The Possibility of Ending the Abortion Stalemate

Since Roe v. Wade, the abortion issue has been one of the most controversial issues in American politics. Now, decades have passed, and the abortion wars are still eminent today even though nothing has changed since the 1973 case. In Dillon’s “How to end the Abortion Stalemate,” she recommends to Catholics what is necessary to overcome this “abortion stalemate.”

Utilizing well-documented research studies, Dillon insists that all religious voters must support bi partisan efforts to reduce the number of abortions by preventing unintended pregnancies, expanding adoption opportunities, and increasing economic supports to vulnerable women.  By tying a relationship between socioeconomic realties and the rate of abortions, Dillon establishes the essential need to adopt practical solutions to prevent abortion and end this stalemate once and for all. As well, she suggests the end of opposition between the pro-life and pro-choice members of Congress and the advocates the need for these two parties to come to a consensus that offers a helping hand to women.

Dillon’s article has a hopeful, optimistic outlook of how this abortion stalemate can be somewhat solved. Maybe it’s a little bit too optimistic. I agree that the best way for pro-choice and pro-life members of Congress to work together is by a means of a pragmatic, noncontroversial approach. Without pushing for the end of practice of abortion or advocating the need for more abortion clinics, these two factions can find a means to work together by seeking to achieve for a common cause. In this case, Dillon suggests that they must collaborate together to provide women support in tough economic situations, which can then effectively reduce abortion rates. Thus, by blending moral urgency with pragmatic action, these solutions can be certainly feasible. 

However, after much controversy in the past, can the pro-life and pro-choice members of Congress easily come to terms with each other and work together? Can the pro-life members drop the goal that they sought to accomplish for years and establish a moderate approach to the abortion issue? Thus, the question is not how the abortion stalemate can be broken but the actual possibility of this happening. 

World Religions Class In Modesto Public Schools Raises Eyebrows

VOA News journalist Lonny Shavelson wrote an article today entitled "California School District Gains from World Religions Class". The article states that Modesto, CA is the only school district in the entire country that requires its students to take (and pass) a world religions class. The students learn from a textbook that teaches the beliefs of Muslims, Christians, Jews, Confucianists, Hindus, Buddhists, and so on and so forth. The teacher that teaches the class, Yvonne Taylor, likes to tell her students that it's okay to talk about prayer, but not for her to lead them in it. The students read from a textbook selected by the school board that gives equal face time for each of the religions--the book actually does contain equal page lengths for each religion.

Of course this article brings about the old issue of teaching religion v. teaching about religion. Is it safe to safe to say that teaching religion gives the students a more direct moral compass? That because these students are being taught the ten commandments or the Lord's prayer that they somehow become better people? No. It most certainly isn't safe to say it. There may be studies suggesting that kids become "better" people by being religious, but those studies could certainly be flawed. But is it safe to say that learning about religion gives children a better moral compass? That answer is yes.

Think of all the hate and fear in the world today. Fear of Muslims. Fear of Christians. Fear of things we don't understand as a people. Isn't it the duty of the country to promote a general understanding of its citizens? Sure it is. The United States is the greatest country on earth because it's so ethnically diverse. All these people blend together to promote one common American identity. But what makes us different is also what makes the country so unique. So a class that promotes a general understanding of each religion should, at the very least, be at the core of every school curriculum. Not because the state wishes to make its people religious, but instead to promote an acceptance of beliefs that are different from our own.

As long as the students aren't required to pray or read from the bible every day, I fail to see how there could be any problem associated with this program. The school board even got together with all the different religious groups to make sure they were giving each group a fair and balanced portrayal. This is religion in schools done right, in so much that it isn't religion in schools, it's culture in school. Religion doesn't make good people. An education that promotes acceptance and understanding, however, is the best litmus test for a better society.

In a recent New York Times article, Javier Hernandez writes about New York’s mayor, Michael Bloomberg, and his plan to convert four Catholic schools into public charter schools. The schools in question have seen a significant drop in enrollment and will be closed if they do not receive help from the city. This would force hundreds of kids into already overcrowded public schools.

Although it promotes a significant amount of controversy regarding separation of church and state, there is a legitimate argument to be made by Mayor Bloomberg. By chartering the schools, it allows students to receive a proper education without interfering with students already in public schools. If Mr. Bloomberg were to send these students to the public schools, overcrowding would significantly hinder the ability for all students to gain a proper education. Also, the schools would commit to covering up all crucifixes and other religious objects, but serious issues would arise based on the curriculum. How will the state and the schools be able to alter the curriculum enough to satisfy both Catholic and secular parents?

In order for this decision to become possible there must be a change to the laws of New York. Because the law states that no private school can be converted to a charter school, by allowing Catholic schools to convert would show blatant favoritism to the Catholic faith. Also, under the current system involving students enrolling in chartered schools, they must be selected through a lottery. In this plan, all students already enrolled in the Catholic school will be automatically accepted once the school is chartered. Once again this is clear sponsorship of the Catholic Church by the state of New York.

Even though the intentions of Mr. Bloomberg are admirable, and look to solve the problem of overcrowding of New York’s public schools, if his plan is to avoid considerable legal issues, there will need to be several amendments. Because the plan, as it stands now, will allow quite a few components of the previous curriculum in place, in which numerous ideals of the Catholic religion are taught to students, I find it extremely difficult to believe it will make it through the judicial system.

Defense Act of Marriage

http://www.latimes.com/classified/jobs/news/la-me-marriage-act6-2009feb06,0,870488.story

This article from Los Angeles Times reflects a number of issues surrounding gay marriage in addition to its story about a homosexual (married) couple and their fight for equality and justice. This particular couple succeeded in grabbing the attention of Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, who ruled that the couple was entitled to the same benefits as any other heterosexual couple working as a “deputy federal public defender,” as which one of the partners in the marriage most certainly did.

The 1996 Defense Act of Marriage states, “‘‘No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.’’

How does this Act pass as constitutional?
The wording and ambiguity of the Act does a few things: 1. It circumvents the constitutionality issue by giving each “State, territory, or possession of the United States” the right to choose whether or not it wants to “give effect to any public act, record…respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as marriage…” by saying “No State [etc]…shall be required to give effect. 2. The Act seems to disrespect the “State, territory (etc)” that allowed the marriage by saying that another “State” isn’t required to give the couple the same rights, which seems to violate due process and equal protection in many peoples’ eyes, in addition to some other constitutional issues like the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
Of course, this is all assuming that same-sex marriage isn’t actually a marriage, because it is not the union of a man and a woman (also described in the underpinnings of this Act).

Why can’t a marriage be between people of the same sex? Is it for religious reasons? Other reasons? It seems to me that our Founding Fathers were so focused on equality and liberty, and isn’t this Act of 1996 inhibiting that equality and liberty? Do the majority of faiths that generally disagree with homosexuality have power and precedence in this situation? Or is it something else?

The case of this particular homosexual couple is virtually pointless for other couples, seeing as how it was determined in the “court’s administrative dispute process, rather than in lawsuit judgments.” However, in contrast to the article’s opinion, I thought this case was definitely not “meaningless,” per se. If some justice could be served in a small case that received widespread attention, who’s to say that larger and larger cases won’t receive the same rulings and judgments in the future? On the other hand, as the article did mention, if a case concerning this Act were to reach the federal court, it probably would be repealed and deemed unconstitutional.

Evangelicals in a new political atmosphere

Religious columnist Mark Early made the case in a Monday column on The Christian Post that religious groups must stay involved in the political process.
(http://www.christianpost.com/Opinion/Columns/2009/02/evangelicals-and-politics-16/)
His argument focuses on the possible contradiction between living in the model of Jesus and pursuing social reform through lobbying the government. In his mind, these are not mutually exclusive.
With the election of Barak Obama, some are predicting the end of the Religious Right, even calling for evangelicals to extricate themselves from the political process.
Doing so would be a mistake.
The Religious Right certainly has gained a negative image among much of the American populace, through abrasive leadership and a sense of moral superiority. This image certainly needs to be expunged, but the evangelical movement removing itself from the political process is not the way to do it.
Polls show that 25 to 30 percent of the American people ascribe to an evangelical denomination. For the movement to ignore the specific needs and views of its constituent members by failing to lobby for them would be a dereliction of duty.
Religion must be kept from entangling with government, but that does not mean religious concerns should not be brought to the attention of government.
Just as people have valid political, social, and moral ideologies absent of religion that they advocate for, so do religious groups. They should not flee the system simply because a new President is in office.

Pelosi Visits the Pope

Controversy and general interest is growing in Europe and the United States as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is set to meet with Pope Benedict XVI on Wednesday (Feb 18th). An article from the Boston Globe, written by Michael Paulson, details the different stories and intriguing issues surrounding this diplomatic visit.
Paulson outlines the controversy that Pelosi’s visit will bring to the Vatican and Catholics all around the world (namely the United States). Pelosi is known as a practicing Catholic but differs greatly in some very traditional Catholic beliefs such as the legality/morality of abortion. Pelosi supports abortion rights (a complicated issue, Paulson would have been better to detail her views) which goes against what many conservative Catholics in the US believe.
Opposition to the Speaker’s visit comes by way of Reverend Thomas J. Euteneuer, president of Human Life International. Rev Euteneuer does not necessarily oppose the visit by Pelosi, but proclaims the only morally right outcome of this visit would be for the Pope to persuade Pelosi to changer her religiously moral status.
The purpose of this visit should not have the type of interest and debate because the issues that should be discussed between the figures should involve little-to-none about religion. Pelosi represents a nation just as the Pope represents Vatican City. While the Pope’s role in his government is of an obvious religious relationship, Pelosi’s is strictly politics. The only discussion that is appropriate for the two leaders is that which reflects the political needs/interest of their respective nations. Pelosi is the congressional delegate to Italy, a role that does not entitle her to discuss anything of a religious matter unless it pertains to the rights and legalities held in our constitution.
The author poses the question of if either or both are right to meet with each other. If the purpose of this meeting is to forward relations and political interest of each respective state, then the meeting is fully justified. This would hold true just as if any US representative was meeting with any other theocracy in the world. It comes down to the meat of the topic at hand and whether Pelosi indulges any of the Pope’s attempts to combine politics with religion, two very separate spheres of influences in many American lives.

The wall of separation divides both ways

In his blog post entitled Uncle Sam's Faith, Samuel Rodriguez, president of the Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, discusses the symbiotic relationship between the government and religious organizations and how both work independently towards similar goals of service. He writes in response to the question as to whether or not the Obama Administration should be able to approve who churches and religious organizations hire.

Rodriguez holds that the government should have no say over who religious organizations hire to manage funds granted to them. He ascribes this policy to the same merit as the federal approval of sermons for a religious service. Some suggest that approval of hires is necessary to insure that federal money does not promote a particular religious belief over another, or at all. However, these organizations receive funding in order to act effectively where the government often cannot--work enabling "community empowerment and renewal."

In the context of both secular and non-secular entities, there remains an obligation to serve the community and to help those in need. Though there is a wall between church and state, both entities seek to provide aid. I found Rodriguez's reference to the relief response to victims of Hurricane Katrina to be an excellent example of an incident where religion stepped in and went further to help people than the government ever could. In such a case, religious organizations and the government worked within the same sphere to provide relief to those afflicted.

Rodriguez says that religious organization should be held to the same standards as the government when it comes to providing services and aid to the community. While the federal government should give grants to all religious organizations seeking to provide aid regardless of who they hire, the organizations receiving these grants should also provide services that benefit the entire community, instead of particular types of people. He defines a difference between personal belief and the mission of outreach, saying that though religious organizations may vary in beliefs, they all should maintain the same goal of promoting goodwill and service to all individuals in their communities.

Because there is so much concern for keeping church and state separate, those who could ultimately benefit the most from this type of aid fall through the divide. I believe that though separation of church and state is necessary, cooperation between secular and non-secular entities can be proactive towards promoting a commonly supported good. Between church and state, there is concern that one party is being secular, while the other is simultaneously worried about being religious--a hardening of the division that limits the potential capabilities of both entities. Especially with the current economic climate, all organizations providing aid should work together to address a problem that is greater than any dogma--religious or political.

What to do with Political Islam

Mark Lilla’s article “The Politics of God” in The New York Times Magazine highlights some interesting new ideas in the realm of foreign policy that I think could fall right in line with Obama’s new politics of change. The article is somewhat old but what Lilla is calling for is absolutely pertinent to America’s new leadership and the need for change in our international politics. Lilla explains that we live on the “other shore” from nations and people who accept political theology as the only legitimate way to think about political life. He highlights the major problems encountered with modern Islamic states; how to deal with Islamic states that are based on a political theology, how to deal with the transnational Islamic political ideology, and how to treat fellow Western citizens who are Muslim. When it comes to dealing with states, Lilla maintains that we have to drop any illusions we have that we share a common vocabulary when it comes to politics. This does not mean we can't deal with each other, only that it will make it easier if we don't have any illusions about the slim possibility of establishing a constitutional, liberal democratic order in an area of the world where people still accept the legitimacy of political theology.

A more delicate matter he raises is what to do about fellow citizens who themselves may still accept the legitimacy of Islamic political theology but are living with us as fellow citizens. This is not a large problem in the United States at the moment but is much more pressing in Europe due to immigration policies that have resulted in larger more concentrated Muslim communities. Many of these citizens do not accept the legitimacy of democratic institutions. Lilla explains that, “Like Orthodox Jewish law, the Muslim Shariah is meant to cover the whole of life, not some arbitrarily demarcated private sphere, and its legal system has few theological resources for establishing the independence of politics from detailed divine commands… Accommodation and mutual respect can help, as can clear rules governing areas of tension…But we need to recognize that coping is the order of the day, not defending high principle, and that our expectations should remain low.” (9).

Lilla does not call for the liberalization of religion in order to reconcile it with the present political order on the grounds that if that liberal religion fails there is a tendency to turn towards a more messianic one, to bring down the judgment of God on a political order that is not just. He calls for an internal renewal of political theology; somewhat of an Islamic protestant reformation. He comments on how western intellectuals prefer to associate with Islamic liberalizers rather then the few figures that are pushing for renewal. If our current administration, and others around the world, would open themselves to transformation in Muslim political theology rather than focusing on Muslim liberalization we could see new lines of accommodation and understanding.

Guns in Church

An article in NY Times discusses a bill on the Arkansas senate floor that would allow concealed weapons in churches. Opponents of the bill argue that allowing concealed weapons would disturb the peace and tranquility of the church while supporters say that the bill is about an individual’s right to protect themselves should a situation arise. A pastor that was shot previously after a sermon does not support the bill, as he believes there would have been even more drastic consequences if other people had been armed as well.

This bill brings up the issue of how far the state can go into legislating what goes on inside the church. Is carrying concealed weapons an issue that should be regulated by the government, or should it be left up to the individual churches? By passing this law, it appears as though the state is telling a religion exactly what it can and cannot allow, which could be perceived to cross the free exercise clause by ruling that churches have to allow concealed weapons in their congregations. Carrying concealed weapons seems to be more of a governmental issue instead of a moral issue which is why the government has created this bill. I suppose the moral issue at stake is the consequences that come from gun use and the church feels that the possibilities of concealed weapons could influence their congregations’ thoughts on the matter.

It is unclear to me why the government needs to create specific legislation for churches about concealed weapons. Carrying a concealed weapon is already a very controversial issue and bringing religion into the conversation cannot help matters. By legislating on this issue, lawmakers have created an atmosphere of conflict in both the public and religious spheres. People in churches now may feel threatened by the possibility of a concealed weapon whereas before, it seems that churches were viewed as safe havens. Perhaps in today’s world, no place can be considered truly safe and thus, it is necessary for laws to be created that seek to protect individual’s rights. However, I do not think that allowing people to carry weapons will contribute to keeping people safer. Instead of creating specific legislation about guns in church, I think applying the general law of allowing concealed weapons is sufficient for people to make a reasonable and rational choice when they attend their places of worship.

You Know You Shouldn’t Be A Science Teacher When...

Wouldn’t it be nice if we could all just live and let live?  I realize that this is tough when there is a cross burning in your yard or when a giant menorah is placed in your neighborhood roundabout to counteract the religious influences of a nativity scene is another public area, but when it comes to borderline Free Establishment issues on the internet, I become much less tolerant (pun not intended).

Here’s the deal.  The San Francisco Chronicle (a great media outlet to check out if you want to find debate over more petty local religious issues over the span of one week than my significantly larger hometown has seen in a year) reported that a schoolteacher named Jeanne Caldwell has appealed a California Supreme Court case brought against UC Berkeley to the US Supreme Court.  What could have caused her so much distress, you might ask? Was it religious affirmative action, or maybe even public sponsorship of a religious group on campus?  No.  It was a website.  A university-sponsored website explaining evolution.   I really hope Caldwell isn’t a biology teacher.

Notice that I chose not to capitalize “evolution.” Doing so would make it seem like a doctrine of sorts, like Keynesian economics or Freudian psychology, when in fact it is just science.  And not even science that is disputed by reasonable people within the scientific community; in fact I would go so far as to say that nearly all scientists would agree with the basic concept that organisms are capable of evolving.  Therefore it seems that a public university would, above all else, be entitled to disseminate proven, factual, scientific information via whatever mode of communication it pleases.

At the center of this debate is one specific page (let me clarify, this is an enormously comprehensive website with hundreds of individual pages) titled, “Misconception:  ‘Evolution and religion are incompatible.’” It goes on to explain that, while the belief that that the world was literally created in six days stands in defiance of all scientific fact, it is possible to take a slightly less hard-line approach by accepting evolution and seeing God in nature (as many people choose to do).  This site is designed to aid teachers who find themselves fielding questions from students about how these two conflicting ideas can fit together.  Caldwell challenges the right of UC Berkeley to use publicly funded web space to make the assertion that this interplay is possible.

Interestingly enough, her case does not take issue with the fact that science (read:  evolution) must be taught in schools.  She argues that “UC's government-funded assertion contradicts a religious belief that evolution and religion are incompatible and amounts to a state position on religious doctrine.” Caldwell is trying to prove that the government saying “Can’t we all just get along?” is tantamount to the establishment or endorsement of a particular religious doctrine.  What’s more, she admits to using this resource as a teaching tool.

Ultimately, though, the issue at stake is much larger than the numerous things in the public realm that this teacher must find offensive.  If the Supreme Court accepts this case, its decision will broaden the realm of Free Establishment and Exercise clauses to govern the realm of the internet.  I haven’t made up my mind yet about where exactly to draw the cyber-line, but I sincerely hope that when the time comes for the Supreme Court to start making rulings regarding not-particularly-questionable web content, it will be over an issue far less asinine that this one.

Gay Marriage & Polarization

Brad Hirschfield discusses the church’s stance on gay marriage in his article Lincoln, Darwin, and Gay Marriage. He warns against the Presbyterian Church USA and others using purely scripture to make and justify their stances. He compares the issues on the forefront of church’s platforms to Lincoln and Darwin. Both of these men did things that were ultimately proved correct and right, but greatly and harmfully polarized people at the same time. In Lincoln’s case, slavery was ended, but at the same time his actions resulted in the most profound division in American history and “he took America… into the bloodiest war we ever fought.” Darwin’s ideas also were well intended and correct but also “created a bloody culture war.” Hirschfield relates this to the modern argument over gay marriage where he believes the topic is needlessly dividing the church and the nation. He insinuates that even if the “right” side wins, the collateral damage will not be worth it.
He points out that the use of scripture to back up the two sides of the conflict will likely make the disagreement more harmful as each side becomes more stubborn. He advises the two sides to approach “these issues with greater humility.” David Chappell notes that Martin Luther King Jr. was inspired by Reinhold Nieburh and his “emphasis on the need for ‘coercion’ to achieve justice.” This along with the belief of both sides that they are supported by God has potential to lead to a serious polarizing conflict.
I agree with Hirschfield that heatedly debating many issues such as gay marriage does more harm to the nation than good. Our nation is in a place where Americans need to come together on large issues especially the economy than bicker amongst ourselves on things like gay marriage and creationism. As Hirschfield notes, both sides can compile scriptures making them believe “God is leaning their way” as did those in favor of slavery before the civil war. A great cultural war appears to approaching the US over these issues. Should Americans continue to keep these issues on the forefront of politics and church agendas? Will the continued discussion lead to a modern culture war? How severe will this conflict be?

The Thousand-Years War

In his weekly column, conservative pundit Rod Dreher argues that the culture wars aren’t over—that they’ll never be over, as a matter of fact. Despite what some people seem to think, Barack Obama isn’t blessed with a magical power to heal our divisions and bring us together to hold hands and sing. Writes Dreher:

Will Barack Obama end the culture wars? He couldn't if he wanted. In America, the culture war will never die, only wax and wane across multiple battlefields. When you live in a large, diverse, pluralistic democracy, it comes with the territory.

It’s become fashionable to bemoan the culture wars as the worst thing to happen to America since smallpox. Everybody hates the culture war. Liberals hate it, because they think it distracts from more important issues, things like health care and education. Conservatives hate it, because it signals a challenge to American traditions. Moderates hate it most of all, because they’re sick of being whipsawed between two equally zealous bunches of sign-waving, slogan-chanting crazies.

I admit the culture wars aren’t pleasant. They’re bitter, nasty, and divisive. There’s no easier way to lose a friend then to talk about cultural politics. They can also get awfully repetitive. How many gallons of ink—both real and electronic—have been spilled out on the abortion issue alone? Yet we’re not any closer to solving that whole mess than we were in 1973.

But I think Dreher’s right. The culture wars are as American as apple pie, if slightly less tasty. If we’ve learned one thing in class, it’s that America is a diverse nation. The statistic that “80% of Americans are Christian, and 90% believe in God” conceals an incredible richness of opinion. Two people can be exactly the same—same race, same religion, same age, same education—and still hold completely different opinions. Multiply that by a million, and you’ve got America.

That means there are always going to be debates over culture, and they’re always going to be nasty. If people aren’t arguing about abortion, they’ll argue about gay marriage. If not gay marriage, then they’ll talk about evolution. That’s just the way opinions are. If someone holds a belief very deeply, they’re naturally going to be passionate about it.

This is especially true where religion’s concerned. Conservative Christians aren’t against abortion because they hate women. They’re against it because they think it’s barbaric. Liberal Christians aren’t in favor of gay marriage because they hate the family. They just think all couples should be treated equally.

Those who say, “Stop! Enough already! Let’s have a truce!” ought to be careful what they wish for. We can end the culture wars. It’d be easy, really. All you need to do is get rid of opinions that make other people uncomfortable. If nobody talked about abortion, or gay marriage, or school prayer, then we wouldn’t have a culture war anymore. There’d be no need to get upset, because there would be nothing to get upset about.

You would kill the culture wars stone dead. You’d also be killing America. The culture wars express the diversity of American belief. Neuter that—declaw it—defang it—and you have nothing left but a gray, mushy middle. I’ll take a culture war over that any day.

Obama's Faith-Based Mistake

This article from the New York Times' editorial board criticizes newly minted President Barack Obama for failing to live up to his campaign promise to institute "a firm rule barring the discrimination on the basis of religion" when handing out federal grants to faith-based organizations.

The anonymous author of the piece bemoans Obama's lack of initiative to overturn former President George W. Bush's 2002 executive order which permitted faith-based programs to "hire and fire on religious grounds." The idea that federal funding will continue to support the tactics by these programs is disappointing to the author, especially considering Obama's vehement campaign messages about the separation of church and state—now contradicted by his actions as President.

In their historical account of the politicization of religion in the United States, The God Strategy, David Domke and Kevin Coe describe how the Republican party under George W. Bush "elevated the gravity of issues such as abortion and same-sex relationships by calling for constitutional amendments and a reformed judiciary." In concordance with this concept, Bush's faith-based initiatives that permitted discrimination based on religion seems to challenge and even deny the Constitutional assertion of the separation of church and state in this country. 

As the editorial notes, Obama posited that faith-based organizations who receive federal money "'can't use the grant money to proselytize to the people you help and you can't discriminate against them.'" How then, does his limited reform of Bush's faith-based programs reflect on this promise? Domke and Coe's characterization of the Republican party singling out salient social issues like gay rights for federal reform in the 2000s seems very apt considering President Bush's notorious pandering to the Christian Right for support. But Obama, who distanced himself as much as possible from the "politics of the last eight years" in his campaign, has aligned himself almost sheepishly, with Bush's unconstitutional laws concerning faith-based initiatives. In order to establish his own presidential reputation, how can Obama remedy and change the faith-based programs to suit the Constitution while simultaneously maintaining their effectiveness?

Religion's Constant Presence

In his article, "Untruths About Obama, Echoes of a Distant Time",  Samuel Freedman compares the mudslinging during the Election of 1928 with the slander directed towards Barack Obama in the Election of 2008.  In 1928, Alfred E. Smith was the Democratic presidential candidate.  As a Catholic, he received a considerable amount of criticism and slander from the Republican Party, and many historians argue his religion cost him the election.  Freedman compares the strategy of the Republican Party in combating Smith with comments in 2008 defaming Obama as a "Muslim terrorist." 

There are a few obvious differences between the two situations, and perhaps the most evident is the fact that, while Smith was indeed a Catholic, Obama is not actually a Muslim.  Furthermore, our society is increasingly more accepting of Catholics now than it was in the past, as evidenced by the election of Catholic John F. Kennedy in 1960. However, underlying the tension in these elections is a strong religious current that has existed in America since its colonization.

Why do we, as Americans, feel so strongly about having a Christian, and above all a Protestant, as a President?  Interestingly, many of the remarks that Obama was a Muslim were not necessarily offensive.  Yet Obama persistently worked to establish his identity as a devout Christian.  He obviously felt it extremely important to establish a sense of religious--more specifically, Christian--morality in order to appeal to voters.

In With God on Our Side, William Martin discusses the persistence of religion in America since the Puritans.  He notes the Great Awakening and Billy Sunday's influence and also discusses how events like the Scopes "Monkey Trial" led to transformations of Christian groups.  Above all, Martin emphasizes how, despite the surges and ebbs of religious influence in the United States, religion has retained a prominent role in our society.

As evidenced by various voters' reactions to the idea that Obama was a Muslim--"He's a terrorist himself!"--we continue to fear other religions as "un-American." However, while Freedman's article has an underlying criticism of this religious presence in politics, it is important to recognize Martin's argument that religion will undoubtedly continue to influence us.  There will unquestionably continue to be acts of discrimination against other religious groups.  For instance, Freedman notes the anti-immigration rhetoric that has surged in recent years.  However, there are positive aspects of religion in society also, as shown by the advances made towards racial equality in the Civil Rights movement, a movement motivated in large part by religion.  Religion is going to continue to influence society and politics, so we must work to harness the positive aspects of religious presence.  How can we reconcile the persistence of religion, specifically Protestantism, in our society with the diverse American community in a way that avoids discrimination?