Christianity and US Elections

It’s not just the Middle East whose politics don a religious tunic brought on by fanatics in the region. And even when the believers protect their religion from being commandeered, their defense rests on religion as well. To some extent, North America and Europe wear the garment of secularism and so feel they are outside these difficult equations, for the state and its rules were established upon the separation of people and their Creator, and founded upon the relationship of the people as subjects of their leaders and the government. But it seems as though this age has created a new equation, and it is this: If you don’t go by your own will toward religion as a believer or fanatic, then it comes to you, and you must choose which side to take. Based on that, the head of the Catholic Church, Pope Francis (or Francisco or Jorge Mario Bergoglio as is his original name) took a trip to Mexico that was the commencement of another trip into the heart of North America.

Whether or not the timing was deliberate, the papal visit to Mexico came at the beginning of the presidential primary elections for the two main parties, Democratic and Republican. The current primaries have not been classic in the sense of being nominations for “the establishment,” but have been firmly oriented toward outsiders and the deeply held ideas of many Americans on immigration and religion. Donald Trump attracted the most attention when he accused Mexican immigrants of being criminals and rapists, and demanded the deportation of those who are legally in the United States along with the construction of a giant wall separating the country from Mexico. It didn’t take long for him to add to his denouncement of Mexicans a demand for [a policy to] prevent Muslims from entering the country. Trump was not alone in this. Ben Carson also announced that he would not accept a Muslim in the White House. And even though there is no possibility of that happening, either in the near or distant future, the suggestion itself meant the disqualification of such a thing in a nation that boasts all the while of equal rights for all its citizens. The bottom line is that what Trump said was not particular to him, but was a sentiment expressed among a segment of Americans that makes it hard to ignore; it is not a reflection of extremist elements, but of citizens and voters who have pushed Trump to become a frontrunner in the primaries in Iowa, where he took second place by a slim margin and then first place in New Hampshire. Even while I am writing this article, he is at the forefront of polls in South Carolina.

Pope Francis’s visit to Mexico was not like other visits from [leaders of] the Vatican to other countries. It was a form of preaching a renewed Christianity, drawing much from what’s known as liberation theology, which focuses on the poor and relief from the oppression of injustice. Such was the way the pope approached the hornet’s nest when he visited northern Mexico and came close to the U.S. border, which Trump wants to cordon off with a wall that will isolate [America] from the “barbarians.” At the same time, he is very close to the southern U.S. where his election campaign has resonated in South Carolina. At this point, the pope encountered the sayings of Trump from journalists seeking his opinion on the matter, to which the pope replied that anyone who wants to build walls instead of bridges is “not Christian.” There are a couple of aspects to what the pope said. Pope Francis wanted to ease the shock, as it does not represent a ruling coming from the Gospels, but a judgment coming from someone who has read the Gospels and grasped the love and mercy contained therein. Another aspect of it is that it represents an intrusion into U.S. internal affairs during presidential and congressional elections, and no matter how small the Vatican is, the effect of its leader, the pope, among Catholic supporters all over the world compensates for [its small geographical size]. A third aspect of this that cannot be avoided is that the declarations of the pope were intended for Donald Trump personally, who is the frontrunner in U.S. polls — meaning he is the candidate most likely to win the presidential nomination for the Republican Party. But the fourth aspect is more serious than the previous ones. It can’t be ignored that Pope Francis is the head of the Catholic Church, and at the same time it should be understood that the majority of Christians in the U.S. are Protestants, who leveled a huge revolution against the mother church, considering it fanatical and anti-progress, and certainly against capitalism. The echoes of the pope’s declarations created waves of criticism, first from Trump himself, of course, who immediately responded that the pope was not right to judge his “Christianity,” and that he was on the contrary a pure Christian who wouldn’t walk anywhere unless the Gospel was on his shoulder. The next criticism was the Protestant response of astonishment at the beginning, followed by a more negative reaction that focused on the corruption of the pope’s economic and social agenda, which [Protestants] see as seeking to incite class warfare. Then came the media portrayal of the pope’s statements as implicitly biased toward Marco Rubio, senator and presidential candidate — and one of the biggest competitors of Donald Trump — along with Ted Cruz. Rubio is Catholic, as was John F. Kennedy, whose election ensured a favorable reputation [for Catholicism] in the United States, as [America] proved it did not discriminate against people based on religion, color or creed. So it created a dilemma for the young candidate in facing a majority of citizens, especially in the south, where there are still sensitivities between Catholics and Protestants.

And the fifth aspect forcefully begs the question: What has American secularism, and the separation between church and state, brought about? For if there really was such staunch secularism in America, and if there really were such a clear separation between church and state, then Pope Francis’s statements would not have any more of an impact than discussions in the media or academia about developments in the Catholic Church. But these statements have struck at the core of the U.S. elections, and stirred up religious biases among Americans that we must pay attention to. The fire comes from underestimating the sparks, and the pope’s comments were not a small matter. They dealt directly with the most holy part of American politics: the elections. But the risk here is connected to a sixth aspect regarding whether or not the pope’s comments were part of a European and international trend toward trying to prevent Donald Trump from reaching the White House. The aggravation started in the United Kingdom, then reached European political parties, followed by Western elites who took these grievances to Japan and Australia, until fear took hold, perhaps globally, that Americans’ infatuation with “change” could suck the world into the abyss of shallow politics offered by an enterprising candidate who doesn’t know the differences between a company and a country, and without the slightest respect for the ways of the modern world. The point is simply that any elections, especially in a country that is by all accounts a major force in terms of ideology and intellect, concern not just the country itself, but concern the whole world. Is there anything more to the matter than that, or as in other matters, will the storm winds blow it into the U.S. elections?