The Article
Diversity in Congress
This article is short and sweet, but very important. It spotlights the religious ill-diversity of Congress. This state of a near total Christian Congress has remained constant throughout history. We would like to think that our government is getting more diverse, but that doesn't seem to be happening any time soon
Obviously diversity is an issue in Congress, but how do we fix this issue? What are some troubles that this lack of diversity can cause? Also, do you think there is a large plurality of politicians that self proclaim as Christian for the sole purpose of getting more votes?
A lack of diversity in Congress will likely lead to a lack of representation of minority religious groups, particularly in social issues where religion plays a larger role. The article says roughly half of Americans seek to vote for people with a similar religious belief to their own. If Congress is to diversify, people must look beyond religion when deciding who to vote for. Also, the non-Christians must vote at higher rate than they currently do. The change in demographic the article mentioned is focused on the younger portion of the population, which we learned votes at a relatively low rate. Only if a significant cultural change shifts these two factors, this aspect of Congressional diversity (or lack thereof) is not changing. Also, I believe that most members of Congress are Christian, but that many overplay their religion. If they don't really practice their religion, they'll want to seem like they do to appeal to a larger body of voters.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Samir in that we have to look past religion when choosing the candidate we want. If there is really suppossed to be a separation of church and state, then why is religion even publicized during campaigning? Why is being a Christian a deciding quality as to whether a candidate is honest or not? And I think I would feel the same way if it were any other religion in majority. If America is suppossed to be a melting pot where everyone can come and be free, than our law makers should represent that. And, yes, I do think that probably many politicians just say that they are Christian even if they are not practicing the religion in their personal lives, but that's just making the problem even worse. Religion should not be a factor we consider during elections, and I really think it should not be publicized, or brought into debates.
ReplyDeleteI find it somewhat sad that in a country where we tried so hard to separate church and state, that our majority elected body consists almost entirely of members affiliated with one single religion. Worse than that, is how they advertise this to gain support, and how people seem to just follow on with them instead of considering some of the consequences that might follow because of that religious influence.
ReplyDeleteNow, this isn't just a one sided issue. As Samir posts, those who aren't affiliated with the religious majority need to get out and vote more often to better represent other opinions within Congress, but until both sides work to remove a religious domination in government, we will continue to see statistics like this, and they might have negative effect on legislation as well.
It is likely that Congress will be majority Christian for the foreseeable future, given that the majority of Americans are Christian. As long as legislators aren't pushing a religious agenda, there is no real issue with having a government dominated by members from one religion. If they are trying to push a religious agenda, like banning birth control or encouraging conversion therapy, then there is a problem. I think the religious affiliation rates will even out to the national rate as time goes on and agnosticism becomes more prevalent. Racial diversity in Congress will continue to increase as well, as it has in recent years, so I don't believe any dramatic steps need to taken to make this happen. While I think that more Congressional diversity is desirable due to more viewpoints being represented, I don't believe we should vote for politicians just because they belong to a certain religion, race, or gender. I think it is the policies and character of the politicians that matter.
ReplyDeleteI do think that many legislators currently claim to be Christian even if they don't practice in order to appeal to voters. Sadly, if people are choosing to vote just based on your religious beliefs, you really have no choice but to lie to voters.
It is likely that Congress will be majority Christian for the foreseeable future, given that the majority of Americans are Christian. As long as legislators aren't pushing a religious agenda, there is no real issue with having a government dominated by members from one religion. If they are trying to push a religious agenda, like banning birth control or encouraging conversion therapy, then there is a problem. I think the religious affiliation rates will even out to the national rate as time goes on and agnosticism becomes more prevalent. Racial diversity in Congress will continue to increase as well, as it has in recent years, so I don't believe any dramatic steps need to taken to make this happen. While I think that more Congressional diversity is desirable due to more viewpoints being represented, I don't believe we should vote for politicians just because they belong to a certain religion, race, or gender. I think it is the policies and character of the politicians that matter.
ReplyDeleteI do think that many legislators currently claim to be Christian even if they don't practice in order to appeal to voters. Sadly, if people are choosing to vote just based on your religious beliefs, you really have no choice but to lie to voters.
I think that this problem could truly be fixed with proportional representation. Since our book points out that people's religions tend to correlate with political ideology (at least in some cases) I think that we would have a wider variety of representatives per state with not only different religious beliefs, but also races, genders, and sexualities. I also think that if we had more diverse groups of people run for positions it would be a step in the right direction. Lack of diversity causes politicians to be out of touch with the public which is a very dangerous feat considering they are working to improve the lives of that same public. If there is a lack of diversity amongst legislators, how can those legislators relate to their states' or districts' populations? I think there are probably SOME politicians who identify as Christian or state that they believe in God for this purpose, but I bet most of them do not.
ReplyDeleteHaving a 91% Christian Congress can create many problems when it comes to representing properly and writing legislature. To begin, the American population is about 70% Christian, so that is obviously not respresentational of the people. There are many values and beliefs Christianity teachs and focuses on that other religions and groups simple do not. If most of Congress firmly shares the same Christian beliefs and writes legislation to reflect those beliefs, that can make other groups off people feel forgot, oppressed, and misunderstood (cough cough—LGBTQ and women). Those in Congress that take a more Evangelical approach to politics (for votes) also cause lots of problems for the general population, as there strict views can be imposed on others. In order to fix this problem we could reform the gerrymandering process or push for a representational voting system.
ReplyDeleteThe only way to fix this issue begins at the start; elections. If we don't have anyone but proclaimed "Christians" running, then that is all the American people can vote for. If more people from various religous walks run for office, it would allow for more options to vote for, and wile eventually have congress much more religous diversity. A lack of diversity can lead do certain groups who feel like they have no one in office who can truly relate to them, so it can certainly create some problems. As for politicians who claim to be Christian to get more votes, it probably works sometimes, but could also work against them for voters who warn to see change.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Josh. I believe that religious orientation is not a problem, as long as they are not pushing religious agendas. I believe that religious orientation should be somewhat of a private matter, or at least not a concern while voting for a candidate. However, if religious beliefs begin to dictate policy decisions, such as "religious opposition to homosexuality" (or, in other words, homophobia), and abortion rights, become dictated by religion, then there is a problem. I believe that the problem will fix itself when minority groups vote for people who better represent them, and when a leader acts religiously and their constituents do not agree, they will vote them out of office. However, inherently, having a large number of Christians in office is not a problem, so long as they do not use the Bible to give them ideological advice. However, since many evangelical leaders tend to push a strict, bible-driven platform, an over-representation can be a bad thing if handled in that respect. But, on the other hand, 80 percent of Democrats are Christian, and yet they still push as a party for gay rights and pro-choice. So in reality, the over-representation is only a problem when people let their religion run their policy choices, such as evangelical conservatives.
ReplyDeleteThis is an interesting article as religion is not something discussed very often when considering diversity of our political bodies. In fact this incoming Congress has been celebrated for its diversity (it will be the most racially diverse congress in history), with record numbers of Hispanics, African-Americans, Asian-Americans, and women of color. There is a reason for why racial diversity is focused on much more than religious diversity: the legislature deals with issues of race much more often than it deals with issues of religion. Issues of religion also come up when discussing abortion, but this is also an issue of HOW religious the 91% of Christians are - some are evangelical conservatives (as Liam said) and some just are much more secular. I wouldn't say that these politicians self-proclaim themselves as Christian just to get elected. Similar to the rest of America, a large majority of the politicians are simply secular in their beliefs.
ReplyDeleteThat being said it is still very important to religious representation in Congress, especially with the recent uptick in Islamophobia and Anti-semitism in America.This can be achieved by strongly encouraging the younger people to vote - they will be more likely to vote for a religiously diverse congress.
I'm going to play devil's advocate on this one. I do not believe that Christians are so overly represented in congress as others in this blog may have you to believe. According to a recent ABC poll, 83% of Americans consider themselves "Christian". http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90356&page=1
ReplyDeleteI completely believe in the idea that congress should have a similar religious make up as the rest of the country. And according to the ABC poll, that looks to be true. So to say that we should be more in favor of a diverse congress as opposed to a congress that reflects the general public would be against what the founders of the constitution strived for.
Now onto the topic of politicians using faith as a political tool in order to get elected. This is absolutely true. In fact, Facebook CEO mark Zuckerberg, a longtime self-proclaimed atheist, started to believe in God just last week https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2016/12/30/mark-zuckerberg-says-hes-no-longer-an-atheist-believes-religion-is-very-important/ and he is hinting at a political run for office http://www.forbes.com/sites/levelup/2017/01/09/is-mark-zuckerberg-planning-to-run-for-office/#ea02f5e2423b so to say that not believing in a religion does not hurt your chances at getting elected would certainly be disingenuous.
Religion isn't really one of the things I think about when I vote, unless it's an important part of their ideology, but I do think that politicians use their Christianity to get elected. The religions of many political figures are sometimes the center of conspiracy theories, which leads me to believe that people are not too fond of different religions in political positions. I'm fine with the majority being Christian if that's the way it turns out. I just don't want people who are a different religion to have a harder time getting positions. The diversity of the religions was never something that bothered me and I don't think it should. In order to have a more diverse government, more diverse people need to run.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Anurag. Religion is certainly something that I do not think about when thinking about voting, and I also agree that some politicians use Christianity to get elected and emphasize their opponent's different religions (if it is anything besides Christianity). In my opinion, this is not necessarily a bad thing as long as there is separation between religion and state. 91% of Congress being Christian doesn't bother me if they are elected because they are/will be good leaders. It would bother me, however, if they suddenly defunded education about evolution for example.
DeleteI completely forgot about proportional representation, Abby. Proportional representation seems like even more of a necessity after reading this. The article mentions that even more young Americans are no longer identifying as Christian so perhaps in the years to come we will see a shift in religious identification among those running for office as more of this younger generation starts runninng. Congress obviously needs better representation in every area. To encourage diversity in these areas, programs could be designed to introduce kids into the realm of politics. Much like the programs designed to intruduce more girls into the world of STEM, some kind of goverment/political oriented program could encourage more students from different backgrounds to run for office in the future or at least take up a more active, concientious role in politics.
ReplyDeleteTypically I don't consider a politician's religion to be of any consequence to my opinion of him or her. While it is unfortunate that such a high percentage of Congress follows the same religion and isn't representative of the U.S. population, their religion shouldn't have any great significance since it's supposed to be separate from their job as a representative and legislator. However, this obviously isn't always the case. Many politicians in Congress push for policies detrimental to society or limiting in freedom (opposing gay marriage, anti LGBT laws, etc.) and defend it by saying their actions are in accordance with their religion. This is when I take issue with a politician's religion and our homogeneous Congress. While using religion to defend policy shouldn't be supported, the article notes many voters prefer people who do since they seem more relatable.
ReplyDeleteCertainly, religion used to play a central role in politics and in elections, as it was a central role in daily life. Today, however, religion seems to have taken a backseat to other priorities in younger generations. Many people only focus on racial diversity in Congress, but religious diversity should be addressed as well. If minority parties feel as though they are not being represented in Congress, they won't feel the need to vote, and voter participation will remain low. Proportional representation is one way to fix this issue, and as a result, voter participation will increase as elections start to accurately reflect the voters interests and beliefs.
ReplyDeleteI could easily see a politician identifying as a practicing Christian when they aren't truly devoted to the religion, but I couldn't see any blatantly lying. However, the idea of making Congress more diverse is important, but still has the same arguments against implications as Affirmative Action does. "What if an uber qualified Christian politician is kicked out for a less qualified athiest?" Even worse, any method of diversifying religion could cause politicans to lie about their religion in order to get in. This lack of diversity definitely causes Congress to represent the general public less, though, which, in my opinion, overrules issues about qualified candidates (unless there are absolutely no qualified candidates in a particular sector).
ReplyDeleteInstead of having set proportions per each religion/race/gender, maybe we should attempt to limit the amount of politicians that can be of that category? There are so few ways to diversify this without facing issues about turning down qualified persons.
I find it a bit alarming that the number of Christians in congress versus everyone else is so high, but I also find it a bit sad that it should matter, as we used to pride ourselves in the separation of church and state. However, I am very much aware that it does matter due to the need to have equal representation in all aspects, including social issues with which so many people use religion to side with. I think that as a nation we must work towards creating a more religiously-diverse Congress just as we have racially and gender-wise. As Jay said, this Congress holds record-high numbers showing diversity across almost all other aspects except religion, so we must be making some progress as a nation. While no sorts of laws or anything can really be passed to help this, socially we can progress to create a more religiously-diverse government.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Dora in that politicians would absolutely lie and say they are practicing Christians in order to get more votes (perhaps another reason why we should work towards getting a more diverse government). Politicians will say almost anything to get votes, and so if the politician really isn't practicing any religion, why not just say they are Christian? I find it disturbing that it likely happens, as it means more lying, but I do believe that they would say they are Christian just to get more votes.