Sarah Palin: Religionless Christian?
Who’s afraid of Sarah Palin? And her faith? I’m one of those who thinks all the hand-wringing about her supposedly ideological right-wing faith is way overblown. Could she be a right-wing religious ideologue if in office? Perhaps she’d follow the script if that’s what she was told to do. But what really emerges from a review of her statements about faith and policy is that there really isn’t much connection, and efforts to connect her Pentecostal upbringing (which she has admittedly been running away from, and fast) to speaking in tongues or “Third Wave” theology winds up not only as cheap shots, but as pretty thin: I’m not sure she understand all that stuff any better than I do. Or Bonhoeffer (or Barth) for that matter. But she might want to check them out. As it stands now, her version of “religionless” faith comes off as an all too typical American believer who doesn’t reckon with tradition or faith in public life; yes, Biden and Pelosi aren’t exactly Aquinas and Augustine. But I’m not sure how Palin’s “values” connect with public policy, if it all.
Palin has in previous campaigns said she’s for teaching creationism, but won’t push it, said she’s for abstinence-only sex ed, then said she’s “pro-contraception” sex ed, and said she’s “pro-life” but won’t push policies against abortion. In another segment (NYT transcript here and Christianity Today here) from her Couric interviews, Palin again does this dance.
Ms. Couric: If a 15-year-old is raped by her father, do you believe it should be illegal for her to get an abortion, and why?
Ms. Palin: I am pro-life. And I’m unapologetic in my position that I am pro-life. And I understand there are good people on both sides of the abortion debate. In fact, good people in my own family have differing views on abortion, and when it should be allowed. Do I respect people’s opinions on this? Now, I would counsel to choose life. I would also like to see a culture of life in this country. But I would also like to take it one step further. Not just saying I am pro-life and I want fewer and fewer abortions in this country, but I want them, those women who find themselves in circumstances that are absolutely less than ideal, for them to be supported, and adoptions made easier.
Ms. Couric: But ideally, you think it should be illegal for a girl who was raped or the victim of incest to get an abortion?
Ms. Palin: I’m saying that, personally, I would counsel the person to choose life, despite horrific, horrific circumstances that this person would find themselves in. And, um, if you’re asking, though, kind of foundationally here, should anyone end up in jail for having an … abortion, absolutely not. That’s nothing I would ever support.
Ms. Couric: Some people have credited the morning-after pill for decreasing the number of abortions. How do you feel about the morning-after pill?
Ms. Palin: Well, I am all for contraception. And I am all for preventative measures that are legal and safe, and should be taken, but Katie, again, I am one to believe that life starts at the moment of conception. And I would like to see …
Ms. Couric: And so you don’t believe in the morning-after pill?
Ms. Palin: … I would like to see fewer and fewer abortions in this world. And again, I haven’t spoken with anyone who disagrees with my position on that.
Ms. Couric: I’m sorry, I just want to ask you again. Do you not support or do you condone or condemn the morning-after pill?
Ms. Palin: Personally, and this isn’t McCain-Palin policy …
Ms. Couric: No, that’s OK, I’m just asking you.
Ms. Palin: But personally, I would not choose to participate in that kind of contraception.
Palin also endorsed the “right to privacy” that is the underpinning of Roe v. Wade, and I don’t think this was a trick question, as Couric explained it to her very gently and carefully. That should give abortion opponents fits, no?
Or this on evolution and teaching creationism:
Couric: Do you believe evolution should be taught as an accepted scientific principle or as one of several theories?
Palin: Oh, I think it should be taught as an accepted principle. And, as you know, I say that also as the daughter of a school teacher, a science teacher, who has really instilled in me a respect for science. It should be taught in our schools. And I won’t deny that I see the hand of God in this beautiful creation that is Earth. But that is not part of the state policy or a local curriculum in a school district. Science should be taught it science class.
Palin’s most Falwell-esque remark may be her view that homosexuality is a choice. Mark Silk has more on Palin’s interview with right-wing radio host Hugh Hewitt and her view that she doesn’t belong to any church, but that people are mocking her faith.
In any case, does this sound like a Warrior Queen of the Religious Right? Perhaps tonight’s debate will clarify.
UPDATE: Sarah Pulliam at Christianity Today has transcripts of both Palin and Biden’s comments to Couric re Roe v. Wade, and Palin on her support to the right to privacy foundation of the case. (Much was made of her lack of knowledge of any other Sureme Court cases, which didn’t help her much. But I think her stance on the case she does know, Roe, is the most interesting.)
As it stands now, her version of “religionless” faith comes off as an all too typical American believer who doesn’t reckon with tradition or faith in public life
Earlier, you condemned Palin for supposedly believing in abstinence-only education, i.e., for letting her religion affect public policy. When it turned out that you were misinformed, and that she supports education about contraception, you condemn her for that as well, i.e., for failing to let her religion affect public policy. Catch-22.
I’d rather that Palin’s critics stick to the valid criticism that she doesn’t seem well-informed, rather than attacking her for how religion both does and does not affect her policies.
Stuart Buck: Criticism or asking questions is not “condemning.” You say she is not well-informed and that she is all over the map in terms of her pronouncements on faith and policy. I think I’m being kinder than you are.
I know this is a difficult time for you, but let’s get back to the basics: What is Sarah Palin? The “religious right” sees her as one of their own. The “religious left” sees her as one of “them,” too. Is she? Or not at all? And if not, why all the praising of her faith and values? What do they mean in terms of her role as a political leader?
Criticism or asking questions is not “condemning.”
OK. Then my comment would read: It doesn’t make sense to criticize Palin both for letting religion affect public policy and for failing to be guided by religion.
I know this is a difficult time for you
Why?
I am doing neither–just trying to figure out what Sarah Palin is doing, or what others think she is doing in this regard. If you have anything to contribute, please do.
What was Ronald Regan’s religious faith–was it similar–devout, generally, but unchurched, specifically?
Similar, but less churched, less fluent certainly in the evangelical “God-speak” that comes easily to Palin. She really grew up in a Jesus-centered culture; Reagan just sort of channeled it somehow. In fact, many on the Christian right have come to see the Reagan era in less than hallowed terms because they thought they were getting more than they did. I wonder if Palin would be similar–and McCain, for that matter, as his faith is of a similar, non-traditional sort.
What about Mr.Obama, who claims to want to limit abortion but supports the freedom of choice act?
I must say, I don’t understand where David Gibson is coming from when he calls Palin “religionless.” Huh?
As for Palin, she has not articulated a coherent statement of how she believes faith or religious principle should intersect with public policy. What she would choose to do personally seems rather irrelevant; it’s what she would choose to do that would affect the choices of others that is relevant. Her answers to these questions are completely inscrutable when it comes to that basic need to know, whether because of deliberate obfuscation or lack of understanding of the question, or lack of understanding (unbelievable as it would be) that what she has in store for others is the only thing people really care about.
Why does she feel so compelled to tell us about her own choices?
To clarify, I think that Palin is typical of many Christians who reject “religion” and reject “church” and simply describe themselves as “believers” in a presumably unadulterated form of Christianity. This form of tradition-free, “Jesus is my best friend” spirituality is prevalent, but I am struck by how much it translates into appreciation of Palin (and those like her) as a genuine believer of the sort who we want to lead our country. Those who embrace a tradition, namely Catholics, face all manner of difficulties squaring their faith with their public actions. And that’s not a bad thing, necessarily. Palin(and McCain) are hailed as “good” Christians, while half of Americans don’t even know if Obama is a Christian, and a significant minority still think he’s a Muslim.
But Barbara makes the very point that I thought Palin’s comments raise: Namely, she is embraced as a genuine Christian who will help guide our country back to the right path–thank God–and yet it’s not at all clear how her faith connects to her values, or how that would affect public policy under a McCain/Palin administration.
It seems to me that there are all manner of assumptions that McCain/Palin are good people and will promote “values” like pro-life and pro-marriage and such. And Obama/Biden are slippery Christians, at best, who won’t do those things. I’d like to get beneath the assumptions and see more clearly where the reality is. Palin does not have a faith tradition that, like Catholicism, would give clues, or a sounding board against which to measure her statements. I suspect this is in the end about a kind of tribal identification, and polls show Palin’s fans like her because they like her, and she is like them–not because of any expertise or experience or knowledge, theological or otherwise, on her part.
How about having someone ask Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden if they would like to see an end to abortion and a strengthening of the Family by recognizing and respecting the role of both Fatherhood and Motherhood?
Your post sums up a suspicion I’ve felt from the beginning about Sarah Palin — that leftist hysteria over her supposedly far-right positions are unwarranted because she is fundamentally a power-hungry and content-free politician. She will gladly both parade her religious faith and go soft on policy that might spring from it, as long as it gets her more power.
Which actually makes her quite similar in faith to a Pelosi or a Biden. Except that both Pelosi and Biden have actual concrete knowledge about foreign affairs, the economy, how the federal government works, which make them at least faithful to their vocation.
In general no one has the right to foist their religious beliefs upon the nation. Certainly there are things that are universally agreed (except for this administration) like the evil of torture. Religious fanatics do things that not even Jesus did. Jesus did not refuse communion to Judas but bishops think they can judge better than Jesus.
Historically religious leaders compelled uniformity in belief to consolidate power. Same today. Yet their example is atrocious. Orthopraxy over orthodoxy.
Live by example not by controlling others. Is this not the example of Jesus? Unless one needs power and hundred million dollar cathedrals, lawn parties, etc.
I am doing neither–just trying to figure out what Sarah Palin is doing, or what others think she is doing in this regard. If you have anything to contribute, please do.
If you’re trying to figure out what she has done, it’s not a very difficult question: She has used quite conservative rhetoric about abortion, intelligent design, banning books, etc., but hasn’t done much in public office to further those ends (and zero as to the latter two).
As to Roe and the right to privacy, I agree wholeheartedly with Ross Douthat:
And a law prof from Michigan State explains why Biden’s answer was worse than Palin’s:
The professor is dead wrong. There is a national consensus on abortion which includes most Republicans, especially Republican women. This is the reason Roe vs Wade will not be overturned.
The nation has been under the well financed agenda of the hierarchs, Catholic neocons and fundamentalists who are definitely in the minority but are wielding an influence in disproportion to their numbers. The same is true with the Tridentine Mass.
That’s ok. The problem is liberals are legitimizing the miscreants. It is pure politics and power with many being grossly manipulated.
Sarah Palin said that she believed there is a fundamental right to privacy under the United States Constitution but thought that it was up to the states to hash it out. This is an internally inconsistent position. In addition, her answer in this regard is problematic not because you could not agree with the former and still think Roe was wrong, but because it demonstrates that she doesn’t understand the relationship between the right of privacy and the Roe decision. I don’t expect her to be a constitutional scholar but how exactly is she even going to be qualified to know what advisers she should be listening to? Seriously, her answers demonstrated an iconoclastic position on privacy that not many on her side of the fence share. Does she recognize that?
I guess what you are finding fault with in Biden’s answer is that it was a political answer (and a rather good one) rather than a constitutional law answer. However, the Michigan prof’s critique isn’t premised on constitutional law either and thus can be more or less ignored. If he is “scared” as a result of this, well, he must scare pretty easily.
I have forgotten which intelligent Jesuit father used the example of being in a falling airplane with your mother and your wife but with only one parachute. To whom would you the give the parachute? The answer: to your mother. You can always get another wife.
His analysis: this illustrates the stupidity of “what if?” questions in moral matters. Ms. Couric was quite full of “what if” questions.
I think Mrs. Palin’s experience as mother [and she has quite a lot of such experience] made Ms. Couric’s questions pointless.
Then again. You can always get another husband.
How the question is phrased is always telling. Even with intelligent Jesuits.
That good old Notre Dame Grad, Condi Rice on abortion:
“I’ve called myself at times mildly pro-choice. I’m kind of libertarian on this issue, and meaning by that that I have been concerned about a government role in this issue. I’m a strong proponent of parental choice, of parental notification. I’m a strong proponent of a ban on late-term abortion. These are all things that I think unite people and I think that that’s where we should be.”
Jeb Bush the president’s brother.
“Abortions should be legal only when pregnancy resulted from incest, rape, or when the life of the woman is endangered.
Abortions should be limited by waiting periods and parental notification requirements.
Prohibit the late-term abortion procedure known as “partial-birth” abortion.”
There is a longer list. They should be thrown out of the Republican party and the Catholic Church. Will Chaput give them communion?
The most recent Pew Forum study on national opinions on abortion:
http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=350
Here is another approach to the opinions around abortion. This also connects back to an earlier blog and Prof. Kaveny’s questions about – are you willing to go as far as a civil war to enforce anti-abortion legislation?
Shortcut to: http://www.religiousconsultation.org/NEWS/if_Roe_goes.htm
Politics (big p politics that is) is today will be tomorrow and ever was largely amoral.
I think it was Machiavelli who said that the proper place for saints is the monastery. He is correct.
It is a process to leverage for a particular purpose. The purpose of ethics is to ensure that the particular purpose for which you are leveraging the political apparatus is transparent and clear.
I realize that this might be straying from traditional Catholic understanding of the state, however the idea that the state should embody virtue seems to me to be a carry over from the medieval days of Christendom and the divine rights of kings.
I think that we have to draw a distinction between the nation and the state. The people are the nation, the state is simply the hired help.
An analogy can be drawn for the Church, There are believing Christians (the nation) and there is the external sociological manifestation of that community (the church).
I realize that this is not traditional Catholic ecclesiology but it is a distinctily American Protestant approach.
The downside for America is the identification of the state with the nation. I am not sure if children are still required to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. If so, it should be abolished. It is abusive. The only people who should recite the pledge are civil servants hired by the state, police, military and politicians.
I thought the thread was about Ms. Palin’s religious beliefs and how that might influence her political activiities.
I don’t think we know very much about thatsince she has been so sheilded and basically coached since becoming VP nominee.
Somewhat in the spirit of what George D says above, here’s Mark Twain on morality in public life (from Christian Science):
Our Congresses consist of Christians. In their private life they are true to every obligation of honor; yet in every session they violate them all, and do it without shame; because honor to party is above honor to themselves. It is an accepted law of public life that in it a man may soil his honor in the interest of party expediency — must do it when party expediency requires it. In private life those men would bitterly resent — and justly — any insinuation that it would not be safe to leave unwatched money within their reach; yet you could not wound their feelings by reminding them that every time they vote ten dollars to the pension appropriation nine of it is stolen money and they the marauders. They have filched the money to take care of the party; they believe it was right to do it; they do not see how their private honor is affected; therefore their consciences are clear and at rest. By vote they do wrongful things every day, in the party interest, which they could not be persuaded to do in private life. In the interest of party expediency they give solemn pledges, they make solemn compacts; in the interest of party expediency they repudiate them without a blush. They would not dream of committing these strange crimes in private life.
“I think it was Machiavelli who said that the proper place for saints is the monastery. He is correct.”
This is not correct and not because we should all be saints but because monks have been among the worst scoundrels in Christian history. But then again that is for those who know their history.
David, I agree. Alaska is a very secular place, from what I understand, and Sarah Palin knows how to work within that. I haven’t made a close study of her statements on abortion, but every time I hear an interview with her, she keeps hedging to discuss what her “personal” view is. It sounds as if she is actually in that gray area that a lot of people are – leaning toward being pro-life, but not truly anti-choice.
The debate is a few hours away, and my prediction is that she will hit the culture wars issues pretty hard. That seems to be the Republicans’ only hope at this point; Biden is vulnerable, too.
Sarah Palin said that she believed there is a fundamental right to privacy under the United States Constitution but thought that it was up to the states to hash it out. This is an internally inconsistent position. In addition, her answer in this regard is problematic not because you could not agree with the former and still think Roe was wrong,
This is wrong. There’s nothing inconsistent in saying 1) there is a right to privacy, and 2) Roe was wrong. Those two statements are easily squared by saying that the right to privacy isn’t broad enough to encompass an abortion right. The right to privacy does encompass other aspects of privacy (most notably, the 3d and 4th Amendments), which is why both Alito and Roberts testified that they believe in a right to privacy.
Indeed, there would be nothing inconsistent in a conservative who said that she accepted the “right to privacy” up to and including the Griswold decision, but that Roe was nonetheless wrong. (Roe was an extension of Griswold, and a “right to privacy” doesn’t logically compel the right to abortion given that another entity’s interests are involved.)
“(Roe was an extension of Griswold, and a “right to privacy” doesn’t logically compel the right to abortion given that another entity’s interests are involved.)”
If this is what Palin really means then she really is a phony. You make her worse with your explanation.
It wasn’t wrong. You missed the point.
Sarah Palin said that she believed (1) there is a fundamental right to privacy under the United States Constitution but (2) thought that it was up to the states to hash it out. This is an internally inconsistent position.
Fundamental rights are not subject to “hashing out” by the states. Either Palin doesn’t understand the relationship between federal and state powers, or she doesn’t actually believe one of those two propositions.
I also went back and looked at Biden’s comments again. Biden’s response (first part) was primarily a political point, his second probably somewhat dated, but his third laid out the key point in the constitutional debate, and that goes all the way back to James Madison’s fear that the Bill of Rights would devolve into a basis for limiting any aspect of personal liberty that was not expressly enumerated within the constitution or the Bill of Rights.
Which is to say that, in its purest form, “strict construction” is another way of saying that government can do whatever it wants so long as the constitution does not explicitly say it can’t. This is an extremely questionable way of understanding the original intent of the framers. From his comments, Joe Biden made it clear he understood this debate and where he comes out on it. It’s an issue that transcends abortion.
I was responding to your claim — which was clearly erroneous — that “you could not agree with the former [that there's a right to privacy] and still think Roe was wrong.”
Now, I agree with you that it doesn’t make much sense to say there’s a right to privacy but that states get to determine what it means. However, Palin’s statement would make sense if she meant that 1) there’s a right to privacy, but 2) it doesn’t encompass abortion, and therefore 3) states get to determine how to regulate abortion. That’s a perfectly logical and defensible position, although (to be sure) I don’t know that Palin was thinking very precisely here.
Since the original post was about Palin’s religious beliefs – access the latest Sightings by Martin Marty. He compares Palin’s religious beliefs and populism to William Jennings Bryan.
He makes an interesting comparison and shows differences – Bryan’s populism targeted the rich and moneymakers who cared little about the common good (Marty equates this to Jesus and his injunctions against the moneymakers). Palin’s populism targets “elite” – Washington, Hollywood, Harvard, etc. and supports individualism, not the common good. Her target appears to be Elites (e.g. educated) and not the moneychangers (a negative in Marty’s opinion).
He calls Bryan the Voice from the Platte and Palin the Voice from the Yukon. He is not positive about her type of evangelical religion.
But the notion that “[f]undamental rights are not subject to “hashing out” by the states” is not internally inconsistent. The Second Amendment is a classic example of an enumerated personal right which is infringed in varying ways at the state and local level.
Bill:
“Palin’s populism targets “elite” – Washington, Hollywood, Harvard, etc. and supports individualism, not the common good.”
But individualism is precisely what characterizes postmodern belief. this is true even in religious communities such as Roman Catholicism that have historically adopted and promoted a more collectivist oriented spirituality. Catholicism always seeks signs and symbols that BIND a community.
I think most believers, even among Catholics, tend to appropriate their religious faith and express it in individualistic terms.
More fundamentally does a common good really exist? It seems to be that politics should simply be aiming for harmonious groupings of various interests. The days of overarching metanarratives is over.
Although I must say I cringed when I heard Palin extol ‘American exceptionalism’. Yikes that is frightening.
From George D: “Although I must say I cringed when I heard Palin extol ‘American exceptionalism’. Yikes that is frightening.”
and very, very typical of the American evangelical perspective.
MAT: There is what you might call interpretive latitude — but there are edges that have to be respected. Federal courts have the last word on defining where those edges are. So for instance, states can put so-called time, place or manner restrictions on demonstrations (right to assemble), but federal courts can and do find that those restrictions sometimes abridge the First Amendment. If, for instance, the federal courts hold that “commercial speech” is protected speech, a state court cannot declare that it is not going to follow that principle within the jurisdiction of that state. The principle of the supremacy of federal courts over the constitution and federal law and treaties was decided on fairly early, in a case brought against the Commonwealth of Virginia over the validity of land grants authorized by the King of England before the Revolutionary War (which were ratified by the treaty to end the war).
I just want to know what dotcommoners thought about that saucy wink she tossed to the camera. :-)
Hmmmm ‘saucy wink’.
More carry over from Puritan America – and even some elements of Juedeo Christian tradition with their deep mistrust of feminine sexuality.
When a male politician winks or otherwise seeks to establish an emotional solidarity through body language, posture or even euphamism in the case of Obama’s ‘sweetie’ comment, there isn’t the same moral connotation associated with it.
Hester Prynne redux.
Women can participate in public life with the proviso that they become asexual in the process.
In regards to the statement made by the Law professor, (Stuart Buck post at 1:46), the false assumption made is that there can be a consensus on the definition of person. Just like in the case of slavery, a person is a person, despite their location. This is not a States Rights issue.
“More fundamentally, does a common good exiost?”
I guess the Church’s teaching is down the tubes on this , or maybe it migh tat least be worth reading, say, alexia Kelly and takin gall those folks who gathered in Philly earlier this summer somewhat seriously!