Firstly, I agree with the point that James and Nicholas Kristof (from his article) already made: whether Obama is a Muslim or a Christian really should not matter. However, I think the above article from the Miami Herald reveals some more interesting issues.
Much of the garbage being spouted about Obama and his Muslim beliefs have been from hearsay and emails, which, once started, are hard to stop. However, as recently as last week, the attacks were still flowing, even from figures in full public view:
Here's what Dennis Baxley, a former state legislator from Ocala and the executive director of the Christian Coalition of Florida, one of the most prominent groups on the religious right, said during an interview with the Miami Herald about Obama's outreach to the Christian community:
"He's pretty scary to us,'' he said. "I think his Muslim roots and training -- while they try to minimize it -- it's there."
Mr. Baxley's word choice is particularly interesting. Does he, then, believe that Sen. McCain has "Christian roots and training" -- or is "training" something that only Muslim terrorists get? Baxley goes on and attempts to associate Obama with the "active movement by radical Muslims to occupy us," then talks about Europe:
I think you can tell from his appeal and how a lot of the media emphasized how loved he is in other places. I'm very concerned that our own American values rooted in Christian principles be protected.... I just want someone who will take those responsibilities of preserving American values and American culture and not try to make us citizens of the world.
This quote from Baxley makes his problem with Obama very clear: he is afraid of America's pure, Christian values becoming corrupted by this foreign influence. What could be worse than a president that could destroy American values and culture from the top down?
It seems that not much has changed in the way of American fears of foreign influence. A major part of Morone's argument in Hellfire Nation is that much of American history has been influenced by the desire to keep the purity of white Americans away from the dark, corrupt foreigners and blacks. For example, some prohibitionists characterized foreigners as drunkards and argued that Americans should not allow them to ruin the superior morality of Americans. Baxley is doing much of the same: subtly hinting at Muslims being terrorists, implying that Obama values foreigners over Americans, and stating that Obama is an unwise choice for the leader of Christian America.
However, at the same time, much has changed. The fact that Baxley was willing to go on the record with such distortions of the truth (if not outright lies) shows that he felt a significant portion of his audience would be influenced by what he said and may not vote for Obama due to his "Muslim roots." Has religion always been this important for political office? Thomas Jefferson was barely Christian, if at all; the most apt description of his religious beliefs would be Deism. James Madison's religious views differed very little from Jefferson's. Could they have been elected president in today's political climate? It is difficult for me to imagine this nation electing anyone who is not Christian to the office of the president.
It seems religion is becoming more and more important in the presidential election, which is quite contrary to the goals of the Founding Fathers. Even Kennedy's 1960 speech to Houston ministers, rejecting religion as a major election issue (in front of ministers, no less!) and instead pointing to more worldly issues, is unimaginable (at least to me) in this year's election. Rick Warren's audience would have booed Kennedy off the stage had he been giving his speech at Saddleback.
Jefferson and Madison would probably be quite disappointed to see the interaction between politics and religion today.
Posts
10 comments:
I definitely think David picks up on an important point when he says that these attacks are hard to stop once they start. For example, if you use the Google toolbar search and type “Is Barack…” the first two suggestions are, “Is Barack Obama the antichrist?” and “Is Barack Obama a Muslim?” Clearly, people are still putting out a lot of false information and it is very hard to break down a person’s first impression.
I also find it incredibly discouraging that anyone would put down the idea of being a citizen of the world, as Dennis Baxley did. We should all strive to citizens of the world. It is pretty unbelievable that we are still having this debate considering Socrates once said, “I am not an Athenian or a Greek, but a citizen of the world.” But, alas, some people still are not willing to make that leap. Being a citizen of the world does not require us to give up what makes us unique as Americans, it simply requires us to realize that our actions impact the world as a whole.
David has two statements that I see as important questions that might highlight the role of religion in American politics. First, he says it is difficult to imagine this nation electing anyone who is not Christian, and then says that religion is becoming more and more important in elections, which is opposite to the goals of the Founding Fathers. My questions are why is it hard to imagine not having a Christian president and why is religion more important in elections today? One reason why religion is more important in elections now is that some voters link political issues to their religious values (same sex marriage and abortion, for example, which were not issues at the time of the founding fathers). Furthermore, the “nature of a republic,” as Jon Meacham (American Gospel) says, should reflect the “nature of its people” (79), which is important when considering that a candidate’s religion is very important to a majority of voters. Unfortunately, uninformed leaders (like Baxley) and the media lead many voters away from personal principles, and the reflection of the people in the republic is not always clear.
I think that David raises a great question. How would Baxley describe McCain’s Christian background? Would he use as strong words as “training”? Baxley’s use of phrases such as “global priorities” and “citizens of the world” to describe his opinion of Obama’s approach to American politics creates a picture of Obama as valuing non-American ideals and concerns over those of the U.S. It seems to me that American culture, while it was built on Christian values, has evolved to include a variety of religious perspectives. How can Baxley dub Obama better suited for Germany’s politics than those of the United States solely based on his religious perspective, when often times one’s religious teachings conflict with their political views? Also, the emphasis on Obama’s less than ideal childhood seems like a very elitist judgment on his abilities to lead the country. I wonder if presidents with more complete immediate families were deemed ill prepared for the presidency.
James Morone’s quotation of, “American politics developed from revival to revival” (p.32) can help explain exactly why Kennedy and Obama could never have switched speeches before their given highly religious audiences. Politics by nature are strategic and I would argue that if Kennedy were alive today, he would have never said that to the Rick Warren audience because of the point in the revival cycle America is current positioned. It is very hard to compare that situation to today’s without the historical context of the past few decades. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963. The counter culture movements of the 1960s and 1970s really geared up after that tragedy. Products of that movement and subsequent scientific developments have created new issues, that like Margaret said, are deeply intertwined in political issues. As every action has an equal an opposite reaction, the late 1970s and early 1980s saw a societal shift towards conservatism. While Kennedy “rejected” religion as a means to judge him as a politician in that speech, Jimmy Carter would have never been elected if his platform had not been that of a “born again Christian” in 1976. The way a politician needs to present religion to the American people directly relies on the current position of a religious revival in the US, and politicians are completely aware of that.
Although I agree that Christians, particularly the Relgious Right, are afraid of foreign influence corrupting America on a spiritual level, I think that they are more concerned with what non-Christian, foreign influence can do on a physical level.
We as Americans have felt suspicious of foreign influence throughout history, but the September 11th attacks on the world trade center changed the strength of that suspicion. We began to worry about foreign influence physically destroying our country. Religion began to be interwined with xenophobia when the 9/11 terrorists were identified as Islamic terrorists. Furthermore, media coverage and Bush's speeches about the war on terrorism hardwired in our minds the deep suspicion of any non-Christian, foreign influence and the catastrophic results as a direct consequence of a lack of vigilance.
For a Christian Right member like Baxley,this deep-seated fear of another catastrophe is best articulated in terms of religion. So, to Baxley a Christian President is fine, whereas a Muslim President is risky, if not forboding.
I don't agree with Baxley's narrow view of religion; however, I understand where he and other Americans are coming from. In my opinion, these harsh perspectives about religion and politics is really an after-effect to the 9/11 attacks.
I agree wholeheartedly with David's excellently argued post. While it shouldn't matter at all, in terms of fit for the Oval Office, if Obama is Christian or Muslim, it seems to be quite a big deal in America today. I think the concern over having a non-Christian President arises from two main sources. The first is power. I think David is right that people are less concerned with a President's theological beliefs, and more concerned with keeping power in the hands of those similar to themselves. It seems to be all about who is in and who is out. Secondly, it is an issue of trust, as Gabriela mentioned above. Ever since 9/11 Americans have glanced twice at "foreigners" wondering just what their intentions really are. This always amuses me, as so few of us are Native Americans. It's a sad thing that religion is now a prerequisite to the elected office, but it is definitely a stark reality.
Dennis Baxley's comments sounds awfully familiar to me-- he reminded me a lot of Josiah Strong and his critique of the Roman Catholic Church in chapter five of his book: Our Country, Its Possible Future and Its Present Crisis, in which he outlines a number of fears he has about the Catholic church and how it threatens America.
In this excerpt Strong essentially characterizes all Catholics as mindless drones who adhere only to the wishes of the Pope:
"Everyone born a Roman Catholic is suckled on authority. His training affects every fiber of his mental constitution. He has been taught that he must not judge for himself, nor trust to his own convictions."
I found this to be quite similar to some comments of Baxley regarding possible Muslim influences of Obama:
"That concerns me particularly in the period of history we are living in, when there's an active movement by radical Muslims to occupy us...That whole way of life is all about submission. It concerns me that someone rooted in those beginnings, how it might have affected their outlook. That's what scary for me"
In another passage Strong specifically warns about the perilous effects of a Catholic education:
"They are being subjected to very different influences in the parochial schools. They are there given a training calculated to make them narrow and bigoted"
Baxley follows with a similar warning:
"I can't speak for anyone else but I'm probably typical of all of the people who are suspect of those Muslim roots. We all know what early intervention with children is all about, and I am really wondering what the influence was on him from his father's background and being in a Muslim country."
It seems that both Strong and Baxley have some sort of xenophobic fear of Catholics and Muslims, respectively. I find it interesting how little the rhetoric of hate speech changes over time.
Here's my source for Baxley's comments-- http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2008/09/christian-leade.html
I agree with David that someone’s religious views should not matter in a political election, at least as not as much as it does, as long as they represent the policy and decision-making you want them to. I also agree that Mr. Baxley’s views are quite scary, but I can only hope that he shares the views of a small minority of citizens and more importantly voters. The point of David’s post I do not completely agree with is that today there is more emphasis on religious views in political office than in the past. Jefferson and Madison at least showed the appearance of some Christianity through attendance of church and use of religious language. I highly doubt that a candidate with even a few, unsubstantiated allegations of being Muslim would have been considered for election in the 18th, 19th, and most of the 20th centuries. Also, the expanding role media has played on our knowledge of candidate’s religious beliefs should not be discarded. We now know more information in general about every candidate, which includes religious affiliations.
Post a Comment