In this New York Times article written by Nicholas Kristof, Kristof bemoans the fact that in September of 2008 –during the height of the presidential campaign – only half of Americans knew that current-president Barack Obama was a Christian, while 13% thought he was a Muslim and a further 16% claimed to be unsure due to hearing “different things” about Obama’s religion. Kristof appears to be making two general statements in this editorial. The first, more subtle one, is an outcry against the way political campaigns are run in today’s society: in the first paragraph Kristof states his belief that the misinformation about Obama’s religious practices are due to the “sleaziness of this presidential campaign.” While clearing the Republican presidential nominee John McCain of any wrongdoing in this matter, Kristof attacks the “conservative Christian circles” and “Christian radio stations” that spread the far-fetched theory that Obama could be the Antichrist. While these claims are obviously ridiculous and Kristof is right in calling these groups out, the connection between this and the public’s misconceptions about Obama being a Muslim is unclear, and Kristof does not expand on the matter.
The second statement made by Kristof is a lamentation about a society in which the religious beliefs of a person are seen as a reason to not vote for him. Kristof goes on to say that, as racial prejudice is very much now socially unacceptable, an increase in religious prejudice has replaced it. As a result, a campaign arose to “otherize” Obama. This is a perfect example of the “us” vs. “them” mentality that James Monroe, in his book Hellfire Nation, claims has pervaded the nation since its inception by the Puritans. I tend to agree with Kristof’s assessment of a rise of religious prejudice as the movement towards racial equality continues to progress quickly. To some extent, I believe that, since the events of September 11, 2001, Muslims have begun to be seen as the “them” in American society. This is evidenced by people’s responses to their assuming Obama was Muslim and also in the rise of hate crimes against Muslims in America.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
What Amit says makes sense and I can definitely see how religious prejudice may be escalating in a post- 9/11 America. However, when I read Kristof’s article, it came across as rather biased and less reasonable (perhaps this was due to his description of John McCain which focused solely on negatives). While Kristof has a point, I don’t completely agree that “religious prejudice is becoming a proxy for a racial prejudice” as Kristof claims. True, we are beginning to move beyond racial prejudice, but it almost seems to be going in the opposite direction. I’m sure it’s different in different places, but I never met anyone who professed issues with Obama because of his race or religion. In fact, the impression I sometimes received was that some people were pro-Obama largely because of his race; they were eager to show America’s progressivism by electing a black president. Like I said, I’m sure this isn’t universally true, but it’s important to recognize that race is still a factor. Also, religious prejudice is nothing new as is seen by instances such as Al Smith. Therefore, it’s not so much a complete substitution as a reversal of emphasis between religion and race. I think what Amit said was a more accurate way to phrase the idea--- “as racial prejudice is very much now socially unacceptable, an increase in religious prejudice has replaced it.”
Amit,
I agree with you—this was an informative article insofar as it states the statistical data about the once-controversial issue of Obama's religion. Although Kristof does little to give reasons why Americans may believe this farce, he does give important details about the misconceptions about our new President during his campaign. This does seem to be a mini-treatise on the problem of religious slandering in major political campaigns in this country. As we all will continue to discover, a candidate's religious identity has become crucial in modern politics, something I think we should all lament. The first amendment idea of the separation of church and state has become somewhat archaic these days, especially since the evangelical right seemed to be "the base" of W's re-election.
I found it very interesting that Senator McCain is inactive in church. I followed the campaign relatively closely, and I never heard a snippet about McCain's congregational habits. Kristof makes a related point in discussing how "religious prejudice is becoming a proxy for racial prejudice." I feel that many Americans sadly associate an Anglo-Saxon politician with some form of Christianity immediately. Obama, however, with his diverse racial heritage and foreign name, was scrutinized. I feel that Kristof is suggesting that that 13 percent of registered voters associated him with Islam due to his skin color and name—two non-political and arbitrary traits that have nothing to do with his ability to lead the country.
Kristof does a good job of calling journalists to responsible action. He seems somewhat disgusted that a poll can find this statistic on an absolute lie, and partially blames the mass media. To Kristof, when such slander is served to the public, "our entire political process [suffers]." I have to agree there.
I think most people would agree that religious prejudice has always been a part of our society. But I think that voting for a candidate based on religion is not necessarily wrong, as Kristof seems to see as assumed. Religion is very commonly the basis for people's morals or fundamental world view, and that is a crucial factor in the worthiness of a candidate for out most powerful and visible political office. I feel that anyone claiming to be an atheist would have a seriously hard time becoming elected due to the fact that many people would be worried that their morals are not connected to anything more concrete than necessity. While someone who has a strong faith, in any religion, is more trustworthy to be consistently moral and use their power benevolently.
Post a Comment