|
If presidential candidates increasingly feel the need to speak about their religious faith, that isn't something happening in a cultural vacuum. It reflects the era in which we live, in which what was once considered "personal" and "private" has been pushed way into the public domain.
Reading through some of my fellow panelists' entries, I see some would bury Jerry Falwell, while others would praise him.
I will do neither, but rather note that one of his accomplishments (and I mean that word neutrally) was his ability to raise his public profile through his keen understanding of the needs of the news media. If Falwell became the public face of the religious right, it was in part because he returned reporters' phone calls ahead of deadline, sat through countless interviews and was always blunt, succinct and consistent--thus, eminently quotable. Of course, it didn't hurt that by the time he really came to national attention (the night of the 1980 election, as I recall), he had already built a very large local church, launched a broadcasting operation and deeply involved himself in political activity.
The single most surprising aspect of having a Hindu priest offer an opening prayer in the United States Senate is that it happened on July 12, 2007. I can't be the only person to whom that must seem a bit late. After all, Hindu scriptures have been read and admired in this country for more than 150 years. (Thoreau took the Bhagavad-gita with him to Walden Pond.) These days, more than one million Hindus call themselves Americans; from Queens, N.Y., to Laguna Beach, Calif., their communities are not exactly obscure. Note that the priest, Rajan Zed, is a resident of Nevada. And, of course, if Protestants, Roman Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Jews and Muslims are extended the courtesy of having one of their own pray for the Senate, then that symbolic honor can hardly be denied other religious groups.
John McCain's a war hero, but not much of a legal scholar. The Constitution forbids any "religious test" for elective office. (Again, thank you, James Madison.) Still, McCain reflects the feelings of a good many Americans: Polls show a majority want someone who at least acknowledges a personal faith. Ronald Reagan, with his occasional invocations of a non-sectarian God, handled this expectation about as well as most Americans seemed to want.
I couldn't vote for this bill. I don't like that whiff of defensiveness that clings to it, as if the authors had spent too much time thinking about an alleged "war on Christmas" to which a certain television network has devoted much attention.
But could it be amended? Not easily. But let's see. We might start by dealing with the numbers quoted. They represent an extremely diverse group, theologically and ecclesiastically, and incorporate a great many who don't recognize each other as Christians as well as those who might be described as only nominally within the faith. On the other hand, we might insert a statement I once heard from the great Rev. Gardner Taylor, a fellow panelist here, in response to a question he got about the success of so-called megachurches. Don't be overly impressed by crowds, I recall him saying. Wise and memorable words.
Based on the experience of having lived through the past seven years, I think I can boil down to five the questions I consider important in trying to assess a presidential candidate's moral grounding. Sure, these overlap with broad religious principles, but they work from a secular standpoint, as well.
First, are you able to admit a mistake and, as a chief executive, take responsibility for it and work humbly to undo any damage resulting from it?
Second, will you listen to others and give thoughtful weight to reasonable arguments with which you may be inclined to disagree?
Third, will you show sufficient curiosity about the world to believe that you can learn from and respond with care to changing global circumstances that affect your fellow citizens?
Fourth, will you demonstrate enough respect to other human beings to be truthful with them, even if that costs you politically?
And finally, will you state categorically that you will not start a war?
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?
The Question: Jeremiah Wright's sermons continue to be an issue in the presidential campaign. Why? What do you think of his preaching style? What do you wish you understood better about it?
What's made the Rev. Jeremiah Wright into America's most famous preacher is a single, short phrase, "God damn America," uttered during a sermon and repeated endlessly on various media loops. Yes, it's shocking, even when taken within its larger, sermonic context. And it's completely unsurprising that a great many people find it baffling and even enraging. The latest news media short-hand for the phrase is to call it "unpatriotic."
Is it really?
One vital feature largely overlooked in the discussion of Barack Obama's ties to Trinity United Church of Christ is the wider connections involved in his being there. Yes, to be sure, within the common media narrative, it's all been narrowly focused on a single relationship between an irrepressible and ultimately irresponsible pastor and a passive, pew-occupying parishioner-politician. Jeremiah Wright did all the talking, right? And Barack Obama just sat there, didn't he? That is, until Obama just couldn't take what was being said from the pulpit, whether by Wright, his successor or some ranting guest preacher.
What Islam Really Says About Violence, Rights and Other Religions
Gomaa, Fadlallah, Mubarak, Khan, Siddiqi, Ellison, others | On Faith
Comments (12)