This blog is the collaborative project of students at Duke University (North Carolina), the University of North Carolina (Chapel Hill) and Providence College (Rhode Island). Though they are in different courses, they are engaging in a conversation together about religion, politics and law and their intersecting role in U.S. history and in current events.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
So what if he is?
In a recent column entitled Obama and the Bigots, New York Times columnist, Nicholas D. Kristof argues that the most disturbing form of bigotry present in the 2008 Presidential election is religious bigotry.Kristof focuses specifically on attacks against Barack Obama which have questioned whether he is a Muslim, or even the antichrist.
Kristof realizes that politicians always dismiss these attacks, but says that is not enough.He would like to see a time when a politician can deny a false rumor but also point out that there is no reason it should matter.For Kristof, Obama’s most appropriate response to rumors that he is a Muslim “is a denial followed by: And so what if he were?”Kristof quickly takes a step back and says this Obama cannot actually do this because it would be seen as evidence that he really is a Muslim.America is still full of too much bigotry and ignorance about Islam for him to even take this step.
I agree with Kristof’s point and look forward to the day when the question is not “Is the candidate a Muslim?” but, “Who cares what religion the candidate is, will he make a good President?”That being said, this is not a new issue; religious tests for political candidates have existed throughout the history of our nation.
When Thomas Jefferson ran for President, opponents attacked him because he lacked traditional Christian belief.One newspaper wrote, “GOD-AND A RELIGIOUS PRESIDENT or…JEFFERSON-AND NO GOD.”Jefferson’s religious beliefs did not necessarily fit the standard of the day, in the same way that Obama’s heritage and upbringing do not fit the traditional standard for a President today.
For his part, Jefferson consistently showed that he did not care about a person’s religion, as long as they were an honest and decent members of society.“While I claim the right to believe in one God, I yield as freely to others who believe in three.Both religions, I find, make honest men, and that is the only point society has any right to look to.”In his “Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom,” Jefferson argues that to require a religious test of a public official “is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow citizens he has a natural right.”Jefferson thought great men could be made from any religion, and therefore religious belief should not be part of the criteria we use to judge a public figure.He seemed to look forward to the day in his time when the question was not, “Is he a Baptist, Methodist, or Presbyterian?” but, “So what if he is?”
It would be wrong to say little has changed in America on this subject.We are no longer as worried about the specific differences between denominations.However, an informal religious test for political candidates seems to actually have become more important in recent years.This is a disturbing development for a nation that Jefferson helped to found. If we were to bring Jefferson to the 21st Century, I think that he might be surprised by the diversity of religions in America, but I also think he would be appalled by people falsely slandering a candidate for something that should not even matter.
While Jefferson's religious beliefs may have been unconventional for his time, they nonetheless made him an honorable person who helped create the documents which laid out our American ideals. James L argues that Thomas Jefferson would be “appalled” at the emphasis placed on a candidate’s religion. He quotes Jefferson “While I claim the right to believe in one God, I yield as freely to others who believe in three. Both religions, I find, make honest men, and that is the only point society has any right to look to.” Americans who take issue with having a Muslim candidate look precisely at that point and argue that Islam is a religion which does not “make honest men,” based on the fact that many of the political ideas espoused by its most vocal adherents are at odds with American values. Undoubtedly their interpretation of Islam is limited and biased, but until Islam can present itself better to the American public, anyone suspected of following that religion will be viewed with suspicion if they seek high public office.
The post “So What if He Is?” recognizes an imperative underlying question in the relationship between politics and religion: what exactly does an individual’s religious beliefs state about their ability as a politician to the American people?
Thomas Jefferson once proclaimed, “While I claim a right to believe in one God, I yield freely to others that of believing in three. Both religions, I find, make honest men, and that is the only point society has any right to look to.” I agree with the author of this post that Jefferson’s notions and tolerance were radical for his time period, but, they also exemplify the embedded role of religion in American society. Jefferson is recognizing the good religion brings out in human beings. Americans as a society, and as voters, still do just that. If a candidate is religious, then voters can associate that person with a moral code composed of loving thy neighbor, forgiveness, charity, and accountability for ones own actions. However it is easy to gain access to this ideal image by claiming to be religious without actually being so. The author of the post, as well as the article, calls for a time in America in which rumors of a candidate being Muslim would not matter. To further that thought, it should not matter if a candidate is Atheist, as that is a different kind of personal belief. However, I do believe that Jefferson’s quotation 200+ years ago still rings true: a politician must be religious in some way to be legitimate in this country. Religion humanizes political candidates and gains voter’s trust in a manner that nothing else possibly could.
As will probably be the case a few times for this course, because of what are likely relatively enlightened opinions on the nature and place of religion in our dear nation’s political institutions and processes, I was tempted to comment on this interesting post with a glorified thumbs up. After all, like Kristof and James and MLK, I too have a dream that one day… And I hope that day comes soon. But since I was raised Baptist, I like to bring the devil into things, and this time I’m going to be his advocate.
I intentionally used MLK’s phrasing. Encapsulated within our hopes for a future where someone of any religion can be president is the same rationale that made us excited and told us it just felt right to watch Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama finally slugging it out by themselves in the Democratic Primaries. We are products of liberal education, of super-enlightened enlightenment, and as such we expect people to be able to make decisions based entirely on relevant information and cold, efficient logic no matter what gender, race, or faith they may be. The demographic newcomers signified success. We’re all equal, damnit! – right?
If you noted that sarcasm, you’re probably rolling your eyes and bracing for a wave of postmodernist bashing; I’ll spare you. Yet I think we may need to allow for a fundamental difference between gender and race on the one hand and religious beliefs on the other. For while all but the most bigoted Americans would probably acknowledge that the wholly unintentional act of being born black or female – or even Arab – is neither wrong nor predisposes a person to a life of terror and violence, significantly fewer would let Obama off the hook if he were to claim Islam. Why?
There is an undeniable consensus that Americans are free to actively choose what to believe, what faith or creed to practice. Perhaps this country, so long and arguably still run by white Christian males, simply has not progressed far enough in our so-called enlightened thinking to accept the leadership of someone who is so different by choice, rather than by birth. Or does the crux of the issue lie deeper? Are the majority of Christian Americans even remotely close to actuating the quoted Jeffersonian maxim by accepting that alternate religions can make equally honest men? If we were, would we need such deliberately polarizing religious tests for political candidates? And the best question, if I may truly be counsel for the dark lord himself…
We live in a nation which purportedly upholds a strict constitutional separation of church and state. Yet our nation’s majority religion has a primary text that explicitly and repeatedly places the laws of God above the laws of humans, and our President has blatantly adorned his bully pulpit with a cross. Does it then, for any individual hoping their government will operate with their best interests in mind, seem so outlandish or wrong to vote with the candidates’ religious beliefs in mind? For their own sake, can they even afford to ask, “So what if he is…?”
Johannac here seems to believe that the people of Islam owe us as Americans some display of their right to be respected… not that we as the world’s super power should venture out and learn all we can about the diversity we so self-righteously claim to maintain. Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist by today’s standards, he was not Muslim and he is not the only example thereof when a person who commits a crime against America is of white and Christian decent.
On the subject of James L’s interpretation though, I agree that religion is a scary thing to have matter in the politics of a country supposedly so developed, especially when certain religions are becoming increasingly institutionally discriminated against. I recognize the fears, though irrational I may perceive them, in having a candidate with dissimilar beliefs, but I believe that this country stands for freedom of religion and the yearning to hold public office, the place where change is possible, should not revoke that right.
I think you make a good point about the "religious test" required for office in this country. It's not written in the law, but it is certainly true for voters. While Obama may not be able to come out and say "and what if I was a Muslim?" many other politicians and even voters themselves, should be asking this every time they hear the word being thrown around as a dirty insult. John McCain would impress me if he were to defend not just Obama against the false "charges" of being Muslim, but rather the Muslim community at large for their religion being used as a synonym for "terrorist."
Posts
6 comments:
While Jefferson's religious beliefs may have been unconventional for his time, they nonetheless made him an honorable person who helped create the documents which laid out our American ideals. James L argues that Thomas Jefferson would be “appalled” at the emphasis placed on a candidate’s religion. He quotes Jefferson “While I claim the right to believe in one God, I yield as freely to others who believe in three. Both religions, I find, make honest men, and that is the only point society has any right to look to.” Americans who take issue with having a Muslim candidate look precisely at that point and argue that Islam is a religion which does not “make honest men,” based on the fact that many of the political ideas espoused by its most vocal adherents are at odds with American values. Undoubtedly their interpretation of Islam is limited and biased, but until Islam can present itself better to the American public, anyone suspected of following that religion will be viewed with suspicion if they seek high public office.
The post “So What if He Is?” recognizes an imperative underlying question in the relationship between politics and religion: what exactly does an individual’s religious beliefs state about their ability as a politician to the American people?
Thomas Jefferson once proclaimed, “While I claim a right to believe in one God, I yield freely to others that of believing in three. Both religions, I find, make honest men, and that is the only point society has any right to look to.” I agree with the author of this post that Jefferson’s notions and tolerance were radical for his time period, but, they also exemplify the embedded role of religion in American society. Jefferson is recognizing the good religion brings out in human beings. Americans as a society, and as voters, still do just that. If a candidate is religious, then voters can associate that person with a moral code composed of loving thy neighbor, forgiveness, charity, and accountability for ones own actions. However it is easy to gain access to this ideal image by claiming to be religious without actually being so. The author of the post, as well as the article, calls for a time in America in which rumors of a candidate being Muslim would not matter. To further that thought, it should not matter if a candidate is Atheist, as that is a different kind of personal belief. However, I do believe that Jefferson’s quotation 200+ years ago still rings true: a politician must be religious in some way to be legitimate in this country. Religion humanizes political candidates and gains voter’s trust in a manner that nothing else possibly could.
As will probably be the case a few times for this course, because of what are likely relatively enlightened opinions on the nature and place of religion in our dear nation’s political institutions and processes, I was tempted to comment on this interesting post with a glorified thumbs up. After all, like Kristof and James and MLK, I too have a dream that one day… And I hope that day comes soon. But since I was raised Baptist, I like to bring the devil into things, and this time I’m going to be his advocate.
I intentionally used MLK’s phrasing. Encapsulated within our hopes for a future where someone of any religion can be president is the same rationale that made us excited and told us it just felt right to watch Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama finally slugging it out by themselves in the Democratic Primaries. We are products of liberal education, of super-enlightened enlightenment, and as such we expect people to be able to make decisions based entirely on relevant information and cold, efficient logic no matter what gender, race, or faith they may be. The demographic newcomers signified success. We’re all equal, damnit! – right?
If you noted that sarcasm, you’re probably rolling your eyes and bracing for a wave of postmodernist bashing; I’ll spare you. Yet I think we may need to allow for a fundamental difference between gender and race on the one hand and religious beliefs on the other. For while all but the most bigoted Americans would probably acknowledge that the wholly unintentional act of being born black or female – or even Arab – is neither wrong nor predisposes a person to a life of terror and violence, significantly fewer would let Obama off the hook if he were to claim Islam. Why?
There is an undeniable consensus that Americans are free to actively choose what to believe, what faith or creed to practice. Perhaps this country, so long and arguably still run by white Christian males, simply has not progressed far enough in our so-called enlightened thinking to accept the leadership of someone who is so different by choice, rather than by birth. Or does the crux of the issue lie deeper? Are the majority of Christian Americans even remotely close to actuating the quoted Jeffersonian maxim by accepting that alternate religions can make equally honest men? If we were, would we need such deliberately polarizing religious tests for political candidates? And the best question, if I may truly be counsel for the dark lord himself…
We live in a nation which purportedly upholds a strict constitutional separation of church and state. Yet our nation’s majority religion has a primary text that explicitly and repeatedly places the laws of God above the laws of humans, and our President has blatantly adorned his bully pulpit with a cross. Does it then, for any individual hoping their government will operate with their best interests in mind, seem so outlandish or wrong to vote with the candidates’ religious beliefs in mind? For their own sake, can they even afford to ask, “So what if he is…?”
Johannac here seems to believe that the people of Islam owe us as Americans some display of their right to be respected… not that we as the world’s super power should venture out and learn all we can about the diversity we so self-righteously claim to maintain. Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist by today’s standards, he was not Muslim and he is not the only example thereof when a person who commits a crime against America is of white and Christian decent.
On the subject of James L’s interpretation though, I agree that religion is a scary thing to have matter in the politics of a country supposedly so developed, especially when certain religions are becoming increasingly institutionally discriminated against. I recognize the fears, though irrational I may perceive them, in having a candidate with dissimilar beliefs, but I believe that this country stands for freedom of religion and the yearning to hold public office, the place where change is possible, should not revoke that right.
I think you make a good point about the "religious test" required for office in this country. It's not written in the law, but it is certainly true for voters. While Obama may not be able to come out and say "and what if I was a Muslim?" many other politicians and even voters themselves, should be asking this every time they hear the word being thrown around as a dirty insult. John McCain would impress me if he were to defend not just Obama against the false "charges" of being Muslim, but rather the Muslim community at large for their religion being used as a synonym for "terrorist."
Post a Comment