|
Throughout American history candidates have used the language of our shared civil religion, but in recent years more politicians have used coded religious language as a political strategy. They have prostituted the sanctity of religion for political gain.
The very nature of the On Faith question about this forum goes to the heart of my concerns about the forum. First, was the forum the launch of new direction for Democrats talking about religion? If the answer to that question is “yes,” why was the Christian evangelical organization called Sojourners sponsoring it?
It is one thing to consider a candidate’s faith; it is quite another to exclude an entire faith from being considered for public office. I wrote Sen. John McCain a letter to tell him how deeply disappointed and disturbed I am by his recent statements about religion and politics and by his apparent misunderstanding of our history and of the Constitution he has taken an oath to defend.
An alliance between science and religion is good for both religion and science as well as for quality education, preservation of the earth, personal health, global health, and so much more. Indeed, any schism between science and religion has been the product of misunderstanding and/or contrived competition.
The proper relationship between science and religion is one of mutual respect, support, and cooperation. Science can be the source of discoveries that answer many of the prayers voiced by religious adherents through the years. However, both science and religion are hurt when they are confused with each other or when one interferes with the other. Though religion has nothing to fear from science, religious beliefs are often used to construct roadblocks to scientific advancement—an irresponsible act on the part of religion, a disservice to science and all who can benefit from it. Similarly, science has no need to disparage or seek to destroy religion.
Mitt Romney’s speech on Faith in America was both encouraging and disappointing. I appreciate the tone of his speech and the fact that he seriously addressed the issue of religious liberty. I commend him for clearly stating that religious tolerance is not reserved only for faiths with which we agree and for warning against imposing a religious test on any candidate for public office.
At the same time, I’m concerned with how much of the speech was designed as red-meat for conservative Christian voters. He equated the right to life movement with the struggle for civil rights and abolition. He warned of the secularist boogeyman who would take religion out of the public square. And he completely ignored the values, rights, and contributions of millions of non-religious Americans.
In my capacity as president of The Interfaith Alliance, I have written Gov. Huckabee two letters recently asking that he reexamine his understanding of the Constitution and the responsibilities of the presidency.
Has this year’s presidential campaign become too religious you ask? Absolutely. Anyone watching the coverage of this election is likely to assume the candidates are running for pastor-in-chief instead of commander-in-chief. Though the presidential election is still more than 250 days away, the candidates are engaged in a knock-down drag-out fight, and religion is often used as a weapon in that fight.
When Senator Obama delivered that speech in 2006, I said on State of Belief, The Interfaith Alliance Foundation’s radio program, that it was “the most impressive statement on faith and politics in recent memory and a refreshing departure from the self-righteous certainty of so many politicians.” But I am concerned if he and other candidates cross the line and allow religion to become part of their campaign strategy or appear to be applying religion to public policy.
Being asked to answer this question disappoints me. Given the severity of the challenges we face, including the potential divisiveness of the election in which we are currently involved, a theoretical debate about Jesus as a political candidate strikes me as of little, if any relevance, for comments on faith, Jesus, government, or politics.
The Question: How should Barack Obama have responded to inflammatory remarks made by his former pastor, Dr. Jeremiah Wright? Are you responsible for what your spiritual leader says from the pulpit?
Senator Barack Obama’s speech in Philadelphia Tuesday provided a model of civility not just for a sensitive handling of racial issues, but also for his handling of potentially divisive religious issues. He gave us an important reminder that we do not live in a static society. Senator Obama today reminded us that change is possible, that we can begin to bridge the racial and religious divides, but only if we all make the effort.
With the near certainty that a woman or an African American will be one of the major party nominees for president, America has come a long way in dealing with both sexism and racism. Religion can’t choose to address only one or the other, but should be working to end both, because even though we have evolved on both sexism and racism, neither is going away without a fight.
The Question: John McCain's spiritual guide, televangelist Rod Parsley, calls Islam a "false religion" that should be "destroyed." Should McCain renounce Parsley? Will Islam be an issue in this year's U.S. presidential election?
Senator McCain should not have sought the endorsement of religious leaders like John Hagee and Rod Parsley, his “spiritual guide.” He should not only reject their extremist beliefs he should reject their endorsements. No candidate should seek, celebrate, or even accept endorsements from religious leaders.
The California Supreme Court ruling was a victory for religious freedom and the United States Constitution. The Interfaith Alliance, the organization I serve as president of, praised the California ruling because the court recognized – as I do -- that in America’s diverse religious landscape there are many theological positions on same-gender marriage.
The upcoming candidate forum at Pastor Rick Warren's Saddleback Church provides a unique opportunity to ask the presidential candidates crucial questions about the role of religion in their political worldview.
I approached Rick Warren's Saddleback Civil Forum with much anticipation, but without a clear idea of how he would handle the sensitive issues at the intersection of religion and politics. I believe Pastor Warren set an example of civility that I hope others will follow, but at the same time some of his questions crossed a line that makes this election seem as if we are electing a pastor-in-chief rather than a commander-in-chief.
I was fortunate enough to be invited to the Democratic National Convention to share my concerns about the misuse of religion during this election - from both parties. The following are remarks I shared at a Faith Caucus meeting just this afternoon:
What Islam Really Says About Violence, Rights and Other Religions
Gomaa, Fadlallah, Mubarak, Khan, Siddiqi, Ellison, others | On Faith
Comments (44)