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?
Posts
2 comments:
Katie brings up a very valid problem with American society. Although we claim to be a “melting pot” of different and diverse cultures, we are not nearly as “accepting” as we claim to be. Discrimination against religion, culture, and skin color still exists today, much to our despair. The Republican Party’s attempt to call Obama a “Muslim terrorist” in order to defame him is a clear indicator that our society has predispositions of various cultures. How can we get rid of this? Consequently, electing Barack Obama shows us that this racial discrimination is not nearly as strong today as it used to be – as a society, we have become much more accepting recently.
It is sad how pettiness and contempt often participate in the political dialogue. Whether it be anti-Catholic or anti-Muslim sentiment, there is no telling how low the discussion can stoop in the heat of politics. As Katie wrote, “religion will undoubtedly continue to influence us.” Hopefully, we can learn to approach the discussion in more civil terms.
Post a Comment