Following God’s Will
In the New York Times last week, Kirk Johnson and Kim Severson explored the religious life of Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin through their article "In Palin's Life and Politics, Goal to Follow God's Will." The piece begins with a story of the newly elected Governor Palin writing an email to her pastor asking for advice on her governorship and seeking biblical examples of godly leadership. “God’s Will” seems to be a recurring theme in the religious life of political figures— In the 2000 election, George Bush often replied to questions about his religious life with a statement about how he seeks “God’s will” in his daily life and that he would seek this will in office. In his address at the 2006 National Day of Prayer, Bush says that “By surrendering our will to God's will, we learn to serve His eternal purposes.” While his remarks were given in a religious setting, they are still indicative of his belief that “God’s will” should be the guiding influence in his life as President of the
This notion that leaders are seeking to follow the will of God seems to be relatively accepted in American society— certainly much more tolerated than Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s sermon “God Damn America.” I think that part of this acceptance is due to the neutrality of “God” in God’s will. Similar to the founding father’s discussion of the divine, this God is not strictly a Christian, Jewish, or Muslim God. Palin and Bush, while confessing their Christian faith, have refrained from saying they want to follow the “will of Jesus Christ,” and have thus projected a relatively mainstream view on this issue.
Posts
9 comments:
While I certainly agree that it has become accepted for politicians to publicly state that they are guided by God's will in our life I find it interesting that this would be so. With the recent uproar over the use of the word God in the Pledge of Allegiance and the Ten Commandments being displayed in government buildings I am at a loss as to why fewer people are upset by this trend. Bennett's point that most politicians do not specifically mention Christianity and that other religions are included is valid but the same is true of the Pledge of Allegiance and that has been a very controversial issue.
This issue of acting on the will of God is a lot bigger than we might think. Although Palin claims she doesn’t plan on spreading her faith or act on her beliefs, we should look at her previous comments. You said that she never really talks about Jesus, but when she was running for Governor of Alaska in 2006, she commented on our reason for being in Iraq. She said, “Well, God bless the, and I mean God and Jesus because without Jesus we'd be Muslims too or Jewish, which would be a little better because of the superior Israeli Air Force.” This sort of ignorance can’t be healthy for the American people and is dangerous for a public official to believe. I think this scares many voters, and as the election moves on, this Christian extremism will become more public and affect voter’s decisions.
Matt-- I'm glad you found that quote-- I definitely think that such remarks move the debate beyond the beliefs of religious leaders associated with the candidates (both Palin and Obama's pastors have been criticized) and toward the religious beliefs of the candidates themselves. The American public could tolerate such words coming from a candidate's pastor, but not from a candidate himself/herself.
It is true that most of the time, despite Palin’s quote provided by Matt, candidates do not refer to a specific religion in public addresses, or say things like, “Jesus bless America.” However, candidates are very explicit when answering questions about their religion. Thus, it seems people are comfortable with candidates defining their God in a personal context and not in a public context. Yet, why does it matter that a candidate clarifies his personal religion? For those giving the religious test, it is because they want to know if the candidate shares their specific religious values and if that candidate will represent those principles in government. Thus, for some Americans, a defined God is more important than a neutral God, and they want the personal and public contexts of that specific God to mix.
Although both Bush and Palin name God in neutral terms to appeal to all faiths, their belief in a very political God is inescapable. Both Bush and Palin use neutral religious terminology like “mission,” “God’s will,” and “God’s plan”; however, the context in which these words are embedded is political. As a result, their efforts to “project a relatively mainstream view” end in futile failure.
Bush, for example, claimed that he was on a mission from God when he decided to invade Afghanistan and Iraq. Along the same lines, Palin is now claiming that it is “God’s will” to construct a big pipeline in the state of Alaska. In my opinion, their branding of the Alaskan pipeline and the war in Afghanistan and Iraq as “mission[s] from God” has isolated them from most Jews, Muslims, and even Christians.
I strongly believe that “follow[ing] the will of God” is not accepted in American society. This disquietude is just beginning to surface as Palin’s fundamental religious beliefs are increasingly becoming scrutinized. In a particular way, we are now more cautious about Palin’s God because we’ve experienced the agenda of George W. Bush’s.
Though we have “Annuit Coeptis”—God has favored our undertakings—blazoned on the back of our dollar bills, our country was not founded upon the beliefs of a few colonists nor on the idea that we were the moral reformers of the world. In American Gospel, Meacham explains that “the nature of [our] republic was dependent on the nature of its people” (79) not “God’s will”. American society and the Founding Fathers had the hope that the “people’s will” was “God’s will” but not necessarily that “God’s will” was “the people’s will”. Moreover, the Founding Fathers made it clear that “no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of harmony existing between…two countries” (Meacham, 103).
In essence, what Bush’s and Palin’s religiosity has done is pervert the original intention of the meaning of Annuit Coeptis.
It is important for a president and/or a presidential candidate to look for God’s will if that is what they truly believe in. Asking a pastor or a person that they trust in for guidance to help them make the right decisions can make give them confidence in their decision-making.
All of that being said, they are still politicians and they will say whatever they can to get elected, even if that means, “selling their souls.”
Bennet, you said something very interesting that I’d like to pick up on. You said, “The American public could tolerate such words coming from a candidate's pastor, but not from a candidate himself/herself.” My question is why could we not tolerate it coming from a candidate? It is not as though that candidate has already been elected into a position of influence, and is telling his/her citizens to convert to one religion or another (because that clearly would be unacceptable). If anything, a candidate making such a statement simply the gives the voters more information about the candidate --- information that could be helpful is making their decision. I’m not saying that they should be force to reveal this information, since that is clearly a violation of the Constitution, but if they are offering it freely, why would we as voters reject such information about the candidate? If you are opposed to public officials making such statements, which I’m gathering you are, then you now have important information that will influence your vote. Also, it would appear that, at the very least, the Alaskan public did tolerate such words, since they went on to elect her governor even after she made that statement.
I'm glad that our religious leaders have faith and follow their beliefs, I don't necessarily believe that this has a place in politics. It's fine if Palin wants to go to church on Sundays, follow religious beliefs in her own personal life. But it isnt 'God's Will' that we are in Iraq, its America's will and pride and necessity to defend ourselves that has us in Iraq. It may be their religious war, but it isn't an American religious war. Unless our freedom of religion is being oppressed, I don’t think that religion should play a part in American politics or reason to go to war. It isn’t God’s Will that we’re in Iraq, its George Bush’s will.
Post a Comment