The authors of the article are quick to point out Obama’s defense against the criticism that the program, started by the Bush administration, “blurs the constitutional separation of church and state.” Through careful supervision, Obama promises that groups would not use funds for proselytizing or that groups could not discriminate against “potential recipients or employees” based on their religious choice.
While the article focuses on Obama’s support of this program for religious groups, the underlying message is a clear example of the influence of religion or religious people on the current election: Obama is trying to court evangelical voters. When a candidate supports government programs that fund a religious group’s endeavor, religious people in those groups are more likely to vote for him. The article states, Obama is “trying to take advantage of signs that some conservative Christians are rethinking their politics, [who are] concerned about issues including climate change, genocide, AIDS and poverty.” The article even notes how McCain also showed his support for the same program, and that McCain is struggling to gain favor from evangelicals too.
When comparing the current role of religion in politics to its role in the early years of America, the concerns of separation of church and state are similar, but the issue of politicians purposely bringing religion into politics to secure votes is slightly different. Despite the belief often held by conservative Christians that the Founding Fathers were radical Christians who built this nation upon the principles of God, most of the early leaders did not use their religion to persuade the people. Rather the people questioned the beliefs of their leaders, and the leaders responded with a balanced answer that acknowledged God’s importance, but focused more on God not being a determinant in their governmental position. Even though there are examples like George Washington and his use of Christian allusions in public addresses (Meacham, 78), the majority of political leaders focused on avoiding direct religious commentary for political purposes. When some, like Benjamin Rush and Benjamin Franklin, did allude to religious contexts, they were highly criticized (Meacham, 91).
Today, the answers provided to questions about personal religious choices are different because religion plays a more vital role in securing voters. If a candidate does not state his religious beliefs, he risks losing a set of voters because for some people, a candidate’s religion is more important than other views. In addition, current candidates’ answers are less concerned with the balance of personal choice with church and state separation, but more emphatic in stating their belief because it is something certain voters want to hear. A good example of this is McCain’s unhesitating and succinct profession of his beliefs, when questioned by pastor Rick Warren's Saddleback Forum. For the founders, ensuring that Americans understood religious freedom as a natural right was key, and for current politicians, ensuring that Americans can relate to their specific religious identity is highly important.
Posts
2 comments:
This post brings up the interesting question of how the founding fathers would feel about candidates using their religion to convince potential voters to support them. I think that it is fairly obvious that the majority of the founding fathers didn't believe that religion was a good choice by which to judge a candidate. At the same time however, one must consider how different the world is today. In the day of twenty four hour cable news channels we know so many details about political candidates that it was inevitable that religion would come up. It has gotten to the point that if a candidate is not open and up front with his or her religious beliefs that we assume the worst. In the end, I think that this use of religion to gain votes would frustrate the founding fathers but they would see the necessity of it
I agree with Margaret P. that, in current day politics, politicians go through great lengths to assert their specific religious identity because both McCain an Obama agreed to the Saddleback Forum and support the religious based groups’ participation in charity-based projects. However, I disagree with the article’s argument that only Obama’s interest in securing evangelical votes is the sole reason for his support of this program. In contrast to the article, my own view is that perhaps Obama is doing exactly what America’s Founders intended for America’s leaders to do and that is to maintain a public religion. The public religion is applied subtly, but necessarily to politics and to all Americans as a way of defining the Nation’s identity as a united entity. Obama’s call for cooperation from religious based groups does not have to be a political move to gain more voters, it may also be the acceptance of an opportunity to remind America that we all need to work together to end major problems that plague our poor. In my opinion, while his responses to Rick Warren’s questions clearly defined his religion (as Rick Warren had prompted him to do) it more importantly demonstrated his goal to include and consider the interests of all Americans in his policies. His answer was thoughtful and he seemed to try not to offend anyone.
Post a Comment