Panel debates religion in election

A panel of religious leaders within and outside of the University spoke about the role of faith in the 2004 presidential election during a panel discussion Thursday in Jordan Hall. The topic of religious manipulation by both combating camps was the focus of the discussion.\nIU Law Professor Dan Conkle said faith has always been strongly intertwined with elections.\n"Quite clearly, religion does play a role in politics," Conkle said. "American politics in the contemporary period are unusually religious compared at least to many other, if not most other, if not almost every other, modern western democracy."\nConkle provided evidence of his statement with a story about President George W. Bush. Bush, Conkle said, was asked in a 2000 primary debate who his favorite philosopher was.\n"His response, whether or not accurately, to the question, was, 'Jesus Christ because he changed my heart,'" Conkle said.\nDr. Nazif Shahrani, a professor of Near Eastern languages and cultures, said Muslims have been secluded from the political realm until the last five or six years, when they finally began to organize. But the result, he said, left a sour taste in the mouths of some Muslims.\n"Much to their chagrin, they voted for George W. Bush," Shahrani said. "So that was the first political advocacy on the part of the Muslim community, and the results have not been all that positive."\nOne reason Shahrani is frustrated with President Bush, he said, is that the president engages in "vernacular politics," meaning he gathers opinions he observes from the grass-roots, bundles them and expresses them in "his own Texan way."\nBut Bush was not the only candidate discussed by the panel. Conkle said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., has come under scrutiny recently from the Bush administration for using the pulpit for political advantage.\n"(Kerry) spoke in a Baptist church, relied upon scripture and made basically a political scripture," Conkle said. Conkle then quoted the Bush administration's response, saying Kerry was engaging in discourse "beyond the bounds of acceptable discourse, in a sad exploitation of scripture for political attack."\nRev. Rebecca Jimenéz, campus minister, said one of the reasons religion will play such a vital role during and leading up to the 2004 election is the religious position of the president.\n"There is explicit religious positioning and religious rhetoric on the part of the White House," Jimenéz said. "And Bush will continue to actively cultivate the religious right because that's been his base."\nLindsey Mintz, director of government affairs for the Jewish Community Relations Council, said the Jewish vote will be an important one for the contenders to court. She said the history of the Jewish community's voting record is the strongest among all faiths.\n"Overwhelmingly, the Jewish community is the largest ethnic group as far as voting percentages," Mintz said. "We vote the most."\nMintz went on to say Jews historically have been forced to live together in their own communities and form their own organizations, which may explain their strong and unified voting record. Mintz also said the Jewish community has a proclivity for forming an opinion.\n"Give it time, ask the Jewish community how they feel about something and they'll tell you how to act," she said.\nConkle said democrats will ultimately be responsible for dealing with the issue of religion in one of two ways. The first, secularism, would strictly disallow religious ingredients from entering any official policy or language. The other would be to embrace religion as republicans have.\n"That stance would say, 'Yes, it is OK to talk about religious values," Conkle said. "But those religious values may not be ones that are uniquely the property of the conservative side in the debate,'" \n-- Contact staff writer Rick Newkirk at renewkir@indiana.edu.