White Liberals

In his article Guess Whos Coming To Dinner, Frank Rich makes a witty comparison of the 1967 film “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner” to the candidacy of Barack Obama. Rich claims that the film is “inadvertently contemporary” (Rich, par. 3) and proceeds to convince his reader of this. He argues that although the liberals have been focusing on the racism of every “unreconstructed bigot” (Rich, par. 4) in America, they have their own preconceived notions and prejudices concerning Senator Obama. Liberals, as well as the media, have underestimated Obama numerous times, according to Rich; because they view him through the same lens audiences viewed Sydney Poitier’s character in the film more than forty years ago. Just as Poitier’s character was seen as “too perfect, and too white,” (Rich, par. 2) Obama has been looked at as “too lofty” or “too ethereal” (Rich, par. 5) to have a serious chance at winning the presidency. But despite their underestimations or subconscious prejudice against him, Obama’s candidacy, from the very beginning, has been dependent on the white liberal.
Rich investigates specific events of Obama’s journey to presidential nominee and examines how these events prove that the “take-no-prisoners political insurgency” of the Obama camp differs from white liberal conceptions concerning his candidacy. Despite the media’s initial portrayal of the senator as being too idealistic and abstract, Obama defeated Clinton first in Iowa. He then made an impressive showing on Super Tuesday, and by “surpassing her in organization, cash and black votes” (Rich, par. 7) went on to snatch the nomination from his opponent. Still distracted by what they felt to be his optimistic excesses, the media was recently shocked by leads Obama developed among women and Hispanics (Rich, par. 7). Rich’s documentation of Obama’s path from a freshman senator to a potentially historic president from the day of his inauguration is accurate, but incomplete.
Although the white liberal perhaps misunderstood the senator, or underestimated him due to his or her own stereotypes and bias; without these same individuals Obama’s victories would never have occurred. The population of Iowa is predominantly white. But Obama won there first. Blacks alone do not make up a large enough percentage of the Democratic Party to elect a candidate. But Clinton did indeed lose. Furthermore, if Obama does eventually win the presidency, he will do so with millions of white liberal votes. The lesson here; Obama’s accomplishments must be viewed in light of, rather than despite of, the white liberal. The necessity for white liberals to fully and objectively understand Obama in order to support him is debatable. The fact that Obama’s presidency, much like the marriage of Hepburn and Poitier in the film, will ultimately depend on the white liberal, is not.

Loaded "I do."

If Proposition 8 on the California General Election ballot passes, the California Constitution will be amended to its former state, eliminating the right to same-sex marriages. Barack Obama has taken a stance against Prop 8, encouraging his supporters to vote "no" on November 4.

While this Democratic support appears promising, Patrick Healey demonstrates how Obama supporters could in fact cause the proposition to pass. His argument lies in the "socially conservative blacks and Hispanics [who support Obama...] but oppose same-sex marriage." Simply, greater Obama-voter turnout is unlikely to translate favorably for the opponents of Prop 8, who had been otherwise eager for Obama’s endorsement.

The Obama-voters of California are likely confused by his position, they may even feel like he is contradicting himself. After all, Obama IS opposed to same-sex marriage, but he stands against an amendment that would ban such marriages? It is easy to miss, but Healey clarifies “Mr. Obama opposes amending state constitutions to define marriage as a heterosexual institution, describing such proposals as discriminatory.” Drawing on his own parents’ biracial marriage, which was illegal in many southern states, he speaks to the same-sex marriage debate in legal terms.

What can be said for Obama’s legal defense, when he has cited religion as the root of his opposition? Unlike McCain, who draws on cultural norms to explain his own opposition, Obama wavers in conviction, is it church or state? He expresses his distress in The Audacity of Hope when he says “no matter how much Christians who oppose homosexuality may claim that they hate the sin but love the sinner, such a judgment inflicts pain on good people.”

Truth behold, his judgment is loaded; it may in fact be more offensive to use God as his witness.

URGENT! Please read.

We are only days away from the upcoming election. It is imperative for all Americans to understand what is at stake on Tuesday, November 4. To those who caution me and others against being single-issue voters, I would like to say this: You are right, there are many issues at stake, and we should educate ourselves on these issues as much as possible when we choose a candidate. There are times, however, when certain issues become of primary concern because of the emergence of grave threats to the dignity of the human life. Obama has in effect made this a single-issue election because of his extreme pro-choice stance. Human life in its most innocent and vulnerable stage is greatly endangered. If Obama were moderate, it might be possible for a Catholic, or a pro-life person of any religion, to rationalize a vote for Obama. In the document Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, the U.S. Catholic bishops have stated, “A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voter’s intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidate’s opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference and inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity. There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidates’ unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons. Voting in this way would be permissible only for truly grave moral reasons, not to advance narrow interests or partisan preferences or to ignore a fundamental moral evil” (paragraphs 34 and 35). Given Obama’s stance on abortion, it is difficult to find a “grave moral reason” to support him. What “grave moral reason” can a Catholic voter in good conscience present in support of Obama? What issue “trumps” the issue of the most basic human right, the right to be born? Is it the economy? To be honest, while both candidates have different viewpoints, I think that either one could come up with some ways to pull us out of this economic crisis. Is it the war in Iraq? True, McCain has committed to keeping troops there for an undetermined length of time, but Obama, while pulling out sooner, still plans to keep “residual forces” in Iraq. In addition, Obama has expressed support on multiple occasions for the risky move of crossing the Pakistan border in search of Afghani insurgents, with or without the authorization of the Pakistani government. Is healthcare the concern? Let’s not put the cart before the horse. How about allowing people to be born in the first place? I would say that the fact that millions of Americans are being murdered in their mother’s womb is a pretty serious health crisis. Let us not fail to acknowledge that there is a genocide taking place right here in the U.S., every day, in the wombs of women who are deceived into thinking that killing their children will lead to liberation.

Please humor me for a moment and imagine a hypothetical election. It is 2008, and we can choose between 2 candidates whom for now we will call “A” and “B.” Let’s suppose that both candidates have relatively the same stance on abortion, yet they diverge on other issues and tend to follow their respective party’s typical stances. Now say that one of the candidates (candidate “B”) is openly racist and has even supported legislation to protect the rights of the KKK over the years (I choose racism as an issue because it is mentioned by the U.S. Catholic bishops along with abortion as an “intrinsic evil” in Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship). If elected, candidate “B” plans to sign off on laws that will virtually wipe away all the gains the Civil Rights Movement has made over the past few decades and use taxpayer’s dollars to support KKK activities. Candidate “A,” on the other hand, has openly condemned racism and would overturn any discriminatory legislation that still exists. Consider now that you are preparing to vote, and you have decided that “B’s” racist stance compels you to reject him/her and vote for “A.” Would you expect to be criticized for focusing only on the racism issue? It would be very strange if someone were to say to you, “Listen, you can’t just look at one issue. Yeah, ‘B’s’ racist, but you have to look at the big picture. Besides, what difference is “A” really going to make?” Such a person may even argue that despite “B’s” history of endorsement of racist legislation, his or her economic policies would lead to more integration and greater financial stability for families of all races. This would in turn result in an increase in understanding between races and a decrease in tensions caused by economic strain that often bring out the worst in us. Would these argument justify voting for a racist candidate? I think not. Now just replace “A” with McCain, “B” with “Obama,” “racism” with “abortion,” and “KKK” with “Planned Parenthood.” Does this give you a different perspective on this year’s election?

This past week in our Faith and Politics class, we examined several very powerful arguments expressed in Robert George’s Public Discourse article “Obama’s Abortion Extremism” and George Weigel’s op-ed Newsweek piece “Pro-Life Catholics for Obama.” Both men have an impressive history of experience in matters of faith, politics, and ethics. Both Weigel and George write about Obama’s opposition to the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act,” his unwavering support of Roe v. Wade, and his commitment to FOCA, the Freedom of Choice Act. Robert George quotes Obama as saying, “the first thing I would do as president would be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act. ” Weigel does a good job of summing up this act as well as describing significant policies that Obama opposes, so I would like to quote Weigel here:

“According to his own Web site, Obama supports the federal Freedom of Choice Act [FOCA], which would eliminate all state and federal regulation of abortion (such as informed consent and parental notification in the case of minors seeking an abortion); these regulations have demonstrably reduced the absolute number of abortions in the jurisdictions in which they are in effect. FOCA would also eliminate, by federal statute, state laws providing "conscience clause" protection for pro-life doctors who decline to provide abortions. Obama (along with the Democratic Party platform) supports federal funding for abortion, opposes the Hyde amendment (which restricts the use of taxpayer monies for abortion) and has pledged to repeal the "Mexico City policy" (initiated by Ronald Reagan and reinstated by George W. Bush, which bans federal foreign-aid funding for organizations that perform and promote abortion as a means of family planning). According to the pro-choice Web site RHRealityCheck.org, Obama also opposes continued federal funding for crisis pregnancy centers.” Thus, FOCA really is not about choice at all. It is about eliminating the freedom of pro-life taxpayers and healthcare professionals to choose not to cooperate with murder. It is about continuing to deny helpless babies their right to be born.

In response to those who argue that Obama’s policies on other issues would lead to a decrease in abortion by improving socioeconomic status, Weigel offers the following statistics: “Sweden, with a much thicker social safety net than the United States, has precisely the same rate (25 percent) of abortions per pregnancy as America,” and “according to a survey conducted by the research arm of Planned Parenthood, the Guttmacher Institute, a mere 23 percent of abortions in the United States are performed primarily because of alleged financial need.”

If Obama’s endorsement of FOCA is not enough to cause concern, Robert George describes the various legislative acts supported by Obama that would allow for the creation and destruction of human embryos for stem cell research. Besides the fact that this is extremely unethical, it is completely unnecessary due to the fact that there are a number of successful alternative ways to acquire non-embryonic stem cells. It is incomprehensible why Obama would support such acts. George also notes that Obama has shown a record of opposition to pro-life bills, even those proposed by his own Democratic Party.

George goes on to remind us that we have 5 to 6 Supreme Court justices who are likely to retire within the next four to eight years. While we will have to deal with a President for 8 years at the most, we will have to contend with the Supreme Court justices he appoints until they have reached an age or a health condition at which they are no longer able to effectively perform their duties. The impact of an appointment of a Supreme Court justice will extend far beyond the termination of a presidency. George points out that Obama has “made it clear that he would apply a litmus test for Supreme Court nominations: jurists who do not support Roe will not be considered for appointment by Obama.” McCain, on the other hand, has stated that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. He would likely appoint judges who feel the same way.

There are some who argue that simply overturning Roe v. Wade would make little difference in decreasing the number of abortions. I would like to echo George’s argument, however, and affirm that turning the issue over to the states would allow for greater dialogue on the issue and more pro-life legislative gains than a national blanket-statement from federal Supreme Court justices legislating from the bench. Furthermore, McCain recognizes that overturning Roe v. Wade and handing the issue to the states is not the only thing that must be done. He explicitly states on his website (under the section “Human Dignity and the Sanctity of Life”) that a reversal of Roe v. Wade must be accompanied by continued support of “faith-based, community, and neighborhood organizations that provide critical services to mothers in need” as well as greater encouragement of adoption.

To see a video confirming what has been presented in this blog, please visit this link: http://americaschoicenow.com/

On November 4th, 2008, may we choose life, and may we continue to embrace God’s indescribable gift of life every day of our lives.

I leave you with this verse: “I call heaven and earth today to witness against you: I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. Choose life, then, that you and your descendants may live” Deuteronomy 30:19

Not All American Dreams are Created Equal

This article about Muslim American's involvement in the 2008 election was the top story for a good portion of today on CNN.com. The article addresses a question that has arisen several times already on this blog: so what if Obama were Muslim? Since that question has been asked, speculated, and answered, that is not the focus of my post. I think this article provides two other interesting and stimulating commentaries. 

The first one comes from a Muslim American, Fatema Blvjla, who became involved in this election after receiving a GOP mailer connecting Obama to Islam negatively. I personally cannot imagine receiving something in my own mailbox that cut down a presidential candidate on the basis of something that is fundamental to me. 

Secondly, I think the summaries of Colin Powell's quotations about Obama's connection to Muslims are worth looking at. Powell states, "What if he is? is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? No that's not America. Is there something wrong with some 7-year-old Muslim kid believing that he or she can be president?" I think this brings up a very interesting point concerning the future of Muslims in America. Should the dreams of a little boy who believes in Allah have to be different than the dreams of a Jewish girl or a Baptist boy? They obviously shouldn't, but I am just not sure how much they can be the same. 

At this point I'd like to introduce a youtube video from a Palin rally in Ohio earlier this month. In this video, Palin supports are asked about Obama and why they do not support him. In the first commentary a woman exclaims that, "he is just not a Christian!! This is Christian Nation!!" Several people go on to say that he is a Muslim, that he is a terrorist. One woman's response particularly linked that connection: "Just the whole Muslim thing, I dunno, a lot of people might have forgotten 9/11, but I haven't." 

This country runs on certain facets of the American Dream and I think Powell's hypothetical 7-year-old boy, as well as all the real Muslim children in America, are stuck between two very conflicting ones. As the CNN article points out, America is a melting pot and there is no one face of America. Anyone can succeed with hard work. On the other hand, there is this deeply embedded myth that the religious Christian foundation of this nation are what gives validity to the opportunities in America. Jerry Farwell's reliance on early American history is a perfect testament to this argument. He once wrote," God has blessed this nation because in its early days she sought to honor God and the Bible, the inerrant World of the living God. Any diligent student of American history finds that our great nation was founded by godly men upon godly principles to be a Christian nation." 

Maybe in a few more generations Muslims will overcome intolerance towards them as the Catholics did in the 19th and 20th centuries. The harsh reality of today's views towards Muslims are exemplified in the you tube video and they create a rough situation for today's Muslim youth: their means to the American Dream must go way beyond their own hard work; it will take much more to overcome that religious ignorance in this country. 

  

A Change of Pace

As we continue to research, ponder, debate, contemplate, and argue about the issues and candidates of this year's presidential campaign, let us pause and take a step back, just like our two presidential candidates did last night, to look at the big picture. Both nominees attended and spoke at the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation dinner at the Waldorf-Astoria in New York, an event that honors the Catholic politician and reformer who served four terms as governor of NY and ran as the Democratic candidate for president in 1928. Smith truly showed concern for "the least of these," speaking out especially for the needs of "urban residents." According to the foundation's website, "Founded by his eminence Francis Cardinal Spellman in 1946, to honor the memory of Alfred Emanuel Smith, New York's renowned Governor and patron of the 'Little People,' the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation supports and aids the poor, sick, and underprivileged of the Archdiocese of New York, regardless of race, creed, or color." Over the years, the dinner has traditionally featured very prominent politicians and other noteworthy figures as keynote speakers. The foundation's website lists an impressive array of speakers throughout the years, from Dwight D. Eisenhowr to Tony Blair. This was not the first time that presidential candidates appeared at the event, as they are often invited in election years. To name a few, Kennedy and Nixon spoke in 1960, and Bush and Gore appeared in 2000.

The life and work of Al Smith were marked by a deep commitment to the principles of Catholic social teaching, which transcend all parties (as is evident in the USCCB's recent statement "Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship"). For this reason, I think it is especially fitting that an organization of the Catholic Church would be responsible for bringing the two candidates together in this good-natured setting. McCain and Obama sat on either side of his eminence Cardinal Edward Egan. What a striking visual! What a convergence of faith and politics! Here was a prominent Catholic cardinal, deeply committed to his vocation and having received numerous responsibilities and honors from Rome, dining and laughing between the two opposing candidates for the U.S. Presidential election. This demonstrates that the Church, in being faithful to her mission to be the "light of the world" and the "salt of the earth" (Matthew 5) should indeed involve herself in political life. This is not to say that the Church must endorse a candidate, but instead works together with "people of good will" to seek the common good, as Catholic social teaching espouses.

As Obama announced, "I think it is a tribute to American democracy that with two weeks left to go in the hard-fought election the two of us could come together and sit down at the same dinner table without preconditions." The timing of the event was remarkable, taking place just the day after the third presidential debate. What a dramatic switch, from a heated presidential debate to an evening of celebration and laughter in honor of a wonderful Catholic politician! Let me not fail to mention the roasts of the evening! This tradition of the roasts at the memorial dinners attests to the fact that the Church does indeed have a sense of humor. McCain's jabs at himself included references to "Joe the Plumber," his seven houses, and several other idiosyncrasies and actions for which he has been criticized. The jokes McCain directed at Obama included mentions of Obama's tax plan, the "messiah" status he has received, and the tension between Obama and Hillary. Indeed, McCain did not hesitate to include in the roast Hillary, Bill, Biden, and several others. Obama brought these individuals and others up in his roast, as well. Some of Obama's jests at himself referenced his own alleged celebrity status (he clarified that he was not born in a manger but on the planet Krypton), his middle name, and his associations with questionable characters. He poked fun at McCain for the economy and his seven houses, among other things. Towards the end of the roasts, each candidate expressed his praise and respect for his opponent as well for as the work of the Archdiocese of New York, especially the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation.

McCain stated, "I can't wish my opponent luck, but I do wish him well. Whatever the outcome the next month, Senator Obama has achieved a great thing for himself and for his country and I congratulate him. In his own day Governor Al Smith achieved great things as well and traveled a harder path than . . . any presidential candidate before or since. At the Al Smith Foundation and at the archdiocese you are carrying on the spirit and work of this good man with your service to the poor, your comfort of the sick and needy, your belief in the dignity of life, especially your gallant defense of the rights of the unborn. I'm proud to count myself as your friend and ally."


After paying tribute to Tim Russert, Obama offered his own closing words of inspiration, "The fact that each October in the closing weeks of a hard-fought campaign people of all political persuasions can come to this dinner and share a meal in honor of the work of this foundation underscores the reality that no matter what differences or divisions or arguments we are having right now, we ultimately belong to something much bigger and more lasting than a political party. We belong to a community. We share a country. We are all children of God. And in this country there are millions of fellow citizens, our brothers and sisters, who need us very much, especially now . . . Scripture says God creates us for works of service. We are blessed to have so many organizations like this one and the Catholic diocese that perform these acts of God every day, but each of us also has that responsibility. Each of us has that obligation, especially now. So no matter who we are or what we do, what I believe is each of us in this room asks for and hopes for and prays for enough strength and wisdom to do good and to seek justice and play our small
part in building a more hopeful and compassionate world for the generations that will follow. Simply put, [Al]helped people, and that's a distinction we can all aspire to . . . and I have no doubt that if we come together at this moment of crisis with this goal in mind, . . . America will meet this challenge and weather this storm and, in the words of Al Smith, 'walk once more in eternal sunshine' " (On a side note, is it just me or did I see Douglas Kmiec in the audience? I'm not sure, but one man there looked a whole lot like the author's picture on the back of Can a Catholic Support Him?).

Of course, one can ponder whether or not the compliments were truly sincere and the jabs were good natured. I would like to think, however, (and maybe I am being naive) that the exchange last night was indeed amicable and that the two candidates were genuinely enjoying the event. I would suppose that today, however, both candidates have reassumed their stances and have quickly gotten back to work campaigning (McCain jumped right back into "campaign mode" on Letterman last night/this morning, animatedly explaining his policies and lamenting that Obama had not exactly "repudiated" Congressman Lewis for linking McCain and Palin to Eugene Bull Connor). Nevertheless, I found those few moments of last night's roast to be wonderfully refreshing. Not only did both candidates provide us with quite a bit of comic relief, but we were able to witness the Catholic Church's commitment to the common good shining forth. In providing opportunities like this, the Church does not compromise her mission, but indeed provides opportunities for Gospel values to more deeply permeate our world. I think that such efforts are a means of evangelization. The Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation dinner enabled people from many different backgrounds to come together in celebration of a man whose life of compassionate service was inspired by his faith in Jesus Christ.

"To serve Allah and my country"

In his op-ed article, The Push to ‘Otherize’ Obama, Nicholas Kristof delivers the disheartening results of a Pew Research Center survey of which 13% of voters identified Obama as Muslim, while another 16% remained unconvinced that he was Christian. Even more alarming, these percentages have risen since June! Theories of Obama as the Anti-Christ do not seem to help; the online Red State Shop sells products tarnishing an “O” with horns. While the most conservative Christians are not all too fond of McCain, they would rather vote for him than Satan. Never mind that Obama is more active in church than his opponent.

Kristof will suggest that “religious prejudice is becoming a proxy for racial prejudice.” He goes on to support his claim: “In public at least, it’s not acceptable to express reservations about a candidate’s skin color, so discomfort about race is sublimated into concerns about whether Mr. Obama is sufficiently Christian.” To justify, excuse, or otherwise mask racism, certain voters have taken a religious discrepancy (largely based on his middle name, Hussein, and his childhood in Islamic Indonesia) and run with it, well beyond its boundaries. It is to say Obama is “other,” or specifically un-American.

I could not agree more with Mr. Kristof, my only critique on his claim: he is not harsh enough! These voters are cowards. Although he does a great job of reprimanding his fellow journalists who choose to promulgate falsehoods at the disservice of politics. In reading his article I was reminded of another, (I was pleased to see Rachel used this piece on the 22^nd) in which it is written: “One parishioner ruled out voting for Mr. Obama explicitly because he is black. ‘Are they going to make it the Black House?’” It is possible had I not read this article, I would have had a harder time buying Kristof’s argument. I wish I did not know of such ignorance.

Having studied abroad in South Africa last semester I was alarmed, terrified and saddened to witness the “xenophobic” attacks directed on foreigners – particularly refugees or immigrants from other African nations. Some of you may have heard of this in the news back in May. At the time I struggled to put the violence into an American context. But what makes us any different? Unless we are of Native American descent, we are all immigrants of this country. I see now that I was getting hung up on the PHYSICAL violence. There is no denying that killings, especially motivated by differences, occur in America. But in our capitalistic society, it is the malice in wanting the “other” to fail that is most dangerous. We see intentional sabotage on the personal and professional levels all too often. How Christian is that?

All said, shame on any Christian who pulls the wool over their own eyes allowing him or herself to be blinded by ignorance. It’s a cowardly way out…

Muslim Obama, revisited

James pointed out two weeks ago that there have been attacks on Sen. Obama, and I'd like to examine an article that provides a bit more perspective on this issue.

Firstly, I agree with the point that James and Nicholas Kristof (from his article) already made: whether Obama is a Muslim or a Christian really should not matter. However, I think the above article from the Miami Herald reveals some more interesting issues.

Much of the garbage being spouted about Obama and his Muslim beliefs have been from hearsay and emails, which, once started, are hard to stop. However, as recently as last week, the attacks were still flowing, even from figures in full public view:

Here's what Dennis Baxley, a former state legislator from Ocala and the executive director of the Christian Coalition of Florida, one of the most prominent groups on the religious right, said during an interview with the Miami Herald about Obama's outreach to the Christian community:

"He's pretty scary to us,'' he said. "I think his Muslim roots and training -- while they try to minimize it -- it's there."

Mr. Baxley's word choice is particularly interesting. Does he, then, believe that Sen. McCain has "Christian roots and training" -- or is "training" something that only Muslim terrorists get? Baxley goes on and attempts to associate Obama with the "active movement by radical Muslims to occupy us," then talks about Europe:

I think you can tell from his appeal and how a lot of the media emphasized how loved he is in other places. I'm very concerned that our own American values rooted in Christian principles be protected.... I just want someone who will take those responsibilities of preserving American values and American culture and not try to make us citizens of the world.

This quote from Baxley makes his problem with Obama very clear: he is afraid of America's pure, Christian values becoming corrupted by this foreign influence. What could be worse than a president that could destroy American values and culture from the top down?

It seems that not much has changed in the way of American fears of foreign influence. A major part of Morone's argument in Hellfire Nation is that much of American history has been influenced by the desire to keep the purity of white Americans away from the dark, corrupt foreigners and blacks. For example, some prohibitionists characterized foreigners as drunkards and argued that Americans should not allow them to ruin the superior morality of Americans. Baxley is doing much of the same: subtly hinting at Muslims being terrorists, implying that Obama values foreigners over Americans, and stating that Obama is an unwise choice for the leader of Christian America.

However, at the same time, much has changed. The fact that Baxley was willing to go on the record with such distortions of the truth (if not outright lies) shows that he felt a significant portion of his audience would be influenced by what he said and may not vote for Obama due to his "Muslim roots." Has religion always been this important for political office? Thomas Jefferson was barely Christian, if at all; the most apt description of his religious beliefs would be Deism. James Madison's religious views differed very little from Jefferson's. Could they have been elected president in today's political climate? It is difficult for me to imagine this nation electing anyone who is not Christian to the office of the president.

It seems religion is becoming more and more important in the presidential election, which is quite contrary to the goals of the Founding Fathers. Even Kennedy's 1960 speech to Houston ministers, rejecting religion as a major election issue (in front of ministers, no less!) and instead pointing to more worldly issues, is unimaginable (at least to me) in this year's election. Rick Warren's audience would have booed Kennedy off the stage had he been giving his speech at Saddleback.

Jefferson and Madison would probably be quite disappointed to see the interaction between politics and religion today.

For Ex-G.O.P. Official, Obama Is Candidate of Catholic Values

Whether it be a public figure or common citizen, a vote cast holds equal weight within an election; however, when Douglas W. Kmiec endorsed Obama this past year, he represented a large community of conflicted Catholics struggling to find clarity within the important issues concerning this year's election. Can a devout Catholic vote for a pro-choice candidate without allowing an intrinsic evil to remain legal within the United States? Moreover, while the Church speaks out against single-issue voting, does this election force Catholics to choose a side solely based upon abortion?
Douglas Kmiec does not think so. During a recent interview, Kmiec gives clear and concise answers in defense of his support for Obama. He remains loyal to Catholic doctrine when recognizing abortion as an intrinsic evil and grave threat towards Church teaching, yet speaks adamantly about the misunderstanding of Roe vs. Wade and it's direct ability to change through either presidential candidate. Hypothetically speaking, Kmiec believes that if the case were to be overturned on a supreme level, the issue would fall stateside and, most likely, reap the same pro-choice outcomes. Further, he goes on to support the level of aid Obama promises as the change he would like to see within the pro-life/pro-choice debate, posing the choice: "A Catholic can either continue on the failed and uncertain path of seeking to overturn Roe, which would result in the individual states doing their own thing, not necessarily, or in most states even likely, protective of the unborn. Or Senator Obama’s approach could be followed, whereby prenatal and income support, paid maternity leave and greater access to adoption would be relied upon to reduce the incidence of abortion."
Kmiec proposes an excellent choice for all Catholics to seriously consider when casting their vote this fall. While my vote still remains candidate-less, I cannot help but be bothered by the acceptance of abortion as a powerless issue. I believe abortion is an intrinsic evil that cannot be rationalized or solved with solutions of financial aid or an easier system of adoption; instead, I believe every Catholic should denounce the right to kill innocent life and remain in search of solutions towards this goal. Is it realistic to vote solely based upon one's principles, fully knowing that actual change may never occur; or is it more important to cast your vote, despite it's opposition to your morals, so as to be a dutiful citizen?

Securing the Votes

An article in the New York Times, "Obama Wants to Expand Role of Religious Groups" reported on Senator Obama’s commitment to expand the role of religious groups in charity-based projects, which includes increasing federal support for them. As the article demonstrates, Obama has a strong stance on the role of religious groups in helping society because he believes the government alone cannot solve the problems of America, and that “we need all hands on deck.” (For the actual speech: Obama ).

The authors of the article are quick to point out Obama’s defense against the criticism that the program, started by the Bush administration, “blurs the constitutional separation of church and state.” Through careful supervision, Obama promises that groups would not use funds for proselytizing or that groups could not discriminate against “potential recipients or employees” based on their religious choice.

While the article focuses on Obama’s support of this program for religious groups, the underlying message is a clear example of the influence of religion or religious people on the current election: Obama is trying to court evangelical voters. When a candidate supports government programs that fund a religious group’s endeavor, religious people in those groups are more likely to vote for him. The article states, Obama is “trying to take advantage of signs that some conservative Christians are rethinking their politics, [who are] concerned about issues including climate change, genocide, AIDS and poverty.” The article even notes how McCain also showed his support for the same program, and that McCain is struggling to gain favor from evangelicals too.

When comparing the current role of religion in politics to its role in the early years of America, the concerns of separation of church and state are similar, but the issue of politicians purposely bringing religion into politics to secure votes is slightly different. Despite the belief often held by conservative Christians that the Founding Fathers were radical Christians who built this nation upon the principles of God, most of the early leaders did not use their religion to persuade the people. Rather the people questioned the beliefs of their leaders, and the leaders responded with a balanced answer that acknowledged God’s importance, but focused more on God not being a determinant in their governmental position. Even though there are examples like George Washington and his use of Christian allusions in public addresses (Meacham, 78), the majority of political leaders focused on avoiding direct religious commentary for political purposes. When some, like Benjamin Rush and Benjamin Franklin, did allude to religious contexts, they were highly criticized (Meacham, 91).

Today, the answers provided to questions about personal religious choices are different because religion plays a more vital role in securing voters. If a candidate does not state his religious beliefs, he risks losing a set of voters because for some people, a candidate’s religion is more important than other views. In addition, current candidates’ answers are less concerned with the balance of personal choice with church and state separation, but more emphatic in stating their belief because it is something certain voters want to hear. A good example of this is McCain’s unhesitating and succinct profession of his beliefs, when questioned by pastor Rick Warren's Saddleback Forum. For the founders, ensuring that Americans understood religious freedom as a natural right was key, and for current politicians, ensuring that Americans can relate to their specific religious identity is highly important.

So what if he is?

In a recent column entitled Obama and the Bigots, New York Times columnist, Nicholas D. Kristof argues that the most disturbing form of bigotry present in the 2008 Presidential election is religious bigotry. Kristof focuses specifically on attacks against Barack Obama which have questioned whether he is a Muslim, or even the antichrist.

Kristof realizes that politicians always dismiss these attacks, but says that is not enough. He would like to see a time when a politician can deny a false rumor but also point out that there is no reason it should matter. For Kristof, Obama’s most appropriate response to rumors that he is a Muslim “is a denial followed by: And so what if he were?” Kristof quickly takes a step back and says this Obama cannot actually do this because it would be seen as evidence that he really is a Muslim. America is still full of too much bigotry and ignorance about Islam for him to even take this step.

I agree with Kristof’s point and look forward to the day when the question is not “Is the candidate a Muslim?” but, “Who cares what religion the candidate is, will he make a good President?” That being said, this is not a new issue; religious tests for political candidates have existed throughout the history of our nation.

When Thomas Jefferson ran for President, opponents attacked him because he lacked traditional Christian belief. One newspaper wrote, “GOD-AND A RELIGIOUS PRESIDENT or…JEFFERSON-AND NO GOD.” Jefferson’s religious beliefs did not necessarily fit the standard of the day, in the same way that Obama’s heritage and upbringing do not fit the traditional standard for a President today.

For his part, Jefferson consistently showed that he did not care about a person’s religion, as long as they were an honest and decent members of society. “While I claim the right to believe in one God, I yield as freely to others who believe in three. Both religions, I find, make honest men, and that is the only point society has any right to look to.” In his “Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom,” Jefferson argues that to require a religious test of a public official “is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow citizens he has a natural right.” Jefferson thought great men could be made from any religion, and therefore religious belief should not be part of the criteria we use to judge a public figure. He seemed to look forward to the day in his time when the question was not, “Is he a Baptist, Methodist, or Presbyterian?” but, “So what if he is?”

It would be wrong to say little has changed in America on this subject. We are no longer as worried about the specific differences between denominations. However, an informal religious test for political candidates seems to actually have become more important in recent years. This is a disturbing development for a nation that Jefferson helped to found. If we were to bring Jefferson to the 21^st Century, I think that he might be surprised by the diversity of religions in America, but I also think he would be appalled by people falsely slandering a candidate for something that should not even matter.

Welcome!

Welcome to our blog, and to what three collaborating professors hope will be a stimulating expansion of our campuses this fall.

There is no question that questions of faith, religion, and morality are deeply intertwined with questions of our collective identity and direction in the United States of America. Although some voices have limited the "moral issues" of American politics to questions of abortion and same-sex marriage, that area is rapidly expanding to include such areas as war, immigration, health care, affordable housing, care for creation, fighting racism, sexism, and poverty. The major parties are battling over the Catholic vote, the Evangelical vote, and likely other faith-based demographics as well.

This semester, in the midst of our study of religion or theology and politics, we will have a chance to explore together the intersection of faith and politics in this election. Some of us likely already know for whom we will vote. Others perhaps are unsure or are even contemplating not voting. Regardless, we hope that this blog will give us all an opportunity to come into contact with people and with points of view that we would not necessarily contact on our own campus.