisans ignoring lies corruption and fraudulence and out right cruelty to keep in power. Nothing has really changed.
1
How about the constitutional separation of church and state that cons love to blur, Mr. Bruni?
Regardless of the loud screams of evangelicals, this is NOT a "Christain Nation".
5
The whole point of the New Testament is that Yashua's sacrifice ("Jesus" for so-called Christians) freed the Jews from much of the laws that had been placed on the CHILDREN of Israel. No more animal sacrifices, no more Kosher maybe, less daiy law. Non-Jewish people were unaffected then b/c they did not believe in God; they believed in gods including the God-Emperer of Rome. Frank is right: candidates should feel free to proclaim their faith. Unfortunately we have a Supreme Court and powerful Republican state houses where religious freedom is honored by ramming it down people's throats in every possible aspect of society, starting of course with women's rights. Yashua proclaimed change including proper treatment of women and so-called Christians are now mostly anti-Christ therefore b/c they teach the opposite.
3
Benjamin Franklin said it best (Poor Richard’s Almanack): “In the Affairs of this World Men are saved, not by Faith, but by the Want of it.” Thank God we are not hearing about religion in the debates.
3
Separation of church and state. Religion has no place in politics. So called “evangelicals” have co-opted the identifier -“Christian,” while ignoring, denigrating and re-interpreting its basic tenets and weaponizing it to achieve a regressive political end. Ever since the bogus invention of the “silent majority,” hypocritical and ignorant, although, sly, politicians and religious leaders have exploited religion to their own self serving ends. “Faith is believin’ what you know ain’t so.” Puddin’ Head Wilson (Mark Twain)
3
During Hitler’s rise to power, the “German Christians” supported him, not unlike evangelical devotion to Trump.
But the Confessing Church under Bonhoeffer and Barth opposed him, leading none other than Albert Einstein to the following conclusion:
“Being a lover of freedom, when the revolution came in Germany, I looked to the universities to defend it, knowing that they had always boasted of their devotion to the cause of truth; but, no, the universities immediately were silenced. Then I looked to the great editors of the newspapers whose flaming editorials in days gone by had proclaimed their love of freedom; but they, like the universities, were silenced in a few short weeks… Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign for suppressing truth. I never had any special interest in the Church before, but now I feel a great affection and admiration because the Church alone has had the courage and persistence to stand for intellectual truth and moral freedom. I am forced thus to confess that what I once despised I now praise unreservedly.”
Time Magazine, September, 1940.
Do not confuse Christianity with its evangelical distortion. And do not underestimate the silent, ordinary witness of faithful Christians.
Thankfully our universities and our journalists are NOT silent. But it is firmly to be hoped that the church which confesses Christ and lives by his command will not be silent either, but shake the foundations of Trumpism until they fall.
5
Marianne Williamson brings religion to the race.
She is very familiar with the tenets of all world religions, and draws upon them, but she makes it clear that she is Jewish.
Her embrace of religious principles is why 35% of her supporters are non-Democrat, which should be lauded, but in today's liberal universe, it is despised.
Go figure. I thought we wanted to win this.
1
It's about time religion and its tentacles were not involved in politics!
The Framers would be appalled at the involvement of certain sects in trying to influence government, elections, and politicians.
2
Assuming that a given political leader realizes that it is, at best, no more likely than not that one more Gods exist, then he or she shouldn't claim or suggest that one or more Gods exist. Political leaders' claiming or suggesting that a given claim is true tends to make people more likely to believe that the claim is true. Political leaders tend to be influential. Moreover, it's unlikely that any Gods exist. Among other things, I know of the existence of a huge number of things (e.g., myself, my parents and my car), and I don't know of the existence of anything that is even remotely similar to a God. Analogously, I don't know of the existence of anything that is even remotely similar to a planetary body that is at least as large as the planet Jupiter and composed at least 90% of the element gold, and it's unlikely that any such body exists.
Moreover, the more knowledge and warranted inferences that people have, the more likely they are to make decisions that increase the number of choices that can be made by those impacted by the decisions who are able to make the fewest choices. For instance, if I know that someone has connected a bomb to my bedroom light switch and if I turn on my light it will detonate a bomb in a children's hospital, I will know that I should not turn on my light. If I have no idea that anyone has done this, it generally will be a good idea for me to turn on my light at night.
@Michael David
And I believe what Socrates stated "I know nothing".
Beto was wrong to tax religious community that does not recognize the Alphabet people (copyright by Dave Chapelle). He was wrong. Select few religious institutions should be taxed. Example: TV evangelists like Donald Trump spiritual advisor Paula White, flying around the World on her private Lear jet, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, whose real estate holdings that tower above anything Donald could dream. There ARE legitimate religious entities well deserving of taxation. So Beto, don't let one sector paint you into a box Penn and Teller couldn't escape. I know, I know, Penn is an avowed atheist, proving Mom correct once again. Stay out of politics and religion.
1
As a member of a minority religion, I am all for mentioning religious beliefs less. The Evangelical Right is bad enough. I don't need more than a passing acknowledgement of religious freedom from any candidate.
3
During one presidential election season, I told my husband I never wanted to hear the word "God" (or similar) some out of the mouth of anyone running. I don't care what you believe, and I don't want to know if you are praying for some higher power for advice over some international incident (it would make me very nervous). Leave religion out of it. Prove to me that you want liberty and justice for all and mercy when it's warranted.
3
Separation of church and state is a part of the US Constitution, including a clause saying, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office."
Yet Mr. Bruni wants candidates for president to display their religiosity for us. What about the candidates who lack that quality? What are they supposed to do?
I don't understand the moderate mindset: this is a group that strikes me as constantly adapting their positions according the standards of the extremists, rather than our laws.
3
I’m not sure God wants to be constantly invoked for electoral gain.
107
Any republican lawmaker or voter who voted for and supports Trump, claiming a religious belief, is an exposure of blatant hypocrisy.
2
They would have to talk about all your voters' gods', or lack thereof. And that is an extraordinarily diverse pantheon. You could spend weeks on that alone.
What you mean is that they are not hyping up a specific god for a specific group of "god people". Who are those people again?
1
Irreligious candidates don't get the pressure religious people are under. For example, religious schools can cost a fortune. Now, if you think religion is a made up fraud then you may not care about these issues, but you are also pushing away many reliable and committed voters.
1
The Constitution forbids any religious test to hold public office. For ages we have had a de facto test, and Frank here wants to continue it. To me it's a relief not to hear God-talk from the Democrats.
4
I disagree with Mr. Bruni.
No Democratic candidate is going to pull a significant number of evangelical votes by speaking to their personal experiences with Christianity - that would only matter if evangelical voters voted based on their Christian values. What my fellow progressives need to understand is that exposing Trump as a hypocrite will do nothing to dissuade evangelical Trump supporters because they know it already and don't care. Our thought processes are different. We would let such hypocrisy affect how we vote, but they do not. Trump has replaced God for them, and they will not abandon their new infallible God.
I, for one, find the lack of conversation about religion refreshing and invigorating. For far too long have presidential candidates, and the people they end up governing, had to pander to hypocritical religious institutions which have so often been used to justify the most heinous of human rights abuses committed in the name of our nation - slavery, Native American genocide, Jim Crow, and now the atrocities in concentration camps at our border.
Good riddance, I say.
5
The problem is how some people exploit the religion, not the Democrats.
In fact, those who turn religion into political abuse should be banned from election and arrested.
2
Mr. Bruni appears to be advocating for candidates to wear their religiosity on their sleeves in the same way as people stick chromed plastic "Jesus Fish" on their car trunks. But what does displaying those symbols actually tell you about the people who use them? Should I trust someone more because they believe it's important for me to know they consider themselves to be religious? Who is the arbiter that can certify that a person's true spirituality is up to snuff? Is their take on being religious really something I'm comfortable with? Is their "brand" of religious belief compatible with mine in a country with hundreds or thousands (depending how you classify them) of different denominations of Christian churches alone? Mr. Bruni's suggestion of candidates putting their spirituality out there would be more akin to businesses who place the fish symbol in their Yellow Pages ads or on their business cards. But the message of "get your religious carpet cleaning here" is much less fraught with problems than "get your religious government here". The first may be unseemly, but the second is disturbing.
1
God, if he exists, has the good sense to avoid the Democratic Primary Mr. Bruni.
I assume you mean the Christian God.
Maybe God is sick and tired of watching as devious people invoke him while they are lying through their teeth and perpetrating ugly, destructive actions in his name.
No, I don’t believe in a god, but until Trump came along and was embraced so completely by evangelicals and lying republican politicians, I never entirely gave up on God.
Trump shone a bright light on his God and the republican machine that exposed so much ugliness and criminality that I was obliged to forsake them all in order to regain equilibrium.
I felt that I had no choice but to renounce the party I belonged to and the god that party used so often as a prop to cover their outrageous behavior with a seal of divine approval.
If there is a god I believe that he/she/it would be sickened, or maybe amused, at the current state of affairs on this planet.
Is there a heaven?
Not for me if it is populated with people like Donald Trump and the current crop of cynical republican politicians and their fans.
1
I do not want Democratic candidates to start putting out phoney baloney Christianity revival statements to gain traction in votes. We'd smell it. But the sincerity of Pete B. early on is because of his sincerity..his sticking up for Tulsi Gabbard (thank God). I met him. He's the real deal as much as Hillary Clinton is phoney and narcissistic. We revere and respect authenticity here. I honor anyone's religion and belief in God!! It's a strength not a weakness!!
And Mr Trump seems to view himself as one step higher than our Creator.
2
Those who are religious minded ought to judge candidates by how they have lived their lives, not by what they say. If religious minded people can't look at Trump's personal history and current behavior and realize that he is not a god fearing person, then nothing the Democrats say will open their eyes.
1
I am glad religion is not up front and center. the candidates' religious views and my religious views are personal and shouldn't be political. Goodness knows Trump and his followers made religion a political pillar to his campaign and all I got from these evangelicals who support Trump is the intolerance, hypocrisy and venality that their religion appears to condone and support. No good has come of it.
2
Gee, I guess it's ok for candidates to mention religion. However, I thought we elected them to further public policy and govern..not evangelize. I'd prefer actions based on faith versus proclamations of belief. Didn't Christ tell us to "close the door and pray in silence"
2
It seems clear God abandoned our politics entirely in 2016. If He had a hand in it then let’s hope he’s now long gone.
I am not a Christian, and after almost 60 years on this Earth, as a citizen of the United States, I am beyond tired of having Christianity shoved down my throat at every opportunity. We are not a theocracy, not yet anyway. Christianity is now too often an excuse for willful ignorance and self righteous judgment of others. I'm happy to let the GOP own that.
3
Maybe the Democrats understand that the fastest growing group among the religions is the ‘nones.’ The non-believers and the merely spiritual who do not identify strongly with any organized religion.
I believe in the strict separation of church and state. The less ‘god talk’ the better.
The more any politician talks about god and religion, the less inclined I am to vote for them.
Superstition has no place in public policy.
2
I disagree. Republicans attack people for as little as not putting the right flag "pin" on the lapel and calling them unpatriotic and if you don't say god god god every other sentence you will be accused of being less religious than any republican alive or dead.
Democrats are right to avoid this frivolous one up man ship game altogether. It is not correct to show off your patriotism or religiousness like a beauty pageant. That is the correct behavior and democrats are doing it right.
1
"Trump and his Republican allies are poised to paint Democrats as unhinged lefties not only in terms of health care and taxes but also in terms of cultural issues, including abortion and L.G.B.T.Q. rights."
And they were not already set on doing this...? Mr. Bruni, you make it sound like the GOP and esp. Trump's campaign were not already mapped out and heading down those roads.
Do you believe that IF the Dems spoke more about God, the American Xtian God, and their personal relationships, the campaign adverts against them would not go after them on what you listed?
And who doesn't know where the Dems stand on abortion? That horse is long outta the barn. None of their healthcare POV's are unhinged, no matter that they cant be passed or paid for, but who doesn't already know where they basically stand?
And the more people of all walks, recognize that their own family and friends are LGBTQ...the less lean towards the medieval and draconian POV that is Trump and his more strange and extreme supporters on the Right. Esp. the Evangelicals.
But to think the Dems could avoid the nonsensical rants about being too Left, too unhinged is absurd.
The issue has always been that the Dems stink in the countering of those accusations. That they cant muster a better argument for being more humanitarian and Rights focused confounds me. Bumfuzzling to say the least.
Trump is gonna spew his poison, period. If by some miracle his own daughter was the Dem candidate, he'd burn her too.
1
This piece, by Bruni, with whom I often agree, brings to mind a famous quote from Wolfgang Pauli:
“This isn’t right. It isn’t even wrong.”
Why?
1) Just as politics in church is not a good idea, God and religion have NO place in politics (and then there's this thing called the Constitution).
2) When Bruni, or any politician, says religion, or God, he is of course referring to Christianity, maybe Judaism. So where does that leave Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims? Probably subject to deportation.
3) Speaking of Islam, remember Obama? He was a pretty serious Christian, and a church-goer. And that got him what...? Never-ending accusations of being a Muslim.That, or accusations of attending a church that hated white people.
4) At this stage, as a practical matter, pandering to evangelical voters by flashing your religionist bonafides can only be an exercise in utter futility. These "fine people"--displaying their love, humility, charity and compassion every hour of every day--have already pledged undying, 110% devotion to Trump; he who has been sent by God.
4
It's about time. As George Washington stated, America was founded as a non-Christian nation.
3
Sorry, Frank, but this is yet more bad advice for the Democrats.
A month ago you suggested they do not pursue impeachment.
Last week it was to get Warren to commit political suicide by providing Republican talking points on her health plan.
Now the entire party is supposed to commit political suicide by bringing up religion to a voting public that has neither demanded it nor wants it. Even the moderators have shown no interest.
I've respected your opinions in the past. Please don't continue down the rabbit hole of irrelevance.
4
There are people with clerical titles who don’t generally mention “God,” a term that no one is able to define anyway, and yet they speak always about what is right and just in the deepest understanding of what is good, ie, “God.” For example, Bp Desmond Tutu and the Rev Martin Luther King. When these speak, they don’t need to say “God” for it to be known that that’s what/ who they’re “talking” about. Their title may tacitly help, but the reason they don’t need to make such reference is the example of their lives. (And there are others with clerical titles that mean little precisely due to the example of the lives these titles are attached to.) For most us, and certainly the candidates seeking the Dem nomination for president, we/ they are stuck with just the example of the doings of living. As they say, “Talk is cheap.” The intentional mention of “God” for some advantage for personal gain and recognition, whether by the entitled or not, is clearly out of bounds, ie, disingenuous, if not offensive to God. Along this line, a remark attributed to Francis of Assisi may be instructive: something like, “Preach the Gospel; use words if necessary” ... the “Gospel” here being the good and freeing news of charitable love and service. The mere mention of “God” doesn’t get one “there,” for sure.
1
Is it any wonder, the uses Republicans put their phony "god" - an excuse for exclusion, hatred, victim blaming, and wealth worship - that Democrats prefer to be more private about their faith?
I strongly recommend a course of the Gospels, and then Christians, please follow Jesus, not this worship of power, pride, and greed, minding other people's sex lives, and hatred of people who are different, that masquerades as "faith".
3
Sorry Mr. Bruni, religion has no place in politics. Lately, even ethics has no place either!
2
There you go again, nit-picking the Democrats because they don't check every one of the boxes you think are important. None of them may not be your perfect candidate, but any one would be 1000% better than Trump. And might I add, he won the presidency without praising God or any of the rest of the mythological superhero canon. (Resisting the hypocrisy to profess a faith he doesn't have is to my mind the only honorable thing he did during the campaign.) Trump has revealed the sanctimonious Evangelicals as total hypocrites who are willing to work with any supposed sinner (in their worldview) and nonbeliever who will deliver whatever it is they want. Given their transactional view of faith, it's clear that they're unlikely to vote for a Democrat, believer or not.
3
Thank God they are keeping religion out of politics. Too bad the debate moderators don’t know it is also illegal to ask questions about age in a job interview.
3
Many who identify as being "liberal" including, obviously, a great number of NYTimes readers, have a big bias against religion, especially Christianity. A lot of this is due to the Evangelical/Fundamentalist type of Christianity, which has displayed a great deal of intolerance, even hatred, of other religions, as well as gays. These folks are more vocal than other, more liberal and tolerant forms of Christianity, (such as the Episcopal Church of which Pete B. is a member,) and this is very unfortunate. It results in many people who are sincere Christians hiding the fact, lest they be branded as stupid, backward and bigoted. It's much more acceptable, here on this forum, for example, for a person to "admit" (or brag) that they are atheists than that they are religious of any kind.
Personally I am interested in knowing a lot about candidates, including their spiritual beliefs. I vote for policy but also for the person (one of the reasons I never liked Hillary). I was surprised for example, just recently, to learn that Tulci Gabbard is a Hindu .I enjoyed watching a video of her beautiful traditional wedding, just as I enjoyed seeing her surfing and dressed in her Army uniform, replete with medals. To me, these are all part of seeing the whole person.
I certainly see why candidates are afraid of admitting any religion, but as Bruni points out here, that's too bad. I hope we, "tolerant liberals" can outgrow the bias against religion soon.
Matthew 6:5-6:
"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites. For they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. Truly I tell you, they already have their reward. But when you pray, go into your inner room, shut your door, and pray to your Father, who is unseen."
Republicans love more than anything to pray in public, which, like so many of their other actions, is expressly against the words of Jesus.
2
God shouldn't be in any political discussion. The First Amendment of the Constitution says so.
1
Good argument, Frank!
At this time Democrats have been labeled by the Trump/White Fundamentalists as “Anti-Christian”.
President Carter has never hide his religious believe and he is wildly admired by so many of us. For he walks as he talks.
Democrats need to attract the Christian Independents and swing Republican voters. By not stating their true believe, they will fall into the Trump/White Fundamentalists’s trap as “ Anti-Christian”.
1
If a plurality of "Christians" can elect the AntiChrist, then we don't need anyone to whistle them over to the Democratic candidate.
Every time a Democrat mentions clothing, feeding, housing, healing, or educating a person battered by inequality, he or she is "mentioning" religion: real religion.
Let the others follow their false prophet to political oblivion.
3
Way too many of these comments cite separation of church and state, and emphasize the need for Democratic candidates to leave it out of the discussion.
But this is the weapon that Republicans use!! You can only fight fire (and brimstone) with fire. Let middle-America know that Dems observe their faith. That’s how you win.
Praise the Lord!
Doesn’t the Constitution mention separation of Church and State?
Religion ought to be an individual matter.
Those who wear religion on their sleeves are generally Hippocrates.
It is also interesting to note that NYT editorial board, as well as most of their reporters and columnists
derisively call Narendra Modi, the Indian Prime Minister as Hindu Nationalist in every news or opinion.
But the same people criticize Democrats when they don’t mimic Republicans in fooling Evangelical voters!
Why does NYT think that Christians and Muslims politicians should wear religion on their sleeves,
but if a Hindu politician just mentions his/her religion in their own constituency, it behaves as if they have
committed a crime against Humanity?
I wonder if it has to something to do with the fact that Hindus do not look for converts from other religions,
or generally consider religion as a private matter!
Secular societies work best.
1
Am I the only one who finds the lack of religion in political debate a refreshing relief? Whether or not there is a god, and if there is, what that god (or gods) think about what is happening on Earth ultimately doesn't matter when it comes to the job of the President of the United States. We aren't looking for a theologian.
Please spare us all the sanctimony and phony God bothering. Just tell us what you are going to do.
3
That is the national democratic primary. Out here in the hustings, not so much. There is hardly any difference in church attendance or use of God between Dems and Reps out here. What Reps do use is fan the flames of fake religious persecution to energize the evangelicals.
1
I Am a Christian. I am a Democrat because I am a Christian. My dad left the Republican Party because he is a Christian.
5
@Vivian
Thank you! This should be a top pick. imnsho. The current bunch of "evangelicals" is enough to drive any ethical person out of their "church".
1
Religion has no place in politics. Period.
And worse, there's almost nothing more nauseating than one of those staged and prepped political moments of total phoniness where the candidate pretends to care deeply about something that polls suggest matters to the electorate.
Bruni flat out gets it 100% wrong here.
3
“Religion the opiate of the people .” It’s stronger than opioids and just as devastating.
Why anyone wanting a Cotton Mather or a televangelist influencing the country is beyond me.
3
More relevant and troubling: liberty is unmentioned. One of the many things troubling in Democratic debates. And ironic, since it's called liberalism. Poor name, especially since Dems embrace Socialism now. Who to vote for nowadays?
Treating belief without objective proof as some kind of mystical virtue only perpetuates ignorance.
2
Mr Bruni, if the Democrats mix religion with politics, I will leave the Democratic party.
1
In response to your question, yeah, god is skipping this election cycle. He told that to me and my buddies the other night at my local watering hole. Said he's been fed up with American politics ever since Newt.
2
Let me see: I remember President Kennedy during the election having to go on television to apologize for his religion--the Pope wouldn't come first etc.: Reagan was the least religious president probably ever and got elected; Hillary was a life long Methodist and didn't get elected; anybody who thinks Trump is religious is a fool (I'm talking about you Franklin Graham who was just in Asheville appearing before enthusiastic crowds); everyone knows Biden is a devout Catholic (will he get elected?; did anyone care Bush W was an Evangelical and his Dad an Episcopalian. My point is how much does religion really matter? Also you have to be of the right religion to win votes (Muslims need not apply).
2
I wonder if Frank, and some of the commenters here, simply don't realize just how many of us are not religious. We've moved on from what is a human anachronism.
2
It is incredible to read in the NYT in 2019 an article whose title calls " God " as an actual person. Even more , God is a person who " skips " the Democrats primary election process . God is a person who has a word to say ( or not ) in American politics .
And he chooses by himself that this particular stage of the politics is not worthy.
One will never point enough that Americans are closet mystics .
Even may be animists ?
This is clearly an animist formula.
"Many Democrats steer clear of religion…" It may not be necessary, but it is honest.
1
It’s long past time to end tax exemption for religion.
2
Religion does not belong in government and does not belong in politics. It is always manipulative.
2
The separation of Church and State must be inviolate! Christian Nationalist groups are infiltrating our White House, our laws and our strengths as a diverse country with many religions. I don't want my next leader to invoke God in order to get a vote - look at us now with trump! Religion and Government should not mix
3
As an atheist, I sincerely hope God does skip the Democratic primary. Evangelical support for the most corrupt president in history and Catholic sex scandals are driving American voters from pews in record numbers. Politicians shouldn't have to fake a relationship with God if they're just not that into Him. Atheists and agnostics vote, too. And our ranks are growing.
3
Those that refuse to see Donald Trump as the walking and talking human embodiment of the Seven Deadly Sins are in the Trump cult and can't be reached. If a Jewish candidate for example wanted to refer to refer to the concepts tikkun olam - healing the earth- or similar humanity based charges that all religions have s is fine. But getting deep in the theological bushes with the Republicans is a mistake on many levels including political.
1
"Elizabeth Warren, a Methodist... has never taken the few extra syllables to note that she taught Sunday school."
Hillary Clinton did, and how much did that help her candidacy? The Religious Right has made it abundantly clear what their values are and Christian they are not.
4
Mr. Bruni has underestimated the intelligence of the Democratic portion of the electorate. I know many devout Christians, Jews, and Muslims who are in fact tired of religious talk in politics, especially because of the hypocrisy of right wing evangelical/fundamentalist jabber which gets the most press attention because they're so loud and outrageous.
3
Frank, nice attempt to get through to folks but from reading the comments it’s clear why we haven’t heard anything from the candidates. In the end if religion is a part of your DNA you will talk about it, if it isn’t, you won’t. That pretty much summarizes why Dem candidates outside of Mayor Pete simply don’t talk about it.
1
This is about the candidates sharing part of who they are as human beings. Some of those personal attributes can help them connect to voters on a personal level, whether it is Methodism or Michelob.
It is possible for a candidate to be a strong advocate of church state separation and a devoted religious person who can express that identity in terms of sharing their moral center and what's important to them personally. Some of the leaders of Americans United have been personally devoted to their faith, but ardent about separation as protective of democracy and religion. Democrats can have a person of personal faith, who is not threatening to those with different religious persuasions or non-believers as their standard bearer.
If faith matters to the candidates, they should share. Fake appeals like Mr. 2 Corinthians won't fly however.
1
“While the president may have the farthest reaches of the religious right locked down, many Americans of faith are appalled by him.”
Never judge a religion or philosophy by its abuse. The “religious right”, especially in the political arena, often uses tactics and speech that differ dramatically from what you would read in the New Testament. Trump is the antithesis of what Christians espouse. The hard right pseudo-Christian faction of his support is trading their integrity for a desired political gain. With conduct like that, you might win the battle but you’ll lose the war. Thankfully, surveys show that younger evangelicals are starting to break from the established Christian/Political Power Complex and think for themselves.
I love how atheist readers of this paper always compare:
1. the arguments of PhDs (e.g., Dennett) against the existence of the divine, to
2. the arguments of non-PhDs for the existence of the divine.
Then they conclude that there are no good arguments for the existence of the divine.
Really fair fight.
Go out and read some works by some believers who actually have PhDs. You may still deny God's existence, but at least you won't be doing so only by taking on the weakest possible arguments for it.
1
@bess
Many atheistic free-thinkers are broadly literate and have critically read arguments for and against various belief systems.
Many religious adherents are very narrow in their reading preferences. Quite a few believe that there is only one book that is necessary and sufficient for understanding how the world works.
Having a Ph. D. is, of course, not a guarantee of perspicacity or cogency. Nevertheless, perhaps you could recommend some doctorate level reading that reinforces or revitalizes Aquinas' five proofs or other arguments for the existence of a deity. Otherwise, many of us will continue to suspect that beliefs in the tenets of one religion or another are principally the result of childhood indoctrination.
2
@Steve M Yes, but many don't. Many atheistic thinkers are woefully unschooled in serious theology
Mr. Bruni, if Mayor Pete can express honestly held convictions as a moderate Christian in a politically regressive state under the sway of evangelicals, then good for him. However Democratic candidates who are less religious should not try to appropriate the language of those Republicans who have for decades faithlessly used conservative religious tropes as propaganda in their assault on their ideological opponents. It would be inauthentic and hypocritical and would certainly be detected by voters who might be undecided.
1
Abraham Lincoln said it well: "...to do the right and God gives us to see the right..." Although not known as church going, his words often struck a cord.
Many are tired of the self righteous candidate.
Mark,WI
1
It is the great divide in America: either you proudly believe in God or you proudly don't. It is at the root of the abortion issue.
Do you believe in spirit/soul or do you not? That is why Marianne Williamson's campaign was so vital to the healing of this seemingly unbridgeable chasm, and so futile.
I want candidates with ethics. I don’t want candidates that are hostile to religion. But, frankly, I’m not voting for a theologian or pope. And hucksters like Falwell have pretty much poisoned the well.
But in truth, the god of this country isn’t God. The nation’s god is green and folds up into your wallet.
6
The definitive statement, Frank, is here: https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16920600
And, in a Democratic candidate, I could do with a lot less religion and a lot more of this:
"For extremely heroic conduct as Commanding Officer of Motor Torpedo Boat 109 following the collision and sinking of that vessel in the Pacific War Area on August 1-2, 1943. Unmindful of personal danger, Lieutenant (then Lieutenant, Junior Grade) Kennedy unhesitatingly braved the difficulties and hazards of darkness to direct rescue operations, swimming many hours to secure aid and food after he had succeeded in getting his crew ashore. His outstanding courage, endurance and leadership contributed to the saving of several lives and were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service."
Frank, your column is breathtaking and might be summarized as: "by holding back on religion, you Democrats are missing a golden opportunity, and I mean you Elizabeth!" Our Founders were smart to build a high wall between church and state, and in the process protecting both from the predations of the other. There is no clearer indication of the folly of those who would tear down that wall than the abasement of evangelical Christians who in embracing Donald Trump because he delivers pro-life judges, have shelved their morality and so lost their very souls in this deal with the devil. I think you are asking too much of many Democratic candidates because false piety looks no better when worn by a Democrat. Mayor Pete genuinely lives his religion and so is authentic when he uses the vocabulary he is familiar with. And it is another reason why he should be our standard-bearer in 2020. If only he would spend more time in South Carolina talking about how his faith animates his views, even those who might otherwise judge his sexual orientation harshly would not in the main fail to be moved.
Religion should keep clear of politics and science. Morality and spirituality is unrelated to religious practices.
Religion feeds bigotry and divides the society in the modern world.
2
Donald Trump cornered the market on religion, just in case you haven't noticed. God's front line, Evangelicals, went all in on Mr. Trump with his promise to punish women who sought abortion, his promise to ban abortion, and packing SCOTUS with Conservative judges to protect the tax status of Churches. The unspoken 'keep America White' subtext to a Trump presidency probably factored into the equation for Evangelicals supporting the most corrupt and amoral person elected to date.
Democrats don't need to refer to a Supreme Being as they continue their 20 plus candidates slugfest. Apparently no one paid attention to the Republican primary of 2016 and who emerged the victor.
All Democrats running are flawed. Invoking God won't help. Ideas are proposed, but there's no money to fund them and increasing taxes is going to scare Independents and moderate Republican disgusted with Trump.
The single question to answer is who is the best candidate to beat Trump. It is not who has the best new untested unfunded plan for healthcare, tuitions, etc. That's pie in the sky. Picture the candidates one by one up against Trump. Who can counter his gaslighting, lies, deceptions, and more lies? The DNC should never have permitted 20 plus candidates. It publicly exposed the party to a game of Jeopardy when everyone is a contestant and 99.9% weren't smart enough to answer any question.
Frank, forgive me for sounding hedonistic, but I don’t want to hear about God in the debates. We’ve heard enough about God from the hypocrites on the other side. Many of them are as godless as you get. They will go to (and talk endlessly about) church and their faith and how Jesus is their true hero, and then walk out those doors and lock kids up, take them away from their parents, possibly harming them for the rest of their lives, taking food away from poor people, especially babies, fight the forever fight to end Roe v. Wade, all the while not caring what happens when a fetus becomes an alive outside the womb baby.
No, I do NOT want to hear about the candidates’ religion. I want to hear how they are going to come up with an immigration plan that ends what I’ve listed above, how economically we can level the playing field, how they will treat ALL people with respect, how they will defend the right to love who you want. THAT’S what I’m looking to hear. And BTW, thanks for giving the “(non)-religious right more talking points. What were you thinking writing this article? As if purposefully talking about their “faith” may give them brownie points with the American people. When Mayor Pete talks about his faith, it’s natural because it relates to the conversation at hand. Ugh...you make me crazy sometimes!
3
We should be working to get religion out of politics, not spreading it around. Please watch "The Family" on Netflix to see how conservative Christians are wielding political influence behind the scenes, including globally. It's telling that Mick Mulvaney, according to the NYT, had come to respect Hungarian strongman Viktor Orban "from his time as a member of Congress and his involvement with the International Catholic Legislators Network." And now Orban is helping Trump undermine Ukraine. Also, articles like this always assume Christianity as a default. If Ilhan Omar ever runs for President, would you advise her to bring up her Muslim faith on the campaign trail?
1
Which would you rather have? A completely hypocritical candidate like Trump whose evangelical supporters don't seem to mind his complete lack of faith and sincerity or a candidate expressing some kind of muzzy spirituality not understood by most voters. As an Agnostic/Atheist myself, I would prefer a bright line between church and state in all things.
3
Seems like nobody else noticed the omission.
1
I shudder to think how the comments to Frank's column go down with my fellow Iowans, with fly-over country evangelicals, etc. Frank suggests that it's not smart for Democratic candidates on principle to steer clear of religion altogether, that touching on it need not be gratuitous, and commenters lose it. Their contemptuous and patronizing responses are not helpful if we want to win the WH.
Lots of Americans cannot conceive that a Christian could have a same-sex spouse; for them, such a person as a presidential candidate is a non-starter. (See GS's Times-picked comment.) If they are atheists like GS, they may well support Democrats because they think the Democratic talking points on the subject are enlightened. But if they are "conservative Christians," they pose a problem for Democrats. In response Mayor Pete refers to his faith to good effect: Perhaps when cC's hear this accomplished man, who is apparently neither wicked nor stupid, they will reconsider their arguably naïve reading of the Bible. This is not gratuitous evangelizing.
Neither is it gratuitous proselytizing to remind hearers that one's principles are not local or modern innovations, but are deeply rooted and honored in different forms around the world. Cf. "welcoming the stranger."
Charity regards people whose lives and views seem very different from our own as probably neither wicked nor stupid. Would you want less in a political class or commentariat? Sometimes we forget, even NYT commenters.
1
In the recent CNN town hall in LA Senator Warren was asked what she would say to someone whose religious belief was that marriage should only be between one man and one woman. She got a laugh by responding that, assuming it was a man, he should marry a woman . . . if he could find one.
It’s one thing not to discuss religion. It’s something else to take it down. A tolerant and respectful response to the person who says that their religion requires them to marry someone of the opposite sex is to say that you respect their religion and their choice, while asking them to honor the dignity and freedom of others by not doing anything to interfere or speak against their choices.
This was a missed opportunity, as is the persistent tendency of us lefties to seem not to want everyone in our tent.
Separation of Church and State, Frank.
I do not need to hear about God from the Democrats or the Republicans.
And neither does the rest of America.
Stick to the issues.
2
Could we please God out of politics!
What religious value has the Republican party demonstrated? From what I have seen the only value Republicans hold dear are power and money.
4
Yes the Democrats often run away from religion to their detriment, but, the danger is sounding hypocritical. Turning on a religion spigot now will seem phony. You need to show that you walk the walk of religion and not just talk the talk.
1
Raise religion, and religion becomes an issue in the campaign.
Are we to vote for someone based on their religion? Or not vote on someone due to a perceived lack of religion?
Bruni is concerned about the 40% of Americans who seem fine with supporting a lying, philandering, foul mouthed con man who skirted with outright theft (Trump U). He has no stated religion, and never goes to church.
But these people will somehow be persuaded by an openly religious Dem? Really?
Religion is personal. Leave it our of politics.
3
The definition of Humanism seems to describe the mission of an effective politician. "Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems." The worship of God is not the only means by which people aspire to goodness, to compassion and to justice. When I listen to the democratic candidates I am certainly tuning my ear to whether they embody and put into practice a vibrant spirit of service to others and spiritual humility. Every single one of them have more decency and reverence for the world than Donald Trump. The evangelical Christians who represent the cornerstone of his base are inscrutable. The hypocritical machinations of their justification of his behavior is appalling. Trump is their golden cow.
1
The only thing that really turns me off about Cory Booker is his religiosity. Here is a really smart, honest, hard-working, ambitious and effective leader--why does he need to cling to Christianity? He lives in Newark, and he doesn't eat animals--that's proof enough of his morality. Christianity is the last vestige of slavery for African Americans, and it hasn't served them well at all.
1
No, Frank, religious posturing in a political campaign is hypocrisy! No one should offer up his faith for public approval.
If evangelicals and other noisy "Christians" would follow the teachings of Jesus, we'd have a quieter, less hysterical world.
Jesus said to show your faith by good works, not by preaching in the streets. He said to pray in private, never in public. He said not to engage in loud and repetitious prayers and chants. He said not to judge others but to acknowledge and correct your own shortcomings.
Buttigieg adroitly implies religious motivation in issues, but avoids using religion for self-promotion.
1
No, no, no. We have already seen enough erosion of our sacred (ha ha!) separation of Church and State. What’s with you, Mr. Bruni?! And as a sister member of the LGBTQ world, I must remind you of religion’s brutality towards non-heterosexual practice all over the world. And though you cite Mayor Pete’s nod toward his faith, that just goes to show that not all gay people are radical, scary lefties. Mayor Pete is, it seems, pretty middle of the road, and I, for one, do not think that our system is in favor of voting for somebody based on his/her faith OR sexuality.
1
Last time I checked, America is a secular country. Freedom from religion is just as important as freedom of religion.
The last thing I want is for the Democrats to start forcing their God on me like Republicans do with the Evangelical God of intolerance and bigotry.
2
I was glad to hear Buttigieg speak about his faith. Political and social conservatives and right-wingers aren't the only "children of God," not the only ones who pray and read scripture diligently, worship weekly and do good works. It's time social and political liberals and left-wingers made it clear that you don't have to be a Republican to be a Christian. That said, what good would it do Democrats to quote more scripture (some already are when they speak to church groups)? It would not change the minds of voters who believe that abortion is murder and homosexuality an "abomination" . This is a culture war we are in, not a religious war.
Yeah? You wanna hear the Dems talk more about faith? You wanna hear from all faiths? Any faith? You want Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib to talk more about their faith? How about a Scientologist? No? That won’t help? Exactly. So Christian politicians should keep quiet about their faith too (unless they want their church to determine public policy, then please, do warn us). Fair is fair. Religion is personal; public service is not. The Dems have it right, except for Mayor Pete. I don’t care about politicians’ faith, and I really don’t wanna hear about it, especially since it’s so often not sincere. I care about their actions.
2
It's about time that separation of Church and State is put into practice.
1
God has been missing from the Democratic Party for years. He has not been present for a long time and they don't seem to notice or care. What also has been missing from their party for a long time too is the voters. Many have fled because of their non religious attitude. It is almost a sin to bring up God to the Democrats. They will need all the help from God to win in 2020 but now it is too late. They missed their chance and may never get it back.
The United States has a constitutional separation of church and state. Religious beliefs may comfort those who believe in them, and/or give those individuals a sense of community, but they have no place in policy decisions or legal arguments. Historically, several US politicians, John F. Kennedy and Jimmy Carter being two examples, went out of their way to make it clear that they would govern for all Americans, and not allow their political policy decisions to be bound by their personal religious traditions. In a multicultural, multiethnic, multi-religious country, this is the proper stance for politicians to take.
There has been an unfortunate trend since the advent of the “moral majority” in the late 1970s for religious leaders to try to influence politics and move the US towards what, to outsiders, appears to approach a Christian theocracy. The abortion-rights controversy has been at the centre of this trend. This trend is not only regressive and non-inclusive, but undermines the rational goal of basing policy decisions on facts and/or best evidence rather than on the religious doctrine. The Democrats are following the proper path in a secular society, even if that path does not resonate with a subset of the population.
"The candidates’ reticence about religion is excessive and unwise."
No, it's actually quite refreshing. The more that politicians make a point of talking about their religious beliefs, the less they are to be trusted. Bruni decries the hypocrisy of Republicans "recruit[ing] the Almighty into electoral service", but has no problem implying that the Dems use them as a role model. That's the religious equivalent of the ubiquitous flag pin; you don't need it to prove your patriotism - when it's genuine, it shows naturally in how you conduct yourself.
00:50 EDT, 10/23
138
@mancuroc
Totally agree.
Religion has no place in politics. Period.
And worse, there's almost nothing more nauseating than one of those staged and prepped political moments of total phoniness where the candidate pretends to care deeply about something that polls suggest matters to the electorate.
8
Hear, hear! And in terms of connecting with the electorate, when will we see a Unarian candidate for US President?
The Unarius Academy of Science is the only religion that makes any sense. Through the use of Four-dimensional space physics, Unarians are able to communicate with supposed advanced intelligent beings that allegedly exist on "higher frequency" planes.
We Unarians believe in past lives and hold that the Solar System was once inhabited by ancient interplanetary civilizations.
Frank, love your columns, but if there was ever a time for politicians to part ways with the smarmy hypocrisy of wrapping themselves in religion, it is now with the most cynical and hypocritical exploiter of religion in our nation's history corrupting the White House.
Religion is the one thing that absolutely needs to be excised from politics. The injection of religion into politics is both hopelessly cynical and counterproductive to the Enlightenment values that our country was founded on.
Tulsi Gabbard is a Hindu -- Should she start pushing Hinduism and the Bhagavad Gita on the American public?
Should Rep. Ilhan Omar promote how her faith informs her on policy-making?
If a candidate is religious, fine, it's a free country. Religion is protected. But wearing religion on one's sleeve is not only distasteful to most considerate people, including most considerate religious folks, but it deemphasizes the reasons for practicing the virtues that open societies and the liberal democratic order revere.
Is it not enough to love thy neighbor as thyself because of the ineradicable dictum of The Golden Rule, which arises naturally out of being minimally self-aware? Being good and ethical to our neighbors, our political opponents, our business competitors, immigrants, people who are different in terms of race, color, creed, nationality, etc., is a natural byproduct of having been treated well by others -- of embracing the values of enlightened, civil society.
Sorry Mr. Bruni, I am up to here with "prayers and thoughts" in American culture.
Prayers and thoughts when we kill kids with auto fire rifles.
Prayers and thoughts for the victims of fires and floods.
Prayers and thoughts for governing officials.
Prayers and thoughts for the betrayed Kurds.
Prayers and thoughts have helped get us where we are.
How about science and facts?
3
Wow, it's almost like candidates in the Democratic Primary don't talk about religion (i.e., Christianity) because it doesn't matter to voters in the Democratic Primary!
It is religion that is the problem; it infects our politics, confers a special status for believers in the unbelievable, and condemns any worthy political candidate who would dare espouse an atheistic world view. More happy talk about faith and family from the Democratic candidates would smack of insincerity, and provoke nausea among the many of us who see religion as a poison and intolerant creed of fantasy and wishful thinking. No religion, please!
2
Considering how the evangelicals have made a mockery of religion with their support of Trump, the less said about it, the better.
3
Should a presidential debate be about religion? I think most of our Founding Fathers would answer that question with a resounding "NO!"
4
So much for "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
4
Bruni is on target. Insofar as serious religion stands for clear distinctions between right and wrong as traditionally understood, the Democrats main line of attack against Trump and his supporters should be their amorality.
"Booker fleetingly mentioned his participation in a bipartisan Bible study group," - OMG the testaments have been studied for years. To what end? All religions should be stripped from our government and from our political discourse. Let's discuss history and science and the impacts of those on how we think of our future. We don't need Aesop's fables to guide us.
1
As a church librarian for a mainline denomination, I can supply some background that the Times is missing. Jesus told his followers to keep their religion private and not flaunt it. Evangelicals violate this command all the time, while mainline churches follow it. This creates the illusion that Republicans are highly religious while Democrats are not, when in fact the reverse is true. In the 2016 election Trump displayed phony religiosity while Clinton, ,a Methodist Sunday School teacher, kept her religion private as Jesus ordered.
If the Times is going to write articles on religion, they really need to do more research.
2
I would immediately distrust any politician who brings God into any debate.
3
If you have to shout your piety in front of an audience instead of showing it through good deeds (like healthcare for all, treating everyone equally, etc.) and only to the eye's of your maker, then you're not practicing your religion correctly.
1
Too often religion has been used for nefarious purposes. We have separation of church and state for a reason. My religion is my business. Your religion is yours. It needs to stay out of politics.
2
I thought there was entirely too much mention of God in the debate.
What percentage of Democrats pray everyday, etc.
3
I am a registered Republican. I didn't vote for Trump; Johnson got my vote. But if the Democrats can find the decency to nominate Buttitigieg or Klobuchar, I will vote for them. Not that it matters. My state will cast its electoral votes for the Democrat literally no matter what. But it would be so nice to see the Democratic Party show the conscience that my own party has forfeited.
1
' “We have had religion woven into our political structures and our political debate from the very beginning.” McCurry's statement, meant to complement this column, avoids referring to the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment (as does Bruni), where the very first words (it was THAT important) state, "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion,", thus guaranteeing all Americans the freedom FROM religion. Personal spiritual beliefs and religious worship are also protected, but they should NOT be invoked as having any position in our government's organization nor policies. Morality and ethics are basic to our nation, but not organized religion.
Unfortunately, we see right wing politicians (Pence, Pompeo, et al), who believe in the extreme evangelical "christian" belief of a "rapture" and "end of days" (always in our "near" future) attempting to infuse these extreme views into their ACTIONS in our government.
This is wrong, illegal, and a violation of their oath to the Constitution.
Personal beliefs are everyone's right and are protected. The right is trying to hijack those beliefs, and that's WRONG.
Right, Bruni?
2
When was the last time you saw a presidential candidate profess his or her atheism, agnosticism, secularism or what have you?
If "never" was your answer, you are correct. Because that admission (and Social Security) are the third rails of American politics.
So, if such a candidate wants to avoid the hypocrisy of avowing religious belief for political appeal, or does not want to vaguely imply some form of personal spiritual life that does not exist for him or her, then she has to shut up and stand by as other candidates either wallow in their religiosity or lie about it.
I say, speaking only for myself, that affordable health care, solving climate change and economic inequality are better responses to the question of godliness than a pronouncement religious belief.
3
Religion and faith are private matters, but the notion that they are separate from politics is hogwash. Our political system is one of competing values, and where do values come from? As Pharrell noted in GQ, we are in a period of "spiritual warfare" and Republicans are winning. I agree that Democrats need to talk about faith more, especially if it means something to them, for two reasons (1) we should know what their personal beliefs are because we should know what values they are bringing to their platforms and (2) it will help bring in swing voters who currently view Democrats as godless lefties. Pete is obviously doing the best job of this so far, so I'm rooting for him on that front.
2
Certainly separation of State and Religion is fundamental to the U.S. Constitution - as it should be. But that doesn't mean it has no place in society, or even in political discourse. Many follow religion because it offers a moral code of conduct. Take the Ten Commandments. Yes, the first two concern God. But most people actually practice most of the remaining commandments as they offer an appropriate way of life. Here are 3 through 10 (not necessarily in order):
3. respect your parents;
4. work six days and rest one day a week;
5. don't kill;
6; don't steal;
7. don't testify falsely;
8. don't commit adultery;
9. don't seek the spouse of another;
10. don't seek the possessions of another.
I grant you 3-4, 8-10 are not illegal, but I'm sure most would agree that they do make for a more decent person.
We have had presidents who were at ease with their Christian beliefs:
Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama to name two recent ones.
This ease and comfort with their beliefs perhaps made it easier for them to extend their tolerance to other religions.
We have had others who weaponized religion and religious organizations.
Abortion is our current example of a fully weaponized religious belief derived issue. Perfect as an issue if the goal is to get people to elect those who prefer a money-dominated, lawless, wealth equals right government. No person of wealth in this country will ever suffer as a result of the religious right insisting they stick their noses into the most private and painful choices and decisions any woman must face and punish those who do not have the financial ability to purchase freedom of choice.
We have the least Christian leader and administration in our history. Yet self-professed "official" Christians are happy, even eager, to give their money and cast their votes to ensure government delivered misery to as many people as possible.
That basic health is denied to millions of Americans because of deliberate GOP policy should be enough -- alone -- to disqualify any believing Christian familiar with the teachings of Christ from voting for any Republican.
1
Oh dear. Another little lecture by Frank Bruni about religion, or the absence thereof in the Democratic debates. Since Americans believe in the separation of Church and State, it would be highly inappropriate for any presidential candidates to bring his or her religion into the debates. The debates are about the governance of this country, and religion should not come into that discussion.
And, of course, the desperate Republicans would weaponize any such references to the Democratic candiate's personal religion.
4
Bruni's argument that Democratic politicians should pander to (presumably majority Christian) religionists is absurd, immoral and infuriating. Beliefs in things like the Genesis story, the virgin birth, resurrection, transubstantiation, the efficacy of prayer, healing (or winning sporting events) by divine intervention and miracles are disqualifications for receiving my vote.
If politicians are given supervisory, legislative, juridical or executive powers to be leaders, they should not be leading people into superstition and magical thinking. Politicians who haven't spent enough time thinking to understand that religious talk has no place in government (except in places like Iran and Saudi Arabia) are not likely to be the kind of well informed, clear thinkers we want making policy.
I won't be clicking on any Frank Bruni columns again.
3
Sure, the GOP hides behind the Bible, but it's sort of absurd to try to beat them at their own game with this. Consider Republican economic policies, which are absolutely punitive to the poor and weak and absurdly generous to the rich and powerful. How "Christian" are they in this unwavering crusade of theirs to reward the rich and punish the poor?
It's nonsense. Bruni worries that the GOP will brand Democrats as godless leftists for pursuing social justice. However, they'll do that regardless of what a Democrat does -- given the moral bankruptcy of evangelical Republican stances, how can one expect them to credibly face a social justice theology of the Democrats as anything but godless communism back from the dead?
An authentic Christianity in play with the Democrats -- that is, helping the poor and weak, instead of kicking them in the teeth as the GOP does -- would still be pilloried from the spiritually suspect pulpits of the GOP's preachers.
It's because the Christianism peddled by the GOP isn't honest Christianity at all but is politicized religiosity aimed at coddling the rich and hurting the poor. It's corrupt right out of the gates -- one might say devilishly so. Ergo, even any good deeds a Christian Democrat did would be sandblasted by the right-wing propaganda machine.
Right-wing religiosity is the GOP's glue. The Democrats aren't going to out-posture the GOP on that score.
2
Religion and the inevitable and obvious hypocrisy that comes with it is fortunately vanishing from our shores.
The next generation has Marvel superhero movies for their fantasy pantheon, and don’t need to rely on it for much more than entertainment at that.
It’s the old folks, who are easy marks for any fake ideas marketed to them, via religion or politics, to distract them from the reality of their lives.
This is one area, at least, we don’t need to revert to the standards set by post-Communist Russian white nationalism, where the use of religion is still in strong play as effective and addictive opioid for the masses.
As a being is, so it acts. It should be easy for us to see who is ethical, moral, empathic, fair, and kind to his/her neighbor.
It's by a person's behavior words with actions that we determine
their integrity.
It doesn't matter what religion is claimed, the Judeo-Christian standards are very similar and very good.
Our president? We should all pray for him, he is not well.
There is no god. God is in our hearts and minds. How we treat each other is what is important. Treating each person with dignity and respect is god. Actually believing that all people are created equal is god. Otherwise it is just talk.
2
We get it Frank. You want to find a reason for people to support your Corporate candidate rather than the Progressive candidate we need. So you are suddenly saying religion is most important for the Democrats winning. We should choose the best candidate based on what the country needs not based on who is the most electable or who Frank Bruni wants.
4
Democrat's know they do not have the right to force their personal spirituality or religion on others. They know we have constitution rights and will not allow the religion extremists to require statements of religious alliance that can be used for political gain and generated solely as a base for lies - as trump does now to juice up his base of hate.
Religion is controlled by the right wing of base of hate and our government GOP politicians.
Until we are released from the yoke of hate and twisted dogma that is preached from the main stream churches that destroying our society, we will never be able to speak of religion and government as partners.
1
Democrates do want to force their personal beliefs on others. I believe the way things our going, my rights as a Catholic health care worker will be taken away. Even the catholic health care system is threatened.
Elizabeth Warren has cited Sunday School as a formative teaching experience, just not in the debates (was she asked?). She said some incredibly moving words on her faith at CNN's town hall in Jackson, Mississippi, in March. She wasn't expressing a sense of aggrieved Christian identity so who knows how it'll play on both sides of the aisle, but she definitely displayed her Christian bona fides.
4
The overwhelming majority of the 2020 Democratic Presidential candidates ignore the political and economic beliefs of most Americans - why should their religious beliefs be treated any differently?
3
@Jay Orchard
so true!
It's completely unlikely that anyone who voted for Trump would otherwise vote for a Democrat who mixes church and state. The Democrats are quite wise to keep them separate.
4
Bruni is right. Again.
When Democrats refuse to use language which might take on religious or spiritual overtones, they fail to imbue their politics with any higher meaning. Without it - without the poetry - politics is a lifeless thing, a sterile policy to-do list.
And if America's skyrocketing rates of "deaths of despair" say anything, we are suffering a meaning deficit.
Man does not live by bread alone. People can suffer anything, give their lives to anything, which has real meaning and higher purpose. This is at the heart of any successful political movement.
3
Observing politicians (and Bruni) trying to handle the hot potato of religion just amuses me. Other countries, just as developed as America, manage to get along just fine by keeping religion where it belongs, which is in church and outside of government.
You just love religion? Great. Enjoy it, but keep it to yourself and your clan. Millions of your fellow citizens utterly reject all religious beliefs, but I’m not pushing you to do the same. Just don’t try to corral humanists, atheists and agnostics into your pen of mind control. That is just being arrogant and supremacist.
7
First things first: Bruni should be putting his religious question to the moderators, not Dems. Further, maybe Bruni should pray more. Maybe then, Dems will come 'round to the ways of the Evangelical Republican hypocrites whose religious style he seems to favor, those who give religion necessary lip service. Maybe then, we will finally have neighbor judging neighbor by their need and fidelity to God's law or Sharia? Heaven on Earth, like the middle-east amd eastern Europe await us.
6
I'm waiting for the candidate that calls out religion and religious people for what hey are - DUPES.
4
Dear God, why is this even remotely important? Does anyone seriously think the religious nutters are going to vote for anyone on this stage?
Science and reason will move forward in spite of these backwards folk. And they will continue to harangue and abuse these people, even as they enjoy the fruits of the scientific revolution.
hypocrites.
5
Are we not all sinners under Christian theology? If so, and we are told that God is no respector of particular sin. All sins are perhaps equal in God's eyes.
The Ten Comandments were made tenable by the simple fact that no one can obey each, try as they may.
That said, singling out homosexuality is just not fair. we are not judge anyone but ourselves.
However, hypocracy seems to be the exception in that various points of scripture define it as the most heinious of sins. To pretend to be good while doing bad with intent is what we have in DJT.
That ought to be publically condemned 24/7. The moral corruption on display as an example for our children is cancerous and needs to excised. Going about that requires some level of exorcism I do believe and no Dem candidate looks capable. Now if Obama or Carter were running we would probably see a take down tactic that reveals illumantion of the right path to justice.
Maybe a candidate will stand up. Let's hope so.
So the candidates should pander to Christian Conservative Trump supporters who have lost any ethical or moral compass in supporting him?
I have no interest in any candidates "religious beliefs" if they have any, or any other fantasies.
4
As a person of Indian origin, I think if a politician talks about her or his caste ,religion or god it is most likely the person is completely immoral in their personal lives. Coming to those 45 percent folks who believe in God or Goddess I think most of them don't want their politician to talk religion.
2
One’s faith in god should be a personal journey, not a public one debated on national tv. None of the candidates (or trump) are capable of providing spiritual guidance to anyone.
Don’t confusion the teachings of Christ, Buddha, or Muhammad with your repressive and backwards views on abortion or same sex marriage. Those are political views wrapped to look like religion.
Anyway, when you talk about religion you really mean Christianity. Imagine the response from the right if any of the candidates were practicing Muslims or Buddhists.
1
Could it be that when asked people say they pray or go to church when they really don’t because they think they should pray and go to church?
3
I'm an atheist but have no disdain for the faithful, as some commenters have lamented. Let people worship as they wish; just leave it out of politics, please. Your religion is incidental and I wish candidates didn't feel pressure to bring it up at all, let alone have it take center stage when presenting themselves and making an argument for why they should be elected. If I wanted that, I would move to Saudi Arabia.
4
We should have separation of church and state. When politicians pander to the religious there is no good outcome. Discrimination, racism, and too often violence are motivated from strong religious belief. Religion should be outside the scope of political discussion except as it causes problems in governance such as violence for abortion providers. Trump has called himself the chosen one. When politicians claim divinity they should be disqualified.
3
I'm glad they aren't focusing on religion. Religion today is more of a divisive institution than one that unifies. I don't care about the candidates' religion as long as that religion isn't codified into law. Democrats have been better about this than Republicans, who seem to want to inject Christianity into every aspect of public life.
Barr's speech at Notre Dame was scary.
3
Religion is a private matter. Never should it be manipulated to help some politician.I guess that is why as an Independent,I vote for Democrats.
3
When Buttigieg speaks of religion its only in terms of his view of religion which of course is the correct one, and then resorts to lecturing other believers in God that don't agree with his views as somehow being unfaithful. That's not going win over anybody.
2
A bit confused: what's wrong with Buttigieg's calling out the hypocrisy of those who square their religious beliefs with violence and cruelty at the border?
They ARE unfaithful to the teaching of many wisdom traditions, not just those of Christianity. One would hope this would be clear to them in church, temple, synagogue... And our sense of what is moral does influence our views of policy. The civil rights movement had a profound spiritual dimension which informed many, and was widely shared.
Buttigieg eloquently suggested that border cruelty is hypocrisy. Isn't that correct?
The Constitution makes clear its view on mixing religion with secular politics in Article VI in the third paragraph:
"...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
How does Mr. Bruni square the Constitution forbidding ANY religious test from his comments about religion having a place in the political campaign? In the Republican party there is a strenuous effort to displace democracy with a Christian Theocracy & the Constitution & Rule of Law with adherence to a particular evangelical reading of the New Testament. I often agree with Mr. Bruni's columns, but he is dangerously off-base here.
2
I have long enjoyed your witty, informative and insightful columns. There are so many levels on which the Trump presidency is wrong. Immoral, disrespectful, hateful, uneducated, shallow and impulsive come to mind. When I was much younger I felt that the world was divided into two categories of people; the caring and the uncaring. The caring looked for the why with compassion. The uncaring just blamed others and made assumptions. I am now unable to fathom how republicans can turn their eyes from Trump’s many faults and deceptions. They are like the crowd bowing to the Emperor in his “new clothes” blindly accepting this egregious behavior.
2
They have to get through the Democratic primary process. This isn't the general election. Given how far left things have shifted lately they are best leaving it out - for now. As it gets closer with fewer candidates vying for oxygen then maybe it can be introduced. Certainly for the general the issue will be there - which is funny considering Trump is anything but an actual Christian.
Dumb. Bruni, let’s remember, admired the self-professed Christian GWBush who helped to kill approx. 1 million Iraquis in a meaningless and unnecessary war.
Religion is a private matter. Politicizing it leads to stupidities.
5
The USA already has too much religion. Do the world and yourselves a favour and turn it down a few notches.
5
So you can be gay, but god forbid (pun intended) you come out as atheist, agnostic or secular humanist.
4
God has no role in government.
People are free to believe their myth of choice, but this must not influence governmental decision-making at any level. This is called separation of church and state.
There is absolutely no reason for any candidate to discuss religion during an election. None.
4
let's face it, they are a hopeless group of duds. Socialists, Marxists, angry race-baiters. Hating the country and dismissive of its accomplishments. Scornful of observant Christians and religion in general. In short, they are political poison.
Trump can beat them especially if the Dems fail in the impeachment, and if impeachment does pass, maybe Romney will run and Guess what? He'll beat them too. Voters don't want to hear sob stories and never-ending recriminations. Dems just don't get it.
@Asher
Trump's Twitter feed is one long adolescent whine about how hard done by he is. Sob stories and never-ending recriminations.
Never forget that.
Because most of America won't.
i don’t know whether god is missing from the debates, but for sure climate change is. not one question about this topic. so much for the press, which is moreinterested in stirring up trouble for the frontrunners than in provoking discussion.
3
Maybe in the year 2019 we’re moving on from fairy tales and superstition??
5
ah, which God is being summoned here? Pray tell. So many of them—
5
Zeus loves electric cars.
2
"gorgeously effective"? Bruni's in love.
1
"Democrats would make it harder for Trump to vilify them as enemies of so-called traditional values if they talked a bit more about spirituality and religion — including, if applicable, their own."
Yes! You nailed it, Frank. The answer to the forced pieties of the GOP and their wearing religion on their sleeve, like certain Biblican Pharasees isn't throwing religion out of the public square entirely.
We are a religious cuntry despite the fact more and more Americans are losing allegiance to any one faith. I agree with Frank, Democrats have an opportunig to clarify their stance (and the constitution's!) during the campaign season. And speaking about why and how they pracice t heir faith will take the alleged "atheism" of all Democrats off the table.
3
@ChristineMcM
What makes you think that Trump is gong to be Republican that the Democrats will be running against?
There's over a year left between "now" and "then".
I say he'll be gone before the robin's return.
1
Frank Bruni and The New York Times' "allies are poised to paint Democrats as unhinged lefties not only in terms of health care and taxes but also in terms of cultural issues, including abortion and L.G.B.T.Q. rights."
That's right, NYT: Do it all over again. Like 2016.
4
You're talking as if Trump has some kind, any kind, of religious virtue. That is false.
With a million foot tidal wave of climate change about to crash on our heads and not one second of climate disaster discussion in any of the debates, your great disappointment is the inattention to religion you've sensed in the Democrats???!!!
4
Any of the Democratic candidates are far more moral and ethical than the Antichrist who currently occupies the presidency.
6
Know what happens when you mix religion with politics? You get Trump and his "Two Corinthians."
I'll take an honest atheist or agnostic any day over a pious pretender who fakes his faith in order to garner more votes.
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
--Mahatma Gandhi
7
71 years ago, when I was born, "religion" was very different.
It was feed the hungry.
Nurse the poor.
Clothe the naked.
Welcome the stranger.
Love.
Today it is none of that.
Today, it is cut SNAP and WIC.
It is sue to get rid of the ACA.
It's $20 jeans at "Christian" thrift stores.
And, it is "Kids In Cages" on the border.
And, then there's the hate.
"Religion" today is the primary means of legal intolerance.
It is the legal means of discrimination.
The world of "religion" has divided up the world and, today, uses its power and wealth to tell you exactly who god hates, doesn't like, won't tolerate, blah, blah, blah.
The problem is not that Democrats have ceased to be "God's Mouthpiece".
The problem with "religion" is that the Republicans still think they have the "ear of God", that only they know (blah, blah, blah).
It is not the people of this country who have "left religion".
It is that "religion" has left the people.
I have been stated atheist for over 20 years, now beginning to push 30 years, and I was raised fundy.
I know exactly what I left - or rather, what left me long before I was even born.
But, back then, there was that short list (feed, nurse, clothe) that everyone DID do.
Now, all of that is gone, poisoned, or just laughed and sneered at, and there really is no more reason for "religion".
And, you see?
I didn't even bring up the protection of priests who rape.
No, America doesn't need more religion -.
It just needs better people.
10
Oh God! Here we go again.
5
we have had enough of religion, especially hypocritical evangalicals. look who they voted into office! recall, james madison fought fiercly for a separation of church and state. lets keep it that way. we have had enough of evangalicals in our faces.
5
What if - just bear with me - many of the Democratic candidates simply aren't very religious? Harris and Bennet grew up in interfaith families. Bernie has said he's basically an atheist. Klobuchar and Beto don't strike me as religious at all. I think if any of them tried to talk about faith it would come across as inauthentic. Many of them speak in lofty, moral terms - but in an approachable, secular way.
5
Warren credited her Methodist upbringing when talking about her support of LGBTQ issues. She probably ought to stay a little quiet about it since the Methodist church is anti-gay marriage and voted back in February to strengthen its ban on gay marriage. But good idea. The candidates lie about supporting Medicare for All and their great concern for working Americans. Why not lie about religion?
1
@Ross
And, admit, Ross, that the Methodist church of today is not the same one of 70 years ago when she was a child and was inspired by the message of community.
Nothing proves "evolution" more than a religion.
1
Frank, I usually enjoy your columns, but this one annoys me. WHY do candidates have to talk about religion at all? Coming from Europe, I'm not used to the pressure American political candidates face to profess their faith (and they better have one - atheists still don't get very far here; oh, and it better be a denomination of the Christian faith, too - I don't see the any chance for a Muslim or Wiccan president here anytime soon; even Jews and Mormons still have a hard time).
If you're comfortable talking about your religion, by all means, do so. But you shouldn't have to. Personally, I prefer to hear about issues that concern us all; religion should be something you do on your own (private) time, not thrust it into my face (or those of others who, like me, prefer not to be bludgeoned with it all the time).
2
While I understand your point about one's faith being a part of who one is, it doesn't apply to everyone. Frankly I think it is fine if some candidate is a person of whatever faith they have chosen, but I, who have a spiritual journey after leaving one of the established religions, get good and tired of hearing about people's religious lives. If it works for them, fine, but listening to hypocritical evangelists prattle on about things, for example, just is a big turnoff. Likewise Catholics, who also seek to influence our lives, witness the courts and legislative majorities that are busily punishing women's rights to control of their own bodies. Give me a break.
Candidates should stick to the policy issues and I am totally happy for them if they get comfort from their faith. Just stop pushing it into my ears!
Article 6 of the United States Constitution states that "No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
2
I think it's refreshing to not see the candidates pandering to the followers of the space god. Let's talk about issues, not mythology.
6
Well, Frank - two things: "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." Thomas Jefferson, 1802
Second, I would much rather have NO mention of religion by candidates on both sides than to have a hypocrite like Trump being fawned over by evangelicals. It disgusts me to see them "praying over him" in the White House. Christ would be outraged by this show.
Matthew 6:5: "And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men."
5
@Chris Wildman
Yes.
They are supposed to go into a room inside the house so that no one outside the house can see them at prayer.
Well, since Christian prayer is supposed to be THAT private, then that would surely put a crimp in the tax-exempt churches and properties that Christians have accumulated and forced the US government to remove from the tax-rolls.
Scratch all mega-churches!
2
Does anyone honestly think a Democrat--especially a gay one--will be able to win over Evangelicals with authentic talk about religion and the Bible?
Religious talk is only important when it's code that you share the same enemies.
This is not about liking candidates who share religious experiences like your own. It's about supporting candidates who use the language of religion to back your own viewpoints (that anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-science, etc etc).
Religious folk are no won over by rational arguments or people who exhibit authentic Christian backgrounds. (Exhibit A: Hillary Clinton, a public and practicing Methodist)
4
@Trog
But, why not, Trog?
It worked so well on the demonization of women!
1
It seems to me that pursuing the religious discussion/disclosure/testimony line almost always ends up in a contest of hypocritical posturing. Why not focus on the person - his or her record of actions and of personal character? I would prefer the hypocritical posturing to be limited to matters of public policy.
3
I'm not sure what to make of this article. Should non or slightly religious people fake it, lie to the people and be inauthentic? Should people who believe in church and state separation bring religion in anyway? Can anyone be honest and say keep your beliefs to yourself and not enforce them through laws. Unless the goal is to force your beliefs onto others through the law, what's the point? Is it a therapeutic thing?
2
Democratic candidates should feel free to speak about faith.
They should also highlight our President's faith, which includes multiple extramarital affairs, payments and nondisclosure agreements to playmate and adult film star while his wife is at home with a newborn.
Democrats should expose the hypocrisy of the so-called religious right.
3
"The candidates’ reticence about religion is excessive and unwise".
Indeed it is not, only a sign of either hypocritical laicism or laicistic hypocrisy. It seems to me that most, if not all, of the candidates have been given by their parents at birth a forename and monotheistic religion. So was I, but I lean to the Manicheans' and Cathars' faith in life as Eternal Struggle of Good and Evil. I wish the politicians to be well aware of which One of the Two they represent.
To all the nay-sayers that religion should be out of bounds for discussion amongst Democratic candidates, I"ll remind you of Obama singing "Amazing Grace" at the eulogy for the slain church members in Charleston. Of all his goodness and good things that he did in policy, this one act sticks viscerally to me, a very non-religiouis person, more clearly than anything else the good man ever did.
“We have had religion woven into our political structures and our political debate from the very beginning.” ..... and what a shame that is. I utterly disagree with every word of this article.
4
@P H
There is a difference between "Constitution" and "Covenant".
"Constitution" implies two humans coming to agreement on "equal" laws.
"Covenant" implies one person, who is visible, accepting the dictates of an unseen entity that are "hierarchical" laws.
Anyone concerned with making laws had better know which kind they are - and which kind the person they are speaking to is.
I'll save my ladders for painting the ceiling - not for building some ideology so I can rule someone.
Republicans LOVE ladderistic clap-trap!
1
Good thing God skipped the Democratic Primary. At least God by not being there believes in our Constitution and secularism. Now if only Republicans would follow suit and not make God the scapegoat.
6
Maybe Dems don't mention religion because they believe in separation of church & state. Religion has no place in politics and that's a major reason we are in so much trouble in this country.
6
As of this moment, the Democratic Party stands without a viable presidential candidate for the 2020 elections. Each of the present slate is as polarizing in their own way as Donald Trump. Where is the charismatic forty five year old with a proven track record of dedicated public service to our nation? Where is the candidate who can speak eloquently of their love for our nation and its people and its traditions and norms, and anchor that love and call to service in their faith in a God who both transcends religion and condescends to work through the world's religions, including atheism, to reveal the dignity, sanctity and infinite worth of all creation. We desperately need a leader who appeals to our better angels and creates the space and moral incentive for rapprochement in our fractured society.
1
Frank, please stop. Do not do this. This is not very worthy of you. Clearly, Democrats avoid the subject because nothing good can come of it, not in a time when priests and pastors from every hamlet are jailed daily for criminal conduct, and shameless evangelical hypocrites crowd into the White House to convince us that President Trump is a worthy disciple of Christ. To put it bluntly, we are all better off when politicians keep religion out of their mouths and today’s false prophets keep politics out of theirs.
4
Christian Religion was established during the Roman Empire in 493 AD to control people and convince people to pay their taxes to the Roman Empire.
"QUID PRO QUO", THE ORANGE DEVIL MUST GO!
3
Your column is in error in asserting that Senator Elizabeth Warren “has never taken the extra few syllables to note that she’s taught Sunday school.”  In fact she has not only noted that; she has quoted scripture at length in a Democratic debate.
Unlike Pete Buttigieg, she has not been involved in fighting with the Republican Party about its hypocrisy.  challenging the opposing party’s religious beliefs, no matter how well founded the challenge, is not conducive to winning elections.
1
This country was founded upon Enlightenment principles, and separation of church and state was a core element of it. Leave the gods -- whosever they may be -- out of politics.
3
It's bad enough that we have a phony "president" supported by amoral "evangelicals" who could not care less about the country so support the most corrupt person ever to hold the office. And now that person is starting to believe the "evangelicals" that he was "chosen" by their "god" so is now believing he is able to do anything he wants in the name of their "god."
Please, keep religion out of it. The very fact the amoral, hypocritical "evangelicals" have decided an amoral con man is their guy means that "religion" is a completely worthless "value."
Worse that worthless - it is leading to the destruction of our country.
3
Perhaps it is because the follow the guidance in Mathew 6:6 "But you, when you pray, go into your room, and when you have shut your door, pray to your Father who is in the secret place; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you openly."
Also perhaps they follow Matthew 25:40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’”
2
Been thinking about this overnight: really the religion of the US is the myth of money and meritocracy. A two headed monster that justifies settlerism, oppression, militarism and ignorance.
God, guns and Fox News!
2
You're probably right, Frank.
Americans are very attached to their superstitions and delusions.
3
From the gospel of Matthew 6 (in part):
"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others."
"But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. "
"And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words..."
3
Let's be honest here; despite the posturing God took a pass on the sum of US politics long ago.
As a devout agnostic I don't see a problem with politicians steering clear of religion all together. Politics and religion don't mix. It's the whole "render unto God that which is God's and render unto Caesar that which is Caeser's" thing and also separation of church and state.
Furthermore claiming to be a person of faith solely for the purpose of garnering votes is extremely disrespectful to people who actually hold thier faith dear. I would much rather our leaders be honest about who they are than have them fake a religious affiliation for the sake of appearances.
The only religious issues government should be concerned with are the tax exempt status for churches and the US embassy at The Vatican. To my mind both are a bad idea.
4
Candidates that use religious belief or affiliations to gain votes often come off as disingenuous if it is perceived that they are not true adherents to faith. This is particularly true for Democrats. In the modern political era, only Jimmy Carter truly seemed like a true believer. The right has already shown that they don't care about Trump's amorality, with more religious voters supporting him more fervently. I don't think centrist voters are itching for any religious pandering, and Buttigieg is maybe the only one who could pull off speaking authentically about his religious faith anyway. If the idea here is that advertising your faith will provide a positive ethical and moral contrast to Trump, that seems to me to be unnecessary. Unless you are in the Cult of 45, it's already quite obvious that anyone's morals are superior to Trump's.
2
Religion should not play a role in presidential politics, period. Spirituality and religion should be a private matter, not a public one, that is why we have separation of church and state. And it's obvious by now that no religion has a claim to greater morality, especially Christian evangelicals. So what purpose would it serve for candidates to be talking about it?
2
There is a huge difference between religion and spirituality. Religion is supposed to be based on connecting the individual with God, which is spirituality. Religion may initially do that, but then often veers into added values - including contributing money to the church, mandating often outdated and ineffective sexual values, etc.
Spiritual depth, on the other hand, reinforces the connection with our higher selves - and with each other. To not recognize those spiritual values is to allow ourselves to get lost as humans.
As a gay man, I celebrate my connection with God and my soul. I also have no problem denouncing, say, those evangelicals who misuse the core decency they outwardly preach for political purposes.
1
A lot of folks here are dismayed by Democrats getting behind religion, because they associate religion with conservative values that they abhor. But there's a reason for that: Conservatives have been allowed to "own" faith for decades, and so they've gotten to define what faith means. There is absolutely no reason why faith can't be used to argue for liberal values as well. I am a liberal whose faith is very important to him, and I truly do not see a conflict between liberalism and faith.
The Democratic Party has an incredible opportunity here to claim ground that the Republicans and conservative leaders have actively ceded in the past several years. We can reclaim FAITH and emphasize its liberal roots (true in both the Old as well as in the New Testament). We can reclaim PATRIOTISM, as liberals these days are the ones arguing that foreign influence over our nation's politics is actually a bad thing. And we can reclaim FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY, since it's definitely been demonstrated since 2010 that Republicans spend far more flagrantly than Democrats ever could.
These are values that resonate very strongly with the vast majority of Americans. we wouldn't have to sell out a single principle to engage in these conversations. There's no reason that either of those three things need to inherently align with Republican Party talking points.
Proof of Frank Bruni not doing any research before publishing an opinion. https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1107841344553316352?lang=en
1
Right they know what you apparently do not, that the population in question is fundamentally unable to face the obligation of confronting the most essential question of existence.
The politics of this time requires a position of either endorsing or at least tacitly accepting this or that absurd basis for same for fear of offending the preciously held false basis of same.
Which explains why there is significant difference between the levels at which the general population has rejected religion and even irrational but culturally entrenched beliefs of that sort but virtually no politician in this country, at least if she has national ambitions will do so.
Faith, to many people, is a vitally important part of their lives. Deriding it is as divisive as proscribing it.
I don’t find the debates to be an appropriate place for the candidates to discuss their faith. Their platforms, websites and other interviews give ample opportunity to expand that narrative and connect to voters in that way, should a candidate find that necessary. And I like how Mayor Pete speaks about his beliefs, in a practical, everyday way that many Americans might identify with. The Methodist church in which I grew up would call this “faith in action”, meaning that your personal practice of belief in Christ is consistent in your treatment of others (from your family to the garbage man), your political choices, your consumer choices, etc. It sounds a lot like Mayor Pete’s interpretation of his faith in his everyday life. It is also apparent in his policy proposals, which aim to aid and embrace everyone in America. Anyone of any faith can suss out where these candidates stand in their moral arc. As to pandering, in my personal experience, the more a person talks about Christ the less likely their actions tend to look like his did: see: Evangelicals.
But when we go down the rabbit hole of Christian voters not feeling comfortable with candidates that don’t speak about their faith we get extremely close to the electorate pressing a religious test. I don’t see Jewish voters voicing misgivings about how often Bernie attends Temple.
5
I won't repeat the other commenters though I agree with many, but Bruni's piece is also lazy: Cory Booker's platform is grounded on this and he speaks candidly and often about faith. Just not in the debate and if you want to talk about what's not covered in the debate "climate catastrophe" is more important than "who taught Sunday school", and climate didn't get covered either. Look up any think piece from these last, oh god two years- this campaign has been going on for two bloody years- about Booker to read about his religion/spirituality. He don't hide it.
I get the expediency argument, and so evidently does the GOP, but the Democrats have it right. Religion is a private matter; there is no place for it in politics or policy making.
2
Democratic candidates mentioning religion in their stump speeches will have zero effect with regard to proving what a hypocrite Trump is. Trump’s entire life in words and deeds show that he has no religion and no God beyond himself, yet his cultists apparently believe he is a good Christian. If a preponderance of evidence doesn’t convince them, how will Democratic candidates talking about religion do so?
Also missing in Bruni’s argument are two important facts. First, studies have shown that people greatly exaggerate their religiosity when talking to pollsters because they wish to be seen as more religious than they are. A quick calculation of the number of church seats in your area versus the population will likely show that, even if only one quarter of fourty five percent went to services one Sunday a momth with no overlap, there aren’t enough seats to accommodate all of them. Second, religiosity is no barrier to being a bad person. Religions are whatever their followers want them to be which is why, as Bruni should know, countless millions of religious people in this country and around the world use their beliefs as an excuse to bash, verbally and physically, anyone different from them, including gay people.
So no, Democrats mentioning God in every sentence of every speech will not change the minds of Trump believers because, to paraphrase Schiller, against delusion the Gods themselves contend in vain.
I’m an atheist and I pray everyday for Trump to not be President. Nancy Pelosi prays for Trump’s mental health and asks Americans to do likewise. So far, my and the Speaker’s prayers have gone unanswered.
2
That’s up to the centrists you do. They are the ones who want a foot in both isles. Any move towards promoting religion on the actively engaged Warren and Bernie campaigns will undermine their support. The people engaged don’t want religion interfering and see it as a negative especially with them supporting Trump as a cult following.
Are you sure you want to invoke gods and mythology into this mix? Are you truly serious? That’s insanity.
I adhere to the Kennedy- Cuomo school of religion and politics. Separate. Just because the republicans pander to those with deep religious beliefs, doesn’t make it right. The republicans don’t even live up to the teachings of most Christian faiths. Render to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to god what is gods’. Is that so hard? Most, if not all of the policies the democratic candidates are espousing sound far more “religious” and based on Christian tenets than the lock em up chants at Trump rallies.Give it a break, Mr. Bruni, not everything or everyone revolve around religion, especially when those who do the most flaying of their opponents don’t practice what they preach. Unless of course you’re a “ transactional” Christian; then they’d vote for the devil( which they have come pretty close to) then someone with true charity for all.
1
Mayor Pete will be a strong contender in a general election because he is not afraid to talk openly about his faith. The far right evangelicals may reject him for his sexuality bit I believe he will connect with more cnservative independants and swing state voters. Completely denouncing religion like so Democratic candidates seem to do will not help us win back the WH.
If the GOP or any Republican politician had to prove their religious merits would they start with mentioning locking up immigrant children in cages, or abandoning our allies the Kurds to be slaughtered in Syria, or denying that climate change is destroying the planet we live on, or even though we have an enormous number of poor people in this country we passed a tax cut to enrich the wealthiest individuals and companies, or the fact that Trump's only god is money, or that he embraces dictators who imprison and kill people with impunity, or that three times as many people of color are in our prisons, or that they have allowed the NRA to kill thousands of young people in grade schools and colleges because someone profits every time a bullet is fired... in other words I see all these people who are determined to attend church on Sunday as good people who simply haven't learned the lessons of the compassion of Christ and use religion to hold themselves as superior to those of us who might actually care about the world we live in and refuse to allow it to be degraded by their false sense of both religious compassion for others different than themselves and religious understanding that demands creating a better world than the one we are currently living in which is overwhelmed by injustice and suffering.
Render unto God the things that are God's and to Caesar the things that are Caesar's.
I agree with crankyoldman below.
1
This old atheist believes that we should follow the instruction given to us in the Constitution by the founding fathers of this country, which is, that there is no religious test for holding public office. Many, such as Jefferson and Paine, found religion to be a poor partner in politics, and a corrupting influence for both. From what we've seen in the Trump Administration and the willingness of Evangelical Christians to subvert their beliefs in order to support an authoritarian madman, I think we should be longing for the days when a candidate should not be forced to tow any type of religious baggage around. As Thomas Paine stated, "It is from the Bible that man has learned cruelty, rapine, and murder; for the belief of a cruel God makes a cruel man."
1
I agree with the premise, that my Democrats are missing out on connecting with those who value religiosity in the life , action and talk of their potential candidates for president. However, in real life, I strongly distrust PDR's, Public Displays of Religion. If you have to tell me that you are a Christian, you are not doing it right. James 2:16-18
1
Mayor Pete Buttigieg is well versed in Bible. He can debate and win any argument that uses Bible for political points. He is the best candidate to neutralize the right wing Bible thumping politicians. But he is also well versed in US Constitution! And he knows Bible and Constitution better than anyone running for office right now!
So, let me get this straight; religious people will vote for the Devil as long as the Devil talks about God.
So...Mr Bruni, if I understand your article correctly; you are stating that if the Democratic party would start invoking God more, we could get trick these religious people into voting the Democratic ticket.
So , that's what the Republicans have been doing for years.
Democrates have not done this because it is not the right thing to do. The Republican Party doesn't seem to be bothered by what is right or just, it's all about the manipulation.
1
The institutional left has spent much time and effort belittling those who dare to believe that moral authority can originate with any source higher than the state. The Dem candidates know they'll need the support of that institution if they have any hope of succeeding in the primary. So why embrace religion now?
Moreover, if calling attention to Republican hypocrisy is a winning formula, how do Democrats propose to square their views on, say, abortion with their newfound moral guidance? Separating children from their parents is one thing. Hacking them to bits is something else altogether.
I'm sorry, but when you say "[Trump] also has governed in ways that contradict the principles of charity and mercy that are central to many religions," you ignore the fact that Republicans in general, long before Trump, have done so. In fact, you can't favor Ayn Rand in the manner of a Paul Ryan, and truly follow Jesus Christ. They certainly give lots of lip service to those principles, but talk is cheap.
Religion in politics is tricky, because so much pain has been caused by people supposedly following the Good Book. I need to know what a candidate is going to do for America in concrete terms, not promises hinted at by religious platitudes. Examples? Mike Pence. Jeff Sessions. Paul Ryan. Aaaand Mitch McConnell. Piety, real or feigned, guarantees nothing. And what if you're Muslim, or Confucian, or Wiccan? Obama caught flak because his name sounded Muslim.
I know what the author means to get at, here, but if it doesn't arise organically, it comes off as fake. And religions that believe in charity are as likely to have capitalist adherents who relegate any helping of others to charities as they are to support making being charitable part of governing policy. Examples? Healthcare. Immigration.
Remember, many evangelicals are rabid supporters of Donald Trump.
1
Bernie asked: Are you willing to fight for someone you don't know, the same way you're willing to fight for yourself?
That is Christianity distilled. Full stop.
God isn't sitting out the primary, he's trying to reach us via language we modern Americans can understand. We would do well to listen.
Evangelicals seem to be some of the most likely voters to look for and vote according to, a candidate’s religious values and signals. And what did they do in 2016? It’s time to get rid of the religious litmus test for candidates. Give me an atheist who has THOUGHT through issues of ethics, right and wrong for him/her self.
It is almost impossible to separate God from State.
There are millions of concepts of some form of higher power.
People will default to the “ God” concept when they are trying to frame things for their own benefit.
This is an ongoing process and a great enigma.
Trump thinks he is above reproach.
Dems are all over the place when it comes to reality.
Bloomberg !
The evangelical right is hollow, bereft of any recognizable morality or conviction or belief. They openly and proudly support monstrous amoral Republican candidates who subscribe to their millenialist views. Jockeying for the Christian god-botherer vote is not just pointless, it's a strategic blunder that would cost the Democrats core supporters while buying them nothing. Keep fake demonstrations of piety on the right, where it belongs.
1
I am not looking for a president as a spiritual/religious leader. I do not care what his or her religion is or isn't, I'd rather be oblivious to it. Our government should have a blind eye to religion, the fact that "christianity" has been woven into our politics is a problem not an asset.
Frank you state "imagine the contrast if you’re running against Donald Trump, who has absolutely none of that (religious) vocabulary.” Yeah the guy who firmly has evangelicals in his hip pocket.
I am proud of the fact that the Dems by far have kept god out of the debates.
3
I wonder why many of my fellow atheists are so angry and intolerant that they insist that religion is only to be ridiculed. It remains a fact that the majority of people in this country believe in religion. Just because I disagree with them does not compel me to be angry and snide about their beliefs. If a Democratic candidate chooses to make sincere reference to religion it makes no difference to me, but it may make a difference to a potential voter who believes in religion. Unfortunately, judging from many comments here, it demands disqualification.
As any sociologist of religion will probably tell you, stats like "45% of Americans pray at least once per month" indicate very little. Self-reported rates of church attendance are typically twice as high as rates based on actual counts. Regular church attendance, like "praying", is limited to less than a quarter of the public.
Mr. Bruni might also pay greater attention to what the Democratic electorate looks like. There are as many "nones" today as there are Evangelicals, and like Evangelicals they are very partisan - but in the opposite direction. Republican candidates wear religion on their sleeves because they have to. Outside the black community, it's not a Dem crowd pleaser even among religious Democrats who typically shun name-dropping god by their candidates.
Evangelicals are so rabid and defensive today because their numbers are rapidly shrinking just like mainline Protestants thirty years ago. They can't stop it so they blame the media, liberals, Democrats - you name it - and try to shore up their flagging collection plate revenues with tax dollars via "faith-based" whatever programs. God didn't start getting involved in Presidential elections until the late 1970s, but today she's quickly becoming an electoral liability.
2
Sorry, not sorry.
After the "christian" evangelicals have tried to hijack our government, the LESS we talk about religion and how it will work within the confines of our government, the better.
You are entitled to your faith, as am I. However, using your faith to curry favor and gain votes is not in the best interests of our nation.
1
Thank you for this piece.
I am a convert to the Church and am a future seminarian, and while the Democrats do have many policy positions that align with Catholic Social Teaching (and admittedly, they have some that don’t, like the aforementioned abortion issue), I am alienated by the fact the Democrats refuse to acknowledge a major point in my life. That is, they seem to refuse to see that God is very important to me as a voter.
I do not want a theocracy, I do not even care if the candidate is Catholic themselves, I just merely want them to stop pretending that everyone is as secular as they are. I want them to acknowledge that there are millions of voters, like me, who care about the reality of Jesus. That there are of those of us who feel uncomfortable voting for a party that neglects our existence (or, that when it foes acknowledge us it’s only in a negative light).
If the Dems want my vote, they have to put in the effort.
2
What I think what Mr. Bruni really means is for Democratic candidates to publicly discuss their Christian faith. Imagine a Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, Scientologist, etc. candidate speaking earnestly of their religion in order to pander to Midwestern voters. Absolutely not! It is only a privilege for a Christian to discuss openly and not turn off voters. It is very possible to have a discussion about universal human values and character WITHOUT talking about Jesus - Jesus!
European countries like France, Germany, UK, etc. are close to 40% non-believers at this point. What I suspect from the author is his own brand of identity politics, identifying with someone like Buttigeg, a honorable, decent, gay, Christian man. Definitely not a bad thing, but maybe we can use the primaries to discuss more ideas instead of God.
Plus there's also the risk of turning off voters who don't want to hear candidates discuss their religious views. No thanks!
3
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...." -- First Amendment
Exactly how is a presidential candidate supposed to talk about his or her personal faith without raising concerns in the minds of voters that important public policy decisions would be inappropriately influenced by that faith?
Remember, we live in a world of sound bites, a world in which single sentences and even phrases are remembered out of context, and one in which a candidate for office rarely has the time - or adequacy of listeners' attention spans - to provide appropriately nuanced context.
Consider, just as a single example, that a candidate who says s/he is personally pro-life, but respects Roe vs Wade as the law of the land, is very likely to be regarded by the pro-choice movement as an unreliable ally at best, who may support or vote for new restrictions on abortion that are not unequivocally at odds with Roe.
I am unconvinced that staying away from talking about one's faith is a mistake for a candidate. It is certainly NOT a mistake to be always cognizant of the secular nature of American government. I think it is also NOT a mistake in political judgment.
2
I find Mr. Bruni's call for more discussion of religion in the Democratic debates very disturbing. Everyone is entitled to have a belief or disbelief in the precepts of personal or organized religion. The best a candidate for President of the United States should do is to affirm the Constitutional right of every American to follow whatever beliefs that they have with respect to religion and to also affirm the right of individuals to not have such beliefs. This country is divided enough on so many issues that we do not need to make it even worse by emphasizing religious differences at the political level.
4
The message should simply be that religion does not belong in government, people cannot use religion as an excuse to discriminate against people, government will not interfere in religion except when religion is used as an excuse to hurt people or run criminal enterprises. Otherwise we can leave those who use mythology as a life guide alone, but they cannot expect the rest of us will give any credence to their claims of exceptionalism. And they should not expect us to do them any special favors just because they believe in some form of mythology.
That's about it. What else needs to be said?
2
We still live in a country with separation of church and state.
The candidates needn't talk about their personal religion except in the context of saying that all people matter--those who are religious of any persuasion, or those to whom it does not matter. Enough of Mike Pence, William Barr, Mike Pompeo, even Trump insinuating that it's important to be Christian in this country. It is a personal matter, and I do not want to hear about it among the Democratic candidates except to call out the current administration and to tell Americans clearly that their religious choices are person.
4
Religions like our secular USA have their Constitutions as well i.e. Sacred Texts. Our nation’s identity has been altered factually many times via public debates and votes.
Religious texts are publicly factual also but obviously unalterable. Therefore what one privately believes may not be consistent with other’s. “There is no public compulsion in religion”. Only Guidance to those who learn, accept and follow it. And some know more and do that better than others. Verbal Platitudes may be just falling leaves cast about but are not the depth of a religious root or of one’s personal character.
1
Religions are no indicator of personal character. I've known just as many people that insisted they were deeply religious, but were just as likely cheat on their taxes, hire somebody under the table, fool around on their spouses, drink themselves stupid, watch porno (I was doing a study that I was going to present at Bible Study), or anything else that people do. All that religion did for them was to provide a smoke screen to hide behind, when insisted they were doing what Jesus would do.
1
Mr. Bruni, you speak as a religious man angry that religion is not being discussed. I have hated to hear all political candidates in the past tout their faith as evidence of their fitness for public office.
I believe that the practice of religious belief is a private matter. It does not belong in the public debates for political office. It is fine to call upon God's help to guide America. It is not fine to introduce the fervor of one's belief as a reason to prefer one candidate over another. We have the right to worship as we believe, but we also have the right to be free of religion.
4
Why should candidates for an office that requires rational thought and fact-based policy be required to pretend to believe in something that is not real?
9
I think Bruni has a point. He's talking about communality -- allowing people to relate on an emotional/visceral level. Like it or not America is not godless and much of what is morality is more or less Christian.
I am delighted to hear that Warren is Methodist and taught Sunday School It wasn't that long ago that the first Catholic became president. (Jews seem to have a harder time of it.) Obama had his minister.
OTOH I would be happy to see "under God" ( added in the 50s to distinguish us from those godless Commie) be taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance.
1
Democrats are afraid of religion
Republicans use religion.
Ask Donald Trump to recite one prayer from memory.
He cannot.
3
He's religious when it is convenient for him. I seriously doubt if he is truly religious.
Not enough sanctimonious Democratic candidates? Guess you'll have to wait for those highly principled republicans to feed your need.
About a third of Americans are not religious and then there's that separation thingy in the constitution.
7
Yes more “thoughts and prayers” are just what America needs
4
I guess, given the comments here, that we should just be glad that Dem candidates aren't actively hostile towards religion. And whether NYT readers want to hear it or not, you can't win the presidency with only 26% of the vote. Many of our fellow countrymen find sustenance in their religious faith. And though white evangelicals seem firmly in the Trump camp, they aren't the only people of faith in the US. Even if Bernie is not a practicing Jew, his election would be historic. Biden goes to mass daily -- and despite it being the largest single religious group in the US, if Biden were elected, he would only be the second Catholic President. Gabbard would be our first President who was a member of a religious cult, but that's another story.
I’m not so sure you have to say “God” to remind people that God isn’t a Republican. Donald Trump has tainted Evangelical Christians who finally have shown that their brand of Christianity is based on cruelty and hypocrisy.
Democrats have always been about service to a higher cause. And they don’t feel the need to push it in people’s faces.
Humility is the most powerful Christian force. Let the Democrats show their humility. Let the Republicans show their hypocrisy.
Again, you don’t need to say “God” to show you believe in God. It’s really about living the life that God would have us live.
4
@Rod A "Donald Trump has tainted Evangelical Christians who finally have shown that their brand of Christianity is based on cruelty and hypocrisy. "
"evangelical" Christians have tainted themselves. It was completely voluntary to pick an amoral con man as their leader. "Evangleicals" now have no moral authority or credibility. They are complete zeros.
1
I think you’re wrong. Any mention of religion is gonna drag this into a debate about whether or not women should have complete control of their own bodies.
There aren’t any more fence sitters on that.
So it’s a waste of energy.
Frank Bruni suggests a clear, easy, non-divisive strategy for Dem candidates of faith to find common ground with an essential voting bloc. And the NYT commenters eviscerate him for it.
Please ask yourself who's the bigger threat in 2020: a Dem candidate who talks about their faith and also respects the Constitution, or Trump?
If you answered Trump, then please join the rest of us in figuring out how to win the election.
2
I'd suggest leaving the phony religiosity to right wing evangelical hypocrites.
We need solutions in this world. No disrespect to sincerely religious folks, myself included. Pray for the nation and her people, we are in peril.
2
Well-said, Frank.
We all know that Dems have nothing to do with God, their being wise and loving of everyone who has a leftist "starz upon thars."
It's clearly not their "reticence" that's at issue. Their pride of superiority rules.
Forget about God. It's the Devil who is not skipping the Democratic Primary. He's the one holding the baton.
1
The Republicans are like the Chief Priests, Pharisees and Scribes (Pence, Falwell, etc.) who claimed they were the true believers and disparaged the Samaritans (today's immigrants), yet Jesus Christs saw through their hypocrisy. Today's U.S. Christians worship a false idol, Donald Trump (he even loves gold, like the golden calf of Moses' time). Really Frank, true belief is measured by one's actions of compassion, not by prostrating oneself in religious rituals. And yes, today's false Christians will once again worship at the alter of Donald Trump, regardless of how pious the Democrats profess to be.
1
Mr Bruno, please, but you are wrong. Religion is a wedge issue in politics that has no place in our democracy, except for our freedom to practice as we choose. The Dem candidates are correct not to insert it in the conversation and instead focus on issues that matter: healthcare, income inequality and the environment.
Trump can misquote the Bible all day long—Two Corinthians, an eye for an eye,etc. and will still have the unwavering support of the evangelical base. That support centers on abortion, another wedge issue. The religious right doesn’t care if you’re a serial philanderer, a liar and a cheat, or use the Bible for laughs, as long as the conservative judges keep coming.
4
Frank, I agree with all your columns and look forward to reading your opinions. But this is the first time I totally disagree with what you are saying. Religion is personal and has no place in politics or government. Shall we start to discuss sexual preferences next? I am so glad that an openly gay candidate is running for president and I sincerely hope that an atheistic candidate will be able to run in the future. Or “God forbid”, a gay atheist!
3
That openly gay candidate is also openly Christian.
I don't consider myself an especially religious man, but how does the religious right consider Trump to be doing God's work ? He's a despicable human being and the harm and pain that he is causing around the world in no way emulates an example of Christianity. Just because he says he's against abortion and appoints judges that have the same goal in no way makes him a religious person. Again, I say religion should have no part in our government's laws and policies.
1
I want less religion in politics. Religious fanatics block progress - that's why they love Trump. But my views are a little extreme, for sure. My sentiments kind match a great quote by Bill Maher - "Religion is bad and drugs are good".
2
The eventual Democratic candidate will be up against Trump, an obvious god-fearing man whom evangelicals adore. A man who publicly lives his life according to the bible's teachings. Dems certainly should talk about god and two Corinthians much more.
2
One of the biggest problems with American politics today is the "faith test."
Really? You have to believe in God to be able to govern? That's a profoundly absurd statement.
You want to elect officials who turn to an imaginary voice in their heads for guidance? Ummm, OK.
I'd rather go with somebody who is skilled in listening, reading, and researching both sides of an issue.
Then again, when you see the amount of corruption and scandal in the world's churches through the ages, you understand why the Evangelicals and the GOP get along so well... they're crooked birds of a feather in the ruling classes' selfish perversion of faith to suit their own needs.
5
"But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." Matthew 6.6
I don't care what people pray about in their closet. I care mightily when they force their prayers and beliefs on others.
5
Is God Skipping the Democratic Primary?
Well, since God is an imaginary construct of a socially agreed upon hallucination, yes, the imaginary big guy is not checking out the primaries, or the caucuses either.
3
NO! Keep it out of politics. Take the tax exempt status from all churches. Put the pedo's in prison, and all those that protected them, it wasn't an isolated incident, it was a pedophile's club. As a population becomes more educated, they move away from religion, which is a very good thing. Religion has no part in our government (I assume you wouldn't agree to Muslims having a major part in our government, although members of your religion would be welcome), and it needs to stay that way.
3
Who cares about what a candidate worships? It could be a sock, for all I care. I want to know their plans on the issues, their policies, and their ethics.
3
I believe that you will see that "God" skipped the Constitution.
Where do you find "God" mentioned in the Constitution?
2
"A zeal for different opinions concerning religion...[has] divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good.” - James Madison, "Architect of the Constitution," Federalist Paper #10
2
People seem to like religious mentions in politics when it’s their religion reflected kindly upon...
2
Surely you know there is no god! Most people know this in their hearts but are afraid of the unknowable. So why pander?
2
We have heard enough about religion and faith, and now is NOT the time for democratic candidates to bring it up. Mayor Pete is fine with doing so, because it is part of his arguments for particular policies, and it clearly is not hypocritical. Americans, religious and secular, can smell hypocrisy when we hear it, so to ask that people whose faith plays a minor role in their lives bring it up so they can get the attention of more of the religious voters sounds like a GOP talking point, and it stinks to high heaven.
Sorry Frank, but this editorial is just plain smelly.
2
What does secular mean, exactly?
Separation of church and state. Period.
3
Yep. God is skipping the primary. I'm going to follow His lead.
1
Such hand-wringing is so misplaced: as though their opponent has some lock on religious piety? Please.
If the Dem candidates spoke of religion it would be lip service.
1
He skipped 2016, that’s for sure.
2
The last time I checked, belief in myths and fairy tales is NOT a requirement for being President. I guess Frank doesn't believe in the separation of church and state.
3
"Most religion is highly 'legitimating religion.' It is used for social control and public order both by the powers that be and by people who want to be in control. This limited use of religion has allowed much of Christian history to participate in a toxic and unjust environment..."
- Fr. Richard Rohr, "Necessary Falling Apart"
https://cac.org/necessary-falling-apart-2016-07-08/
1
"Dear friends, do you think you’ll get anywhere in this if you learn all the right words but never do anything? Does merely talking about faith indicate that a person really has it? For instance, you come upon an old friend dressed in rags and half-starved and say, “Good morning, friend! Be clothed in Christ! Be filled with the Holy Spirit!” and walk off without providing so much as a coat or a cup of soup—where does that get you? Isn’t it obvious that God-talk without God-acts is outrageous nonsense?" - James 2:14-17 (The Message)
I am a Democrat because the policies and worldview of the Democratic Party more closely resembles my understanding of the teachings of Christianity. I don't need to hear Democratic Party candidates talking about their faith, I need to see their political records to appreciate their commitment to the tenets of our faith.
Likewise, the more Republicans talk about religion, the more astounded I am that American Christians can take them seriously.
3
What happened to separation of church and state?
2
The absence of any significant mention of religious superstition strikes me as a healthy sign. I view politicians' frequent appeals to religion as either ignorance or fraud, probably both.
2
I long for the day when an atheist running for office can openly discuss their lack of belief in the supernatural, and the religious will judge them on the merits of their character, experience, and vision, not their absence of belief in the imaginary
1
"God" isn't equal to religion. God is equal to justice and fairness. In this sense there's plenty of God to go around in the primary. But, thanks for trying to infuse the culture wars in the primary. You're an example of why truly the news media is a problem in this country. As Trump says the media are truly "fake." I think the news media is fake, but not the way Trump thinks it is. What you in the media do is divide and throw stones into the crowd, and then run off and watch your work, as citizens turn on each other and you smile all the way to the bank.
the only things worshipped by America is money and celebrity. look where it's gotten is
People should speak their hearts and if they consider religion as an important part of who they are. People should Quote God with caution and sincerity. As stated in the 10 Commandments:Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
1
This insults not only the designers of the US Constitution who wanted separation of state and religion, but also the intelligence of the average American for his inability to recognize that no longer can the nation afford to let anyone con them just invoking the name of any God but has to live by God's words.
1
I hear Mayor Pete talk about his faith loud and clear.
1
I believe there is much about caring for your fellow man Democrats admonish, the just don't pin a religious bias to it.
1
Pandering is not noble, Frank.
Thank goodness we have one party that won't be fully complicit in the press toward theocracy. The examples you cite, including Booker's absurd mention of bipartisan Bible study, are more than ample infusion of religion. "None" would be better.
We have prayers before sessions of Congress and Bible study? I've always wondered why these people have Bible study. Many of them would benefit from Constitution study sessions, or weekly evenings with the Federalist Papers. Or perhaps Moby Dick?
I am sick to death of having religion thrust in my face. I am irritated that my innocent grandchildren have to mutter "Under God" in the morning at school, when they have no capacity to even consider the overwhelming evidence that there is no "God."
I may not bother with Bruni columns henceforth.
2
Why should the candidates waste time talking about an ancient fairy tale?
2
I was shocked when Beto railed against churches, threatening their tax-exempt status. He drowned about the sane statements Mayor Pete made in the town hall. His rants are a real danger to the Democrats! The younger generations are disillusioned about religion, but when they marry and have children that will likely change and they will find a religion that comforts them. I've seen that happen many times. But here's the thing....HRC insulted the Catholics during the last election and they abandoned her. Europe, who we seem intent on duplicating, is very religious. France is a "Catholic" country as they proudly profess. And there is significant conversion in one Asian country that defies logic....China. And, BTW, Russia is deeply religions...Orthodox, which Putin supports! The Democrats need to realize God is not dead. He's simply reinventing Himself for future generations.
1
we are not a theocracy. this is mute.
Here in the buckle-on-the-Bible-belt land, if you ain’t Southern Baptist you are heathen. I’m Episcopalian, and I’ve been called such. That base will never move from Trump; no use in trying.
1
Islamists aren't the only group that's opposed to separation of church and state. There's also Opus Dei, which I just read probably has Attorney General Barr as a member. Former Gov. Sam Brownback, now some sort of quiet ambassador, is also reportedly a member. Opus Dei was founded to support Franco's fascist dictatorship in Spain, and has maintained its support of dictatorial fascism ever since. It recruits students, professionals and politicians who aspire to wealth and political power in the hope of positioning their members in places where they can exercise influence toward rightwing extremely conservative Catholic governance. The reason both Islamists and extremist Catholics don't like democracy is that they imagine God as the boss of the world and the rich powerful nondemocratic rulers of the world as God's representatives ruling the commoners according to their religious views. It appears that Trump's supporters, Catholic or Evangelical, see Trump as one of those God-sent bigshots to submit to and serve. But they're crazy. Trump's a false messiah and his cheerleaders are false prophets. They'll not meet any good end; karma will run over their dogma.
1
I'd like a candidate -- any candidate -- answer "Matthew 6:6" to questions about their faith, and leave it at that.
It's a missed opportunity if it is part of that candidates life. You are an opportunist if it is not part of your life and you take the opportunity to make that false connection with the electorate. The electorate is smart enough (some of them voted for an unabashed racist, and knew it, so I'm not talking of them) to understand when it is being duped.
I am just fine with honest, non religious candidates.
I totally accept the Democratic Candidates not bringing religion into the campaign - I'm sick to death of the hypocritical evangelicals who espouse "their God's teachings" out of one side of their faces and supporting President "Spawn of Satan" out of the other side.
Whatever happened to the separation of Church and State?
Like Mark Twain said “Faith is believing what you know ain’t so”. Let’s leave religion out of politics.
Is God skipping the Democratic primary? Thank god yes. It is sickening to hear hypocrites on both sides manufacture these narratives. As someone who was raised in a faith, there is nothing more disgusting than hearing a politician vocally fashion these fig leaves as their coat of amour in battle. What policies do you believe in? The rest is between you and your god.
You are completely wrong, Frank.
The founders were mostly Deists. Our country was founded on freedom of thought, not religious orthodoxy. The founders saw what that did to Europe, especially in the 17th Century.
Do your homework. I'm bored and disappointed by those who don't, including you.
1
I am relieved they are not talking about religion. It’s refreshing. The only matter worth discussing is fixing the erosion of separation from church and state.
The extraordinary interest aroused all over the world by Rudolf Otto's Das Heilige (The Sacred), published in 1917, was due to the author's new and original point of view. Instead of studying the ideas of God and religion, Otto undertook to analyze the modalities of the religious, experience in order to determine the content and specific characteristics of religious experience. Passing over the rational and speculative side of religion, he concentrated chiefly on its irrational aspect. Otto had read Luther. It was not the God of the philosophers~of Erasmus; it was not an idea, an abstract notion, a mere moral allegory. It was, rational or not, a terrible power" ...manifested in conscious and subconscious emotions of humanity.
Mircea Eliade "The Sacred and the Profane" (1959)
After forty years, Otto's analyses have not lost their value; Democrats will profit by reflecting on the relation between the rational and nonrational elements of religion and the legitimacy in public discussion of such emotions, not for their doctrinal truth but for the humanity in each of us in varying degrees and with various manifestations and representations.
So you are saying that the Democrats need to insert religion into their topics to win over those who voted for the most vile man we have ever had in office. I think you are underestimating the size of the group who fled the church because they couldn’t stand that kind of hypocrisy. You can’t be everything to everyone. Hopefully voters want genuine decency over demonstrations of piety this time around.
2
"Good" religion is science. Just as there are physical laws that explain how certain thing work or why they happen - there are moral laws that do the same for human behavior. "Bad" religion is hypocrisy and has nothing to do with the natural laws that apply to human behavior. Nature and God are the same thing.
My religious beliefs and those of anyone else including politicians is their own personal business. Does anyone believe that Trump is Christian as he proclaims, or could he possibly be saying that to gain votes? Hmmm....let's think about that. That is, unless bowing to the Almighty Dollar can be considered a religion. Trump, Pence, Pompeo, Mulvanny and all the president's men who claim to be Christians are proven liars, a very un-Christian thing to be.
2
If anyone can prove that there is a God, I'm all ears.
The Republicans are the ones being excessive and unwise. And corrupt and immoral. Christianity is looking worse all the time with the likes of them trumpeting it. Actually, you can blame the religious 'right' for encouraging more people to abandon 'organized' religion.
The less organized the better, is what I think. Meditation is good. No organization required.
If there is going to be any religion in politics, I suggest the religion that worships life on this planet - not something that encourages people to think that we are merely in a staging area for something better - after we are dead.
1
I agree. While there are dangers with promoting any single religious viewpoint or falling back into a "traditional values" mode, the hypocrisy of the religious right who PRETEND to have "family values"-- only to put kids in cages and deprive poor families of desperately needed programs--must be called out. Buttigieg needs to do more of this and other Dems should join him.
Many Republicans have taken the word "God" in vain. They've corrupted the word for personal and financial gain. Unfortunately many voters don't see this, so the point needs to be driven home. Yes, there's a word for it: HYPOCRISY!!!
Mentioning religion does not have to mean going backward or relinquishing democratic values. Most of these values --every person has value, we need to look out for each other, etc.--have their roots in religious thinking. The problem is that politicians have PERVERTED this thinking and used to it line their pockets. HYPOCRISY and we've got to call it out.
2
The good news is that in 30 years the evangelical hate groups will be so small and marginalized that Americans will finally have the moral power to live the generous and just life that evangelicals can only lie about.
1
Matthew 6:5-8:
"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward in full. 6 But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7 And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8 Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him."
God has not existed within the Democrat lexicon for good reason. Leftism is a religion absent a deity other than the self. Believing man is master of all things, controlling the climate, natural resources, the food chain, the animal kingdom, and the entire universe, the Democrats are perplexing and filled with contradictions, shape-shifting as necessary to continually redefine what isn’t. They promise Methuselah lifespans while concurrently peddling Malthusian apocalypse scenarios.
With socialism and its corollary narcissism in prominence, Democrat now translates as Godless, filling the void with their inflated egos, rampant control and lack of accountability as they commit no sin. They are in for a rude awakening.
1
grant...that was cute. the malthusian stuff was epic. but mostly wrong. malthus failed only in his broad brush. not in his general descriptions. pop growth is outpacing food supplies in many regions. not the least of which is fresh water. a vital item of sustenance.
no group is more apocalyptic than the GOP, and now Trump. They have been predicting immediate apocalyptic scenarios for decades. but they are aimed at brown skinned people, LGBT people, and secularists who are all walking Armageddon bombs.
the rude awakening is gonna be on the Right.
@Boregard
I was going for alliteration plus hyperbole and Malthus was just a fear mongering bed wetter with no vision.
Since Republicans have an immoral nonbeliever as their candidate. They’ve walked away from religion as a talking point.
There is a version of religion that is kind inclusive caring and purposeful.
“Real Jesus” basically.
Democrats would be wise to seize it.
2
Yeah because Trump is such a great model of faith. He proves the hypocrisy of voting Christians. Time to keep ALL religion, real and fake out of US politics. You know, like in the constitution.
1
Seriously, Frank?
It's their own business, none of mine. Call me when it's time to elect a pope or something. We need to rid Washington of these crooks, restore our reputation overseas, and bring some balance to this capitalism thing.
I think that the writer wants the candidates to act as liars and hypocrites. Some 42 percent of Americans, over the last 10 years, have stated that they believe, for religious reasons. that the Earth is less than 10 000 years old. Is it the job of an elected public servant to comfort them on such ludicrous beliefs?
I think not, unless of course, that person is a Republican.
Religion won't help the Democratic Party. Asking the readers of The New York Times and the citizens around the country what would spur the Democratic Party to grow a spine could reawaken the public's voice. We are the ones in need of help.
Democrats respect the separation between Church and State. Playing the God-card to win will not work.
Most Americans do not care about the religion of the President. JKF was a Catholic, Carter was a Southern Baptist, Bushes were Episcopalian, Trump is a Godless heathen.
At President George Bush's funeral, all the former Presidents and First Ladies were reciting the Lord's Prayer and Trump and his wife were starring into space and did not know the words. They are hypocrites if they claim any religion or church.
Republicans and the Evangelical Christians voters and financiers knew Trump was a Godless heathen, which clearly shows they do NOT care about God or religion, but just PRETEND to.
A real Christian, or any person of faith or God, would not vote for a man like Trump unless they were a complete hypocrite.
Frank, I usually love your editorials. But have you forgotten that there is no religious test for public office in the United States, as baked into the vision of our nation's founders? Why would you push candidates to play demagogues on the religion issue? That would be so disingenuous.
I think Buttigieg's orientation totally negates his soapbox. If you don't like a rule-breaking hypocrite like Trump, do you like another because he's nicer? What we need right now is complete adherence to a set of principles from a candidate, not choosing some things a la carte and throwing out what isn't convenient to you. He's basically appropriating Christianity. Like the kid that browbeats older people for climate change while spending all their money on "experience" tourism instead of their outsized debt, and then taking Uber instead of walking three blocks. We're a nation of hypocrites, that needs to change.
1
I understand Frank Bruni's argument that Democratic canididate could use religion to their advantage against our irreligious president. But I do not see why religion need be any part of this campaign. I do not particularly care about Pete Buttigieg's faith, or Kamala Harris's, or Elizabeth Warren's.
This piece reminds me of the focus group testing of what Al Gore was to wear on the campaign trail. Throughout the years of Trump's Presidency there's the holier than thou VP praying his way around the country, Trump having his meetings with clergy, etc. Meanwhile he's left allies to die, put children in cages, and ruined the environment so much for our "religious" president.
Religion shouldn't be a prop, or a shoved down the throats of all Americans. If Americans really want that kind of religion they can re-elect Pence and his running buddy our totally corrupt, lying President .
1
You don’t need religious texts for politics when you have Rawls’ Theory of Justice.
Two words are famously absent from the Constitution. One is 'slavery'. The other is 'God'.
The Democrats accept and embody the separation of church and state that the founders insisted on. They deserve only praise for this restorative action.
Oh, please! I want less religion in politics, not more. Follow your beliefs, pray, go to church, don't get an abortion. But leave me out of all of it.
1
I don't worship movie stars, sports stars, or deities. Religion is an emotional crutch used by people who are afraid to live and are afraid to die. It is consumed by emotional reasoners who are mainly to blame for the situation this county is in.
Separation of church and state. End of conversation.
Don't talk "religion." Instead, emphasize "ethics" and denounce "immorality".
Frank, just out of curiosity....are you a church-goer yourself or do you regard it as just another thing to mention so Democrats can pick up a few more votes? Republicans have gained so much from manipulating religion, do you think Democrats should do it too? On the other hand, if you are sincere then why not just let us know?
The less we care about other people's religion(s) or lack thereof the better we'll all be.
I assume Mr. Bruni who wrote this article does believe in God, and probably his son Jesus and his own existence for eternity among such beings. If so, in this country we do provide not only latitude for such belief but when the Pledge of Allegiance is recited in public it includes that our nation is "under God" a law passed unanimously in in 1954 breaching the spirit and the substance of our first amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech ....... Belief in God is a religion, and mandating the affirmation of this abridges my freedom of speech. One can covertly mouth the words, but such action was condemned strongly by Candidate Mitch Romney for dishonesty.
The imposition of this Under God religion was solidified in 1956 when our national motto, the ideal of "E Pluibus Unum" from many states one country, was replace by "In God we Trust" In 2011 the house voted to revert the Godly motto, receiving only 9 votes (including Jerry Nadler and one Republican)
We were founded as a secular country that allowed the freedom of any individual to have whatever faith they choose, but that shall not become official. Among the consequences of belief in God is that within the last century seven state outlawed the teaching of Darwinism.
Yes, Democrats may not have the courage to resist the irrationality of religion, but they do see it has no place in political life
America is NOT a theocracy. If you want that Bruno, move to the middle east.
Pandering to those that choose to believe in fairy tales is no way to run a country.
1
Beto O'Rourke's statements best illustrate rising anti Church sentiments of leftist Democrats. Those Churches with incorrect beliefs involving gender and morality will lose tax exempt status and punished..and then come to your house to take any guns they doesn't like. Those statements received little or no push back from other Democrat candidates.
No PR fluff can hide that.
1
Is the Times trying 200 ways to sabotage the ongoing Democratic Party selection process, eliminate leading candidates, and impose its own idea of what the Party "must" be and how it has to present itself? Because the editorials here, and much of the reporting, suggests as much, day by days, in dozens of ways.
1
I base my political decisions on who worships bronze age myths better.
Belief in “god” is not necessary to be moral and ethical.
1
Well honestly if more people who are religious were more like Jimmy Carter than oh Pick a televangelist. I would not have an issue. When religion becomes toxic to humanity. It should hold as much place in the DNC as chewing gum on the back of a chair.
Disagree. Leave God out of it.
1
Or refreshing, if you don't share the infantile need to cling to superstition (and the odd demand that everyone vocally share it) that so many Americans seem to.
And man, it's crazy how Trump isn't talking about Atheism!
Gee, I though this was settled by the Constitution and the questioning of JFK's loyalties in 1960. I guess I am mistaken.
Trump is onto this: he is the “chosen one” and he points upward and says “They are with me”. Very convincing, hunh? Maybe the currency can be altered to “In Trump we Trust”. Catchy.
1
Religion? Really, Frank? I usually agree with you philosophically, but this piece is so off base from what our political system should be it is as if a right-wing Republican hack wrote this. I never have and I never will allow religion to enter my politics. And you think the Democratic candidates need to inject religion? They can't even articulate their views on basic monetary policy positions. I guess you are throwing a Hail Mary pass in hopes of getting at least one Democrat to have a fighting chance against Trump. Well, good luck with that. Keep religion where it belongs -- out of politics.
The founding fathers wanted a separation between politics and religion. Frankly God's name is thrown around too much. Just saying His name is wrong. People like Trump and a great majority of the Evangelicals are far from being good Chritians. Jimmy Carter is a true Christian but doesn't go around spouting his name. Shame on you Bruni. We get that you like Buttigieg but this not the way to support him. The religious right is destroying America hiding their racism and misogyny behind God's name.
Wow...actually kind of shocked reading this. Religion has NO PLACE in politics, period.
2
If Obama can fake it then this group of candidates can also for the sake of winning.
1
I am a great admirer of thoughtless and angry online comments, this article's comment section is an utter delight.
Particular pleasure can be gotten from those comments that completely miss the point of the article and rant about a perceived slight or pet peeve. Wonderful!
Sigh. Can everyone at least please understand that candidates being open about religious beliefs does not create some 1st amendment violation??
3
Frankly, this country would be a lot safer and better off if most of the adherents of organized religions were “raptured” away and the rest of us were “left behind.”
3
Would this be true if the candidate is an atheist? The meaning of this article seems to be that it would be wise for Democrats to speak up - if they're a Christian, for purely tactical reasons. Pah.
We have a problem with characterizations
of Democratic candidates from Trump and the GOP and we have a serious problem when we have Bruni and others mischaracterizing candidates like Fr. Rep. Beto O’Rourke and Former Mayor Pete. Beto O’Rouke did not make anti-religious statements about tax exemption status of religious groups he plainly has stated several times over and for the record ( NPR show A1 10/22/19) that when those groups work within the public providing services to the public that they can’t discriminate and still receive tax exemption.
Bruni in unison with Trump painted Beto as one of those “unhinged lefties” and falsely claimed that O’Rourke “recently seemed to call for religious groups that don’t support marriage equality to lose their tax-exempt status an outlier position that the president immediately seized on and railed against.”
Again that is not true.
Bruni says Beto O’Rourke is playing into Trumps hands. Really? And I thought Mayor Pete’ ugly response to O’Rourke in the last debate was something from an “Unhinged Republican” and playing against the hand of a fellow democrat. Mayor Pete’ cheap shot was an effective note to voters that he was not very churchgoing. Bruni should stop the charade.
. . because it's a matter of personal choice and has no business in the public sphere ? . . . you know the way the founder's intended. . . the same "founders" who the GOP keeps yammering about.
Am not at all surprised to learn that Warren is a Methodist. So am I and I should have known. She is a Social Gospel Methodist to her bones.
No wonder she looked sop awkward with that beer!!
1
Must religion put its smarmy paws on all aspects of our lives? Is it absolutely necessary for everyone to swear allegiance to this big protection racket to be heard in the United States?
Let’s be honest, America is a hedonistic nation, and if any majority religion exists my guess is pagan, as is reflected by our love of abortion and all forms of cultural and material excess. Appealing to the Judeo-Christian or Muslim monotheistic deity today is so bizarre and out of character with the reality of today’s America. I would think it unwise to appeal to the Almighty considering China is certain to rule the world and it would offend such a Deity if we had politicians paying lip service to YHWH Christ Allah etc.
DJT Does not believe in GOD. DJT panders to the religious right..
the only thing DJT believes in is himself and money for himself.
Marianne Williamson seems to be making up for the others reticence.
We already have too much religion invading our political space. Politics and religion are a toxic mix. Let the Republicans be the bible thumpers. We Democrats ought to focus on policies that work in the best interests of all Americans without regard to their religious beliefs.
I like to refer to Jesus, remember him? I like his POV in these situations. Basically he said; don't wear it on your sleeve. Pray in the privacy of ones home, etc. Of all the things he managed to actually talk about, that we can look to, and should matter to us, not being a Pharisee, or in other words not to be a bigly show-off, faith spewing blabber mouth was one of them.
I know the faith of the Dem candidates. That's part of their labeling system. Much like Trumps. But an alleged ingredient on a label of a politician don't mean its a main ingredient, or even one of the very last, or least used. It might have just been waved over the cauldron in the brewing process, and therefore not amount to much in the final product. Like Trump. Not even most die-hard, Evangelicals believe Trump has any real faith. Its more like the label warning; "this product was made in a factory where nuts were processed". Trump was at least exposed to Christianity, but it in no way means there is any real amount of it in his final product.
I can tell that Booker is a practicing Xtian. I can tell Biden is. That Warren is, and that Buttigieg is. Harris, I don't know what her faith is,or isn't, or even Klobuchar.
What I do know; their ideas, plans and even their elected and non-elected history tell me that they hold in their hearts that every man, women and child - no matter their "status", in the US deserves legal protections and to be treated with humanity and respect.
Sounds a lot like Jesus.
This is a great column, perceptive and well written with its share of spiritual witticisms.Half the country is Christian, and a lesser percentage are church goers, so it's no good to insult churchgoers and O Rourke uttered the irremediable, sank his candidacy for good when he put those ridiculous restrictions on being a good Christian, plus saying he was going to take away America's guns. Fat chance, symptom of a sinking, failing candidacy. Local talk radio host noted that a commercial for ATHEISM appeared during intermission of the last Dem. debate. What is wrong with these people? They r turning off half of America. Am a Trump voter whose role model was Charles de Foucauld who sought to bring Algerian Muslims to Christianity in southern Algeria in last century and paid with his life."Pere Foucauld" as Martel, chouan de la Mitidja, whom I knew well--dated his daughter Danielle,(See my videos)called him. But "pour revenir aux moutons" Bruni is 1 of the most talented of the newspaper's writers, is to the NYT what Alexey Kovalev was to 1994 NYR who won the Stanley Cup.Maintain as Times newspaper has pointed out,party needs someone with political savvy,horse sense to win over majority of voters. Rahm Emmanuel, real pro who wondered about free medicare for all when so many families r 1 operation away from bankruptcy could be, if available,the one to save the day.He's a Clinton man from way back. But Bruni puts it all in perspective.
Let's not forget, Corey Booker is an ordained minister in the American Fellowship Church (see the NYTimes wedding announcement on 5/31/15 for the Sussman/Craw nuptials). I'm surprised he is keeping this under wraps!
The Apocalyptic Right Wing evangelical Christian voting block is in control of this country. They are destroying it. They need to be convinced that they will not be saved by their belief in Jesus but by living his example.
www.InquiryAbraham.com
Faith should be a private matter and not part of governing. I care about a candidate's or officeholder's faith only if that faith means that the candidate or officeholder wants to impose their religious views on others, and in particular if they want to use government resources or authority to do so.
I have always admired Mr. Bruni, so I am hoping this is just an "off day" for him.
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.
It the founding principle.
Remember the Mayflower and those people who ran away from the old world to have religious freedom?
Yes, everyone has the right to religious freedom in this country.
And no ONE religion is to dominate or have any say in the business of this country and the democracy we espouse.
I would love to never hear another word about religion in politics.
No prayers, no symbols, Happy Holidays to all.
Perhaps if we taught the "Golden Rule" in school we would have better citizens, since the parents, families and churches have seemingly abandoned the job of teaching "do unto others as you you have them do to you" and kindness and compassion for all.
Both religion and culture of people do influence it significantly. But those issues of faith must not cloud our collective sense of truth, justice, and Government. But that's exactly what happened to our nation, which started at a faster pace since Reagan era. Rise of racism is also related to it. One example would be how Arab-African looking Jesus Christ (as per researchers) nicely been transformed into a Scandinavian looking man with blue eye & blond hair.
Racism is also bound to flourish when our society & education system is influenced by religion, promote some fairy-tales stories inspired by some medieval "holy" books to replace truth & science.
Now USA is the worst among all 35 most industrialized countries surveyed in terms of percentage of college students who "strongly believe" fairy tales of intelligent design"or creationism and don't believe in hard science of evolution. It's probably the worst in our own recent history, even compared to the days of 1920s Scopes trial. Transformation of our higher education system into just another for-profit industry made the situation worse. It also gradually connected to rise of crony capitalism.
We need to keep in mind that racism is equally present among non-whites and non-Christians and would pose an equally serious threat to our country. Sectarian violence among Muslims, caste system among Hindus, mutual hatred among various factions/clans of Christianity are some good indicators.
1
I've had enough of religion as a part of the direction of my country. I'm still a big fan of separation of church and state. And, as proven by this last election, the inclusion of "religion" doesn't make America great, it sells makes American sell her soul.
These candidates are not running to become the Pope. Why precisely must they provide an expose on their religious views? In fact, if they did so, I would NOT vote for them.
1
Once again, I'm surprised at the lack of journalism among the NY Times columnists. I've seen Warren actually quote scripture on television during a town hall. I actually don't like it, but it's happening. But more importantly, as a non-Christian, WHY should any candidate do this? And most importantly, Trump one--how often does he mention God or his religious teachings? Certainly a lot less than Warren. We won't appeal to Christians who support Trump, because they support him in SPITE of his complete disavowal of their religious beliefs.
2
We have had any number of post-mortems on how Hilary Clinton lost the electoral college because voters in Northern States were more concerned about their immediate futures, especially their jobs (which she didn't address) rather than abstract issues, I suspect that Democratic primary voters would regard the Next Life as even more abstract. God doesn't put food on the table, and prayer doesn't make medicine affordable or reverse climate change.
Two of the more memorable quotes about God are 1. God helps those who help themselves. 2.(Napoleon Bonaparte on War) "God is on the side of the big battalions". While many (including Albert Einstein) believed in the existence of a higher power, the idea that this power would violate the laws of physics and micro-manage the affairs of this planet (including intervening in the outcome of major-league sports events) is, I believe, gradually fading. In any case, there is a big difference between belief in a Higher Power - which could merely be a set of universal physical laws - and adhering to the dictates of an organized religion (where every other region is deemed either misguided or evil).
Mr. Bruni, as other readers have lamented, your article is disappointing. if this is the quality of insight that you come up with, maybe you should go back to reviewing $400-a-meal restaurants.
1
I am continually amazed by commenters who habitually ignore the thesis of a writer, (here, that ignoring religion is dangerous for democratic electoral hopes), to rant about the evils of religion. The plausibility of religious belief and separation of church and state are not the point. The issue is whether the democrats will lose the election if they ignore or belittle the religious beliefs of the majority of voters.
Can readers not comprehend the gist of the article, or are they so eager to attack religious belief that are blind to Bruni's argument?
O'Rourke has a point about the tax exempt status of churches. If we truly believe in the separation of church and state, then churches should pay income tax on all of the proceeds from the "offering basket" every Sunday.
Only a church's charitable activities should be tax exempt.
1
Sorry Mr. Bruni, if a person's faith is so fragile & weak that it needs to be affirmed by politicians running for office in a tribal way, then it's not worth much to begin with. Plus, is has no bearing on public policy with regards to health care, national security, jobs, wages, and a myriad of other things that affect most people's daily lives in a real & tangible way.
Faith is a personal thing, let's keep it that way. Stop trying to push politics even further into being a make believe stage show.
Those of us who don't believe in any religion prefer to keep faith out of politics. Let's leave the GOP to continue to make a mockery & hypocrisy out of religion through their leader trump and the so called "evangelicals". We don't need the Dems doing it as well.
6