Not Another Religious Test!?
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?
As a nation, we seem to have embarked on an evermore demanding trajectory when it comes to politicians and their personal religion. It is reasonable to allow for political figures who sincerely hold (or lack) a religious identity to say so. Let the public decide whether they have crossed a boundary by being so revealing. But it's another matter entirely to hold a political figure somehow "responsible" for what his or her minister/priest/rabbi/imam says. Do we really want to go there?
I hope not. To suggest that a political figure holds that kind of responsibility can easily be taken to imply that the political individual ought to control the religious figure, thereby denying the latter his/her spiritual authority and judgment, to say nothing of his/her freedom of speech.
That idea trivializes religion itself, denying it the basic function (as our Founders--and the Hebrew prophets--understood it) of standing outside and apart from political power structures. Religion that accommodates itself to the prevailing culture risks its ability to demand justice from society. But religion that becomes captive to the state signs its own death warrant.
None of this is to suggest Rev. Wright is "right" in those statements so widely quoted by the news media. Call them "controversial," call them "highly charged," call them "intemperate," call them "divisive," call them simply "wrong." All that's fine.
But last I checked, Senator Obama is an adult and thus fully entitled to speak for himself, to be the ultimate authority on what he believes. If we're going to doubt that, to make an exception in his case, then let's indulge in that old cliche and level the playing field enough to ask the other two candidates, Senators Clinton and McCain, if they agree with everything their clergy persons have ever said? And why stop there? Maybe we ought to ask people running for elective office if they completely agree with all the individuals they are variously close to--their spouses, siblings, friends, physicians, attorneys, bankers... Gee, we've got the makings of a real inquisition here. What fun.
By
Gustav Niebuhr
|
March 18, 2008; 10:20 AM ET
Share This:
Technorati
| Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: Spiritual Guidance |
Next: Trust God, not Clergy
Posted by: Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia | March 22, 2008 5:09 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Niebuhr,
Your use of the phrase "religious test" is a bit overblown isn't it? A religious test would be for the gov't to require you to swear that you are of a certain religion in order to allow you to take office. We're not there yet. There is nothing in the constitution that requires individual citizen voters to use or not use religion as their criteria for selecting a particular candidate. In fact, we have the right to use any criteria we want. We can be ignorant of history, ignorant of foreign policy, ignorant of the candidates proposals even, much less the impact they might have and we still have the right to cast that vote. We can dismiss someone because of their skin color, or their accent or anything else and we don't even have to make up a decent reason if we don't want to, we won't be locked up for it. It's ironic isn't it, that we have a system free from a religious test, but we use our freedom of the secret ballot to implement something that looks a lot like a religious test?
Posted by: Zarathustra | March 19, 2008 1:18 AM
Report Offensive Comment
http://YES,Come-iN:-WELCOME-To-YOUR-NEW-HOME!
http://J
http:///O
http:////Z
http://///E
http://////V
http://////.US
Posted by: Anonymous | March 18, 2008 11:35 PM
Report Offensive Comment
http://J
http:///O
http:////Z
http://///E
http://////V
http://////.US
http://JO][ZE][VZ][.US]
http://JO][ZE][VZ][.US]
http://JO][ZE][VZ][.US]
http://JO][ZE][VZ][.US]
http://JO][ZE][VZ][.US]
http://JO][ZE][VZ][.US]
Posted by: Anonymous | March 18, 2008 11:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment
http://JO][ZE][VZ][.US]
http://JO][ZE][VZ][.US]
http://JO][ZE][VZ][.US]
http://JO][ZE][VZ][.US]
http://JO][ZE][VZ][.US]
http://JO][ZE][VZ][.US]
http://JO][ZE][VZ][.US]
http://JO][ZE][VZ][.US]
http://JO][ZE][VZ][.US]
http://JO][ZE][VZ][.US]
http://JO][ZE][VZ][.US]
http://JO][ZE][VZ][.US]
Posted by: Anonymous | March 18, 2008 11:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Mr. Niebuhr in a country where 80% of the population claims some sort of religious affiliation there will always be some sort of religious test. It may not always be public but it most certainly be applied in the privacy of each believer's heart. When he steps into the voting booth.
Were it not for his twenty year relationship with Pastor Wright it wouldn't and shouldn't matter what Pastor Wright says. However he was associated with him for twenty years and you can certainly see some traces of the impact of Pastor wright's sermons in what Michelle Obama has said.
The only difference between Pastor Wright and the Grand Dragon of the KKK is the color of the skin of the people they hate and despise.
Posted by: Garyd | March 18, 2008 7:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment
There are certain topics I never discuss with certain friends. Religion with one friend--who is a religious nut, we never go there cause always fight. Politics with another friend, who is a anti-gov nut, we never go there cause we always fight.
So why do we expect our polititians to go there?
O'm starting to think the media WANTS a fight, so they take us there.
Posted by: Fay | March 18, 2008 4:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Blacks need to start taking some personal responsibility for high rate of high school drop out, sexual promiscuity, children born out of wedlock, , absence of male parenting/role models, drugs, crime, incarceration, AIDS, and lack of personal responsibility instead of playing the victim hood game and blaming everyone else for their plight! Until that time there will always be hate mongers & race baiter,s to use them and profit from their plight like the Rev. Wright, Rev. Jessie Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton as well as 10,s of thousands of White and Black Politicians. In fact the whole Democrat party! Hands outs, instead of a hand up, is the means of keeping Blacks down and economic Slaves! Keeping Blacks as an race of victims instead of a race of achievers is in the best interest of Black preachers and Democrat politicians! Blacks will never be lead to the promise land by hate mongering Preachers like Rev. Wright or by bottom feeding Politician that wants and works to keep Blacks in the Ghetto on Welfare, and voting Democrat!
Posted by: Anonymous | March 18, 2008 3:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment
" WaitMinute:
You may not agree your friend. But if your friend is a racist and hate America from his heart, do you still want him be your friend, mentor, .. for 20 years?"
Good point.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 18, 2008 3:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment
It's not hard to understand the basis of Rev. Wright's "racism". When your ancestors have been enslaved, raped, beaten, murdered, and lynched, it's not hard. When your ancestors are counted as three-fifths a person, it's not hard. When you are forced to ride the back of the bus, enter through the back door, walk to a one room shack to attend school while white children ride past you on school buses to brick schoolhouses, it's not hard. When you are beaten while trying to vote, it's not hard. When you are denied, scorned, and belittled because your skin is brown, IT'S NOT HARD.
Posted by: Been There | March 18, 2008 1:15 PM
Report Offensive Comment
You may not agree your friend. But if your friend is a racist and hate America from his heart, do you still want him be your friend, mentor, .. for 20 years?
Posted by: WaitMinute | March 18, 2008 1:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.











Dear Professor Niebuhr
I wish you a wonderful Easter 2008!
Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia