In his article, “Faith-based, part II” Jacob Turley, a Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, warns Americans that the “social change” that may come with President Obama’s administration may not decrease the role of faith in politics. Turley states that some Americans think the days of a president invoking God at the end of speech and speaking frequently about Christianity ended with the disbanding of the Bush administration. He believes otherwise. In fact, Turley believes that Obama will likely refer to religion and faith as frequently as Bush, that it is a political necessity in the United States. He supports this assertion by pointing out that Obama frequently referenced God on the campaign trail and widely publicized his relationship with his former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright. During the campaign, he stated his intention to be an “instrument of God” and to “create a kingdom here on Earth”. Obama brought religious controversy back to the front and center by asking Reverend Rick Warren to pray at his inaugural ceremony.
Turley believes that the change Obama may bring to Washington is likely in the form of social programs rather than in changing legal views in Washington, such as deviating from the previous administration’s take on the separation of church and state. He also points out that rather than condemn Bush’s faith-based initiative for violating the separation of church and state, he condemned it because the program was not adequately funded. Turley refers to Rick Warren multiple times, in the belief that he exemplifies Obama’s intention to involve religion in his administration. Turley believes that Rick Warren will be one of Obama’s advisors on community faith-based initiatives and points out that though Obama preaches “inclusion,” he is consulting someone who believes in “exclusion.”
I agree that Obama made faith a strategic part of his platform and that it will be a crucial part of his presidency. According to ABC News, Wright’s sermon inspired the title of his book, Wright married him and his wife, and Wright baptized his children. He publicized these facts and portrayed his relationship with Reverend Wright as a close relationship, referring to him as a “mentor.” Based on Turley’s quotations of Obama on religion, I also agree that faith will be invoked quite frequently during this presidency, perhaps equally frequently as during the previous presidency.
However, I do not think that President Obama will use faith in the same manner. First, Obama has not been as vocal about the specifics of his Christian beliefs as Bush. A recent Newsweek article entitled “Barack Obama’s Christian Journey” remarks that Obama has not been vocal about his personal beliefs on salvation. Bush was much clearer; I specifically remember the newscast in which I heard Bush state that he believed that only Christians would escape eternal damnation. Also, although Obama has attempted to include controversial religious figures in his political life, he has not failed to cut off ties where lines were crossed, as he did with Jeremiah Wright. Additionally, I think Obama chose Rick Warren to pray at his inauguration because he wanted to show his ability to work alongside people with beliefs that he did not agree with and not because conservative Christianity will be a driving force in his administration. It reaffirmed his statement when he was first reacting to the controversy of Jeremiah Wright. He said that although he did not agree with everything Reverend Wright said, he could “no more disown him than [his] grandmother.” I think it is important to look at the manner and context in which Obama invokes religion than the frequency with which he refers to it. I believe that it indicates that although Obama intends to refer to Christianity frequently, that he will refer to a variety of voices within and outside of Christianity and that his aim is to create policies of inclusion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
I agree with Athira that the manner and context in which Obama references religion are far more crucial than the number in of times that he evokes it. I think Turley makes an interesting distinction between a ‘means’ and an ‘end’, which he applies to President Obama, asserting that he uses religious references and controversial religious alliances as a means to passing his policies. Contrastingly, George W. Bush seemed to view religion as an end—his goals more focused on passing agenda that would realign Federal policy with his biblical interpretation than founding broad sweeping New Deal-like reforms for which he needed some support from members of the religious community. I believe, like we discussed briefly in class, that political discourse has a tendency to degrade into somewhat shallow discussions of every political maneuver and that perhaps, given that Obama has only been president for a week, it is somewhat difficult to make a valid comparison between his scattered comments on the campaign trail with 8 years of President Bush’s extensive efforts to give religion a more prominent place in our government as Turley attempts to do. However, I believe that Turley makes a valid point in that is difficult to reconcile the promise of President Obama not to sacrifice our ideals in the pursuit of the War on Terror, with the apparent ease with which he would stifle his own principled disagreements with someone as controversial and offensive to some as Rick Warren, in the pursuit of making a symbolic statement or passing legislation.
First of all, I agree with Athira and Natalie in that the context in which Obama utilizes religion is far more significant than the number of instances, and that it’s a bit early to start comparing his incorporation of religion into the government to Bush’s so critically. In fact, I believe that the example Turley uses to demonstrate how Obama aligned himself with Bush on this front is quite weak. By examining the context of Obama’s comment about being ‘an instrument of God’ and creating ‘a kingdom right here on Earth,’ it is clear that Obama’s use of powerful imagery during the primaries to draw religious groups into his campaign does not necessarily indicate his full intentions on how he will conduct his presidency. The article I used in my own blog post also brought up a very interesting point: that true religious tolerance means tolerating even those who are intolerant themselves. Perhaps, and considering Obama’s history I don’t believe this claim is out of reach, Obama is showing his value of diversity and tolerance rather than aligning himself with a particular faction by associating with figures like Rick Warren. Finally, Turley fails to reference the critical changes Obama has announced that he plans to make to the Faith-Based Initiative: namely, to enforce a stronger separation of church and state within the program. It would have been very important for me to see how these measures fit into Turley’s argument. In a way I think many spectators see what they want to see and are overly quick to draw conclusions when it comes to sensitive issues like this.
I agree with Athira that President Obama will use faith much differently than President Bush. As I followed the 2008 Presidential Campaign, it was very clear to me that President Obama was a man of deep Christian beliefs whose faith plays a significant part in his life. As a result, every decision he makes will be rooted in his religious ideals; ideals that promote tolerance, inclusiveness, and an open social forum where people of every faith, or no faith at all, will be able to contribute. The difference between President Obama and former President Bush is not their faith, both are protestant Christians, but rather how they use their beliefs in their political discourse. Many Americans felt, at times, that President Bush used faith-based issues to divide the country between conservative red-state America and liberal blue-state America. President Obama will not end President Bush’s faith-based initiatives, but rather use them to bring together the entire faith community in this country.
I'd like to jump off this train and say that I disagree with everyone. But inevitably, I do agree with Athira. Obama's use of religion is a very different type than that of Bush. It seems in the previous 8 years that Bush's use of religion alienated the Athiests and non-Christians, which became quite a dividing issue among the country. Obama on the other hand is using his faith to drive forward more positive principles in his presidency. Yes, he is a solidly Christian man, but he takes the more positive aspects of the religion and plays towards everybody's interests, not just the religious right's. Athira's notice of how Obama invokes his religion is a strong argument against Turley's claims and really sends the message home that a president can be strongly religious and still be able to unify the country as a whole.
Post a Comment