"Faith Without Works is Hollow"

Randall Balmer, author of God in the White House, was a recent guest on Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show. His book speaks to the heightened religious rhetoric seen in the presidency since John F Kennedy took office. The interview takes the path of comparing how differently Obama and Bush embrace religion in the White House. They discuss how we determine a president’s morality and how intermixed morality and religion are in American thought. Stewart questions why Americans have made such a tight bond between morality and religion. Many would agree that good works can come without a particular faith or religion, so is it dangerous to weigh religion so heavily on the president’s morality. I would suggest so. It seems obvious that actions are a better indicator of morality than blind faith and rhetoric.

With that said, we still care. We still use religion to decide whether the president is moral or not. Balmer was asked when a slew of minorities would finally get representation in presidential office and at the bottom of the list were Atheists. Despite the need for morality to be decided on actions rather than words and thoughts, it still remains as the best initial testament to a president’s character. Not only that, but the importance of religion is heightening with recent elections. Balmer remembers how George Romney was never questioned of his Mormon background when running for office, but how pertinent Mitt’s faith was to his electoral success. Presidential morality has become an increasingly important issue because of their past moral decay. Their past moral failures has set the bar impossibly high for the morality of future presidents as the need for appearing religious and reinforcing a virtuous Oval Office on the grounds of Christianity is paramount to their popularity. This has created a scenario that will degrade religion, because while many Americans hope it guides presidential behavior, in reality it can never become entangled with it.

Take for example George W. Bush. He is becoming notorious for the way he embraced religion during his presidency. Bush proclaims Jesus as his favorite philosopher and was apparently directed by religious visions when faced with various decisions while in office. This put too much pressure on Bush to perform in accordance to Christian principles. While he wished the public to view his decisions and character as moral, his blatant neglect of basic religious principles in the face of making more efficient state decisions is obvious. Jesus –whether deity or plainly human - is or was many things, but political philosopher was never one of them. Jesus calls his followers to be “peacemakers, turn the other cheek, and to love your neighbor.” It would be interesting to hear the response of George Bush if asked whether he took heed of that advice. That is not to say that George Bush or any president should be held to the moral character of Jesus, but when religion becomes a proxy for morality in the presidency it becomes a dangerous game that is impossible for any executive decision maker to win. The state is an inherently corrupt and imperfect institution that will be forced to make decisions that are discordant with various religious principles. When religion becomes a measure of morality, it degrades religion. The stock of Jesus and Christian reputation fell with George Bush’s reliance on His words without translating them to works.

President Obama introduces a new embrace of religion and morality in the presidency that is mixed with progress and a continued reliance on religion as a proxy for morality. While he has already implemented policies relating to works of morality rather than words, he has still reverted to traditional religious facades to appear religiously moral for his constituency. When Obama signed off to policy that is designed to put an end to torture and death in Guantanamo, his moral character was elevated based off of action. Here, his morality was not linked to faith, which is something needed in American politics. The morality of public office holders cannot exclusively be linked to faith. It cannot especially be linked to the words of faith without actions. Doing “good works” is a finer barometer of morality than stating religious preferences, because there is no common moral framework in our society. How is it possible to say Christian ethics are superior to Muslims’?

Although Obama proved he is capable of acting morally, he still has shown a tendency to appear religious by attending prayer breakfasts and other religious references throughout his inaugural week. This insistence on appearing religiously moral is only going to raise his already lofty expectations. To follow the morality of Christianity in office is a tall task for someone with so much more in store for him. It will possibly further degrade the religion and hurt the credibility of his personal faith as well. In short, faith as a measure for morality in the presidency is asking too much of any executive decisions maker. While the moral character of presidents is understandably important, the way in which we determine that moral standing is becoming too linked with religion and faith. In a past that has struggled with the entanglement of religion in politics, using faith to measure a president’s morality is unproductive in the process of perfecting our union.