Public Scrutiny of Palin and Religion: Fair and Foul

We are off the the races looking at Alaska Governor and Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin's religious biography, her views on religion's role in public life, and some of her positions on church-state issues.  So, once again, we need to try to sort out what's fair and what's foul in this process.  My own attempts to do so are definitely a work in progress, but here are my two cents for now.

It seems fair to me for reporters and others to try to get some sense of Palin's religious affiliation and biography.  Palin has declared herself a believer, and the campaign has made much of her religious identity and convictions.   I looked into this a bit last week, and, in an article published yesterday, Rachel Zoll and Eric Gorski of AP shed some more light on these matters.  Among other things, the AP piece notes that Palin "has deep roots in Pentecostalism, a spirit-filled Christian tradition that is one of the fastest growing in the world."

Of course, one of the main thing Pentecostals are known for is speaking in tongues.  Here is where things could start to go south.   Although I am no expert on the subject, I don't see how this practice (assuming Palin engages or has engaged in it, which may or may not be true) would affect her governance.  Even if she engages or has engaged in this practice, I assume she's not going to do so while on the job.  In short, on its face it seems to me to have about as much relevance to how she would govern as  the rumored Mormon undergarments would have had on Mitt Romney's ability to govern -- none.  Further, it does not take much imagination to see how this matter could be sensationalized and abused on the campaign trail.   In short, I would proceed with extreme caution here.

Also, let me be quick to add that the AP piece notes that Palin's current home church is "an independent evangelical church" and that Palin "does not consider herself Pentecostal."   I take this at face value.  Indeed, it seems to me that it would only be the extremely rare case when reporters or others would be justified in questioning the religious affiliation or identity that a candidate claims.  I see no evidence that this is one of those cases.  (ADDED: Palin's post-denominational vibe is captured pretty well in this piece by John Allen.  As Allen explains, Palin is far from alone in claiming no specific denominational affiliation.)

Other things that are under scrutiny now are clearly fair game, however.  For example, the AP piece also notes that, "[a]s Alaska governor, [Palin] signed a proclamation as Alaska's governor honoring Christian Heritage Week and said creationism shouldn't be barred from classroom discussions."  I've already noted the latter item, along with some other policy positions.  The text of the "Christian Heritage Week" proclamation that Palin signed may be found here.   Items like these should provoke thoughtful questions about how Palin would govern.

The AP piece also adds some other coverage of a brief talk Palin recently gave at the Wasilla Assembly of God.  (Video of the talk is here and here.)   Palin gave the talk while serving as governor.  The pastor at the church invited her in part because of the public office she holds and identified her as governor of the state in his introduction.   Palin coupled her discussion of her work as governor with her Christian beliefs in this talk.   Given these facts, I think this speech is also fair game for examination and questions about how the views she asserted here would impact her public service. 

I think it is very unfair, however, to assume that Palin agrees with all that her various pastors have said over the years, not to mention various guest speakers at her churches.  That's one of the reasons I was dismayed to see some reporters and others rush off to post juicy soundbites from her ministers' sermons and even ask one of her ministers what he thought Palin believed about certain public policy issues (the minister wisely refused to venture a guess).  I realize that reporters have not had a crack at Palin yet, but questions about her faith's impact on her public policy positions and her governance should be directed to her, not to those who have ministered to her over the years. 

I am well aware that many of the lines I reference here have been crossed when it comes to the Democratic ticket.   But two wrongs don't make a right.  And we really need to try to get this right.

Comments

[Bob Cornwall]

Melissa,

Thanks for the observations. The Christian Heritage proclamation is interesting in that it tries to use less than orthodox figures as the foundation for her proclamation. Must be some David Barton standing behind it.

As for her pastors, well yes we can't assume that she agrees with everything they say any more than we can with Barack -- but it would be interesting to see how she connects her faith to her public policy. She has said that the Iraq War is divinely inspired.

[Melissa Rogers]

Yes, Bob, I'm hoping to write about that proclamation sometime soon. Seems to me that it takes some liberties with history.

And I certainly agree with you that probing the connections a candidate draws between faith and public policy is a legitimate endeavor. Of course, Palin does not seem to be taking questions from anyone right now, and that's frustrating for journalists (as well as others). I hope that changes soon.

When it comes to a candidate's church(es), however, I start to get nervous. I'm glad that, at least so far, it looks like Palin has neither asked for nor received endorsements from her various pastors and that the campaign appears not to have enlisted them in other ways. I would hope that that would strengthen the argument that the media and others should not overrun the churches. But even that may not be enough to keep the church from becoming a media magnet. I'm still puzzling over that one. Given your position as a pastor, I'd be interested in your thoughts on this issue, if you have time to share them.

[Grupetti]

"She has said that the Iraq War is divinely inspired."

Cite please.

Why do so many people have difficulty with the unvarnished truth?

Please look at the comments by StarWoman:
http://www.streetprophets.com/story/2008/9/3/122850/6370

I do recall reading that she stated she would NOT push for pro-life legislation as governor -for whatever that's worth.

[Joe]

The proclamation appears to suggest "God" equals "Christ" and that the need to honor God means that the state has to be involved.

Fairly common simplistic reasoning in that realm of discussion, apiece with the Justice Scalia "but they used 'God' in speeches all the time" stuff.

But, humility is important here all the same, since Grupetti is correct to be wary. A few popular cites of the claimed quotation surely seem to be of the "pray we are right" variety.

From a critical Huffington Post entry, linked up to the piece G cites: "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."

Sounds like something Obama would say. Given his background, too easy criticism of Palin's statements can bite his supporters.

[Vinny]

I am concerned about the extent to which Palin believes that God endorses particular policy decisions. I can respect her position on abortion regulation while disagreeing with it and I don’t expect a great deal of flexibility. On the other hand, I was more than a little put off by the business of praying for an oil and gas pipeline. Although I now consider myself an agnostic, I never did believe in a God who made his opinions known on issues like that to state governors. How does she determine God’s will on such questions and to what extent does her knowledge of God’s will shape her pursuit of such policies?

I think it is also fair to ask her whether she agrees with things that her pastor has said in her sermons that touch on political issues, just as Obama was. For example, does she doubt the salvation of people who voted for John Kerry? Does she think there was something sinful about criticizing Bush’s response to hurricane Katrina? I have no problem with Palin attending a church where the pastor went off the deep end in his sermons occasionally, but I would like to know whether she views Democrats as God’s enemies.

[Melissa Rogers]

A few quick responses to some of the things that have been said in this constructive conversation.

Grupetti, thanks for sharing those comments from StarWoman. I think she makes some good points. Having said that, I still think legitimate questions may be raised about some of these comments* and that it is important for Palin herself to address these matters.

Joe, you introduce a helpful note of caution. Many politicians seek to be on God's side, and there's an important difference between that case and a case in which a politician declares that God is on his or her side. As your comments suggest, perhaps it would help us if we looked at various quotes without the names attached and see if they bother us . . . .

Vinny, you ask some useful and appropriate questions. I don't want pastors to be treated as spokespersons for their candidate-congregants, but I understand that sometimes a candidate's pastor will say things that raise legitimate questions for Americans. I thought it was fair to ask Senator Obama about Rev. Wright's statement, and I think it is fair to ask Governor Palin the question you raise about Democrats.

* added