The original intent of separating Church from State (or vice versa) was to keep government out of religion. Religion, believed Founding Father Thomas Jefferson (and others), was a very personal matter, one which the government had no business getting involved in.
Now, however, it is often the State and politicians who need protection from the Church, or more accurately those who believe that where or how one prays to God (or which god or no god) should be the or a major deciding factor in choosing a President. And I find this both distressing and depressing.
Which brings me to today's article in The New York Times titled "Muslim Voters Detect a Snub from Obama." For MONTHS now the media has been regurgitating information from surveys that reveal that some 10 percent of Americans (I do not have the latest number, but that's the last one I heard) think Obama is a "secret Muslim" (he isn't). At the same time these same people (as well as many others) chastise Obama for staying at Trinity United Church of Christ (that's Christ people, in case you missed it, as in Jesus Christ) while it was led by the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who, as we all know said some very inflammatory things (which spiritual leaders never do, right?).
Whether The Times's assertions are true or not (and Obama staffers say they are not), can anyone really blame Obama for not stumping at mosques or seeming too chummy with Muslims in the current anti-Muslim-post-9/11-Iraq-War world we live in?
We the people have created an impossible (intolerable?) situation for Barack Hussein Obama. Literally, he is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't, worship- or religion- or appearance-wise, by pick your religious group. It's enough to make a guy a Unitarian or a Buddhist, though I am sure either move would cause even more outcry.
But the bigger point is -- or should be: Why does anyone care? When did religious affiliation or how many times or where or how one prays, if one does at all, become a leading factor in determining who is "fit" to be President? Shouldn't we be picking a president based on, oh, things like capability, and/or experience, and/or intelligence, and/or grasp of the major issues facing this country and its people, and/or ability to unite and lead people?
Interestingly, on Monday, the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life released its second report on the U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, which, according to the press release (which contains the report's main findings and is a good, relatively quick read), finds that "Politics and religion in the United States are intertwined, and religion is highly relevant to understanding politics in the U.S." No shit.
This great country of ours is supposed to be a shining light in terms of religious freedom. The United States Information Agency even has a Web site called "Principles of Democracy," with an entire section on "Freedom of Religion." Read it -- and try not to weep.
ADDENDUM: George Carlin, who died this past Sunday, and will sorely be missed, had this to say about religion and governance (or politics).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
I disagree that any Founder, even Jefferson, intended the separation of religion and state so casually asserted as America's birthright. However, I read something else today by a guy I would not think would agree with you but does.
The machievellian, toe-sucking, homunculous Dick Morris has an interesting take on this. He thinks (or says anyway) that Obama is better off if people are attacking him for his religion.
http://thehill.com/dick-morris/obamas-new-strategy-2008-06-24.html
I also note that religion is one marker of who a person is. An unknown like Obama can't afford to be lumped in with weird religions. Even Mitt Romney, from central politician casting, suffered because of Mormonism. Moslems have a p.r problem right now because of a disturbing prevalence of people who blow up innocents in their ranks, but any exotic religion would suffer.
As far as I know the Buddhists don't bother anyone (except those picky Moslems) but Obama, a member of a racialist, radical Christian Church has a better chance at election than any Buddhist would.
But religion is not dispositive. John Kerry lost his co-religionists, the Catholics, because he appeared too Brahmin.
Jews make up 2% of this country but a Jewish person has a better chance of being elected than an atheist who could be as much as 5%.
I myself would have a hard time voitng for a Zoroastrian because of my fear of global warming.
Hey JJV, don't knock toe-sucking or having your toes sucked until you've tried it.
Btw, your argument (at least the second half) backs up my argument, though I doubt that's what you intended.
I agree. Obama’s in a Catch-22 situation and religion is U.S. politics’ elephant in a China shop. But it’s so hard to see what can be done.
JJV, Jefferson is the one who coined the term "wall of separation" -- here's a letter in which he clarifies his intent:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.
Here's a link:
http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html
The current crop of Republicans have perfected the art of creating what seem to be Catch-22 situations for the Democrats. That is why it is so important for Obama, and all the Democrats, to have well established principles (like religious tolerance, even and maybe especially for Muslims in the United States) and stick to them. The Republicans will attempt to pillory Obama regardless, so better to stand up for what is right and be castigated, rather than trying to please everyone (which in the end pleases no one).
I agree with JJV that Islam is a weird religion. I mean, how many other "monotheistic religions originally practiced by Semitic peoples" are there?
On the other hand the Zoroastrianism joke was a good one.
Thank you for that excerpt and link, Betty. Almost included them myself.
Lietzy, good point.
As for Dave S., I cannot believe you are pandering to JJV. For shame.
Two points, 1st I did know it supported your argument and found it odd it was published the same day.
On Jefferson his letter to the Baptists is an old point of contention as I simply do not believe it is a big enough hook upon which to hinge church/state relations. I also note old Tommy J, drafted the Northwest Ordinance on how territories within it would become states. And schools would be an important part of what went on in organizing those territories and what did Mr. Separation recommend would be taught in those schools?
Article. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”
Post a Comment