Barack Obama has declared that his religion has an important place in politics - but apparently only on his terms and in the way he wants. As has become common with the so-called "Religious Left," religion used the way he wants is good; religion used differently is not. According to Barack Obama, religious faith must be used to "tackle moral problems" but not "divide the nation." Since when have "moral problems" not divided the nation?
Obama said that too often religious leaders use faith to "exploit what divides us" by saying that the only issues that matter are abortion, gay marriage, school prayer, and intelligent design.
"Everyone in this room knows that's not true," Obama said.
He said there are other challenges that can unite people of faith, one of them being the issue of climate change. "The bible tells us that when God created the earth, he entrusted us with the responsibility to take care of that earth," he said. "It is a responsibility to ensure that this planet remains clean and safe and livable for our children, and for all of God's children."
Source: CNN
Taking things step by step, let's look carefully at Barack Obama's train of thought:
- It's exploitative and wrong for religious leaders to say that only certain issues, like abortion and gay marriage, are religious issues.
- There are more things that matter to religious people than things like abortion and gay marriage.
- Here's an idea: let's make global warming a religious issue, too!
If this were coming from a prominent liberal preacher, it wouldn't be so problematic. True, there would still be the question of why they are complaining about how religious leaders "exploit what divides us" and then promote the exploitation of a new issue to divide people, but at least we would be seeing a religious leader trying to make religious arguments for a particular social policy that already has substantive secular arguments. I may not agree with their religious arguments, but I don't have a problem with them being made when there are already substantive secular arguments.
What we have here, though, is a politician seeking the highest elected office in America who is trying to promote a secular political issue as also being a religious issue. Who does Barack Obama think he is? He's not a pastor or minister, nor is he running for the office of "Highest American Priest." He has no business promoting anything as being "genuinely religious" or not; indeed, this is something which Christians should arguably be more annoyed with.
Christians look to their priests, pastors, and ministers for advice on how their religion can inform their responses to pressing social and political issues. Christians shouldn't have to deal with elected politicians stepping into that role and trying to tell them what their religion has to say about the matter. Can you imagine if George W. Bush gave a speech where he tried to make a scriptural, religious, and explicitly Christian argument against abortion, gay marriage, or anything else? Liberals would be howling with outrage, insisting that this disrespects the separation of church and state.
They'd be right to do so, too. Barack Obama and George W. Bush may have their views on certain matters influenced by their religion, but they have no business trying to instruct the nation about what a proper Christian response to some issue is, should be, or even might be. They have no business telling religious believers what is or should be a proper "religious" issue in the first place — if citizens want to make religious arguments for or against something then that's their right. If they don't, then they shouldn't bother. Getting involved with religion simply isn't part of the job description of any elected government official and certainly not President of the United States.
If you only object when religion is used to promote politics you disagree with, then your objections are unprincipled and self-serving. This describes, I think, the attitudes of too many liberal Christians in the Democratic Party. Only a few liberal and moderate Christians oppose such tactics regardless of the theology and politics of those who are doing (and even fewer conservatives); otherwise, only secular atheists oppose both equally — and even some atheists are willing to set that aside in the interest of politics. How sad.
When someone claims that God called them to run for office, you can call them a liar or deluded or... what? If you're not willing to make such a strong accusation, there isn't much left to respond with. The claim is made in order to keep people from asking why this person thinks they have what it takes to hold public office. Their skills, background, qualifications, and agenda become irrelevant. God wants it and that's all that matters. Perhaps an opponent can starting claiming that God actually wants them to hold that office, but that would quickly become a very childish exchange.
When someone claims that God backs certain policy proposals, you can call them a liar or deluded or... what? Once again, if you're not willing to make such an accusation there isn't much left. This claim is also made to keep people from asking whether the policy will work, is effective, is the best option, etc. God demands it and that's it. Democrats are told that when Republicans do this, they should start claiming the opposite: that God, Jesus, and the Bible actually back their positions.
This is treated like mature and sensible way to debate politics, but it's not. It's just as useless and childish as two politicians saying "God wants me!"... "NO, God wants ME!" That those who recommend this course of action don't realize this indicates just how far we've fallen from mature, serious political discourse in America. Think about it: politicians are told to defend their policies by claiming that their religion backs it, not on any rational or empirical merits. Barack Obama's actual political policies may be an improvement over those of George W. Bush, but his approach to politics may be ultimately no better and may serve to keep American political discourse mired in the swamp of theology and faith-based nonsense.
