Fixing Faith?

To many Americans, the election of President Barack Obama appears to represent the end of race-based politics. Os Guinness makes just this claim in his article "Faith and Inauguration," in which he argues that the question of racial politics is over, and has opened the door to America’s next major issue: that of religion’s role in the political spectrum. He claims that now that a black man has achieved the presidency, the question is whether “United States can transcend the present bitterness and divisions over religion in public life and live up to the promise of the American experiment.”

If you accept the notion that the question of race is no longer paramount (a dubious claim to begin with), then Guinness’s point is valid; the topic of religion is one of the major dividing factors of the American public, and it is an issue that clearly needs to be addressed in order for the nation to continue to move forward in its quest for universal equality and opportunity. Guinness argues that as president, Obama now has the opportunity to deliver “a challenge to the entire nation [. . .] to live up to the promise of the American experiment in light of the culture wars at home and the sectarian strife around the world.”

The strength of Guinness’s argument lies in the organization of his article. The section entitled “Setting the ground rules” clearly breaks down the foundations of today’s religious debate, as well as Guinness’s humility in presenting such an argument. He is unafraid to present uncertainty as to whether or not his ideal can be realized.

Unfortunately, however, despite Guinness’s obvious desire for the realization of an equal and accepting America, his eloquent language often fails to present his ideals in clear and defined way. He frequently refers to the “American experiment,” yet assumes that his reader will know exactly what he is talking about. The goals and solutions he presents for Obama are also vague, referring to the “restoration of a civil and cosmopolitan public square,” and “for all Americans to face up to the rteality [sic] of our culture warring impasse,” yet he never quite explains how these goals should be brought about. While vague, idealistic goals are acceptable at times, in an article proposing presidential action and solution, more specific examples and suggestions would impart a more definitive stance to Guinness’s argument.