Robert K. Vischer, the author of an article entitled “Bad Faith” in the Commonweal Periodical, presents an array of religious examples surrounding political figures and situations, but all of the examples are extreme—Sarah Palin being prayed over for protection against witchcraft and the Mormon church giving over $20 million in support of the banning of same-sex marriage—and the legitimacy of them is certainly questionable. Above all, these examples present religion in an unnecessarily fanatical light, subliminally arguing against the practice of religion in, or anywhere near, the political realm. By making religion look illogical, or just outright absurd, Vischer makes a strong statement against the mixing of religion and politics.
Similarly, Barack Obama’s selection of religious speakers at his inauguration service also reflected extremes of the religious world. He chose to have the controversial Rick Warren give his inauguration prayer while also having the openly gay New Hampshire Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson conduct the prayer service preceding the inauguration events. Both of these renowned figures stir up a lot of mixed feelings within the religious fields, and it seems rather arrogant of Obama to select such controversial individuals—the new president seems to be fishing for criticism by choosing leaders out of the religious communities that have been surrounded by protests and ridicule in recent years. President Obama certainly could have chosen the speakers from a multitude of other well-known religious figures that have much less controversial standings and reputations. By displaying religion in the extreme light cast by Rick Warren and Bishop Gene Robinson, Obama is distinguishing religion from politics as a very different, separate realm. Rick Warren has quality conservative views, but his intense religious nature is clearly not compatible with modern politics, so he is no threat to the political agendas. Furthermore, though Bishop Gene Robinson is a well-respected leader in certain religious circles, the religious controversy surrounding his homosexuality is already overwhelming—he would not dare try to put a foot in the political pool, as well; thus, he, too, is not a political threat. Both of these figurines are distinctly religious extremists, so Obama was presenting a nonthreatening, nonpolitical, and strictly religious preference through the inauguration prayers. Had he chose a moderate pastor, Obama would have been at risk for political criticisms.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
While I was unable to find the article you reference on Google, I am unclear as to how directly it connects to the claims you make about Obama towards the end of your post. Anyway, I would just like to express my disagreement with some of the main points made here.
To begin, the idea that Obama’s Inauguration selections seem to be “asking for criticism” seriously contradicts the final claim that, “had he chose a moderate pastor, Obama would have been [more] at risk for political criticisms” and the idea that Rick Warren poses no threat to political agendas. Ironically, none of the above three points are points that I would advocate.
To address point two: there are multitudes of publications expressing outrage with Obama’s choice in Rick Warren as the deliverer of the invocation – Rick Warren is about the least ‘safe’ choice Obama could have made when it comes to dragging religious figures into the political realm. Obama would not have been criticized more for choosing a more moderate pastor.
To address point three: Warren does exercise his influence in the political realm (regarding gay rights, stem-cell, and abortion) to an especially high degree because he is relatively extreme. Rick Warren is well-known for controversial political activism, and the fact that he is such a prominent and well-viewed pastor indicates that he has the power to exert a high degree political influence on others. (And if Rick Warren wasn’t seen as a threat to politics would people have cared that he was chosen??)
Finally, “arrogance” is somewhat out of character for a President who has run his entire platform on inclusiveness and unity; it is doubtful that Obama made the choices he did for shock value. In his own words, he rather elected Rick Warren as the invocation speaker in order to promote an environment where we can “disagree without being disagreeable.” Since the Inauguration has already passed, I think examining the content of Obama’s inaugural speech is further proof of the alternate view I just presented.
Post a Comment