Bobby Jindal
Before he quashed the guesswork about the future of his political career, Bobby Jindal caused a blip in the Republican’s radar in the lead-up to the American presidential election. He has highlighted how the Church can influence affairs involving the State and the People, which begs the question: what role does religion really play in politics?
As John McCain is yet to choose his vice-president running mate for the election, speculation in The New York Times about who the chosen one might be pointed – albeit briefly – toward Jindal. At 37 years-of-age (which is near infancy in political years), this Indian-American is the current governor of Louisiana and has been elected as a member of the U.S House of Representatives. Born and raised a Hindu, he has since converted to Christianity, the religion with the strongest following in the States. He is a man with great potential you might say.
But alas, in late July Jindal announced that he would not be running for vice-president of the Republican Party. Although, this was not before his 1994 essay detailing the events of an exorcism of his friend – which he participated in – surfaced for public scrutiny. The controversy of this essay lies with Christian law allowing only bonafied exorcists to perform the ritual, and only in the most dire circumstances.
His actions may have broken holy decree over a decade ago, but I am inclined to think that whatever his religious beliefs and actions are and may have been, his political beliefs should be the decider of his suitability to lead such a powerful Western country. Some responses to his essay give thanks to him for his honestly and willingness to share the details of the ritual with the public. Other responses have been rather adverse. This is one of the latter…
Whether or not his essay, and the public’s vehement response to it, lead to Jindal’s renouncing of the VP speculation, David Corn’s suggestion on Mother Jones that he should be required to openly discuss his religious beliefs and practices with the general public poses the question: to what extent can a public figure keep something sacred….well, sacred? And just how much can these sacred beliefs influence a politician’s popularity?
Religion may provide hope and sanctity to those who believe – much like a good policy for a party member in an election battle. But, I suggest the relationship between the two should remain as such: the holy as the water and the politics as the oil. This way they can meet in the same bottle of ideology, but fully never combine to corrupt the status quo.
August 27, 2008 at 9:56 pm |
Religion is the Western world has always had a close relationship with the nation-state. The proposition that these two ideoogies should not combine or effect on another is an idealised one indeed. The problem as I see it is that religion is used to legitimize political decisions every day. This is not just combined to America’s borders but to most regimes in the world at present. Currently there is a war raging between to of the worlds most dominant religions Islam and Christianity in the Middle East. Were the motives for this war just political? I don’t think so. The church continues and remains to hold sway in politics the world over. This is not intrinsically the fault of religion per se but those that use doctrine of their chosen religion to justify a political move. Why is gay marriage so frowned upon? Ask this quetion in the predominantly Christian America and I am sure that the resounding response will be because the Bible say so. Vis-a-vis this is reflected in legislation.