Back to Clive Crook's blog homepage
Church and state
August 20, 2008
An interesting piece by Kathleen Parker, who was deeply offended by the Saddleback “interrogation”. (Thanks to Loretta, a recovering Catholic of this parish, for prodding me to blog about this.)
At the risk of heresy, let it be said that setting up the two presidential candidates for religious interrogation by an evangelical minister — no matter how beloved — is supremely wrong. It is also un-American.
For the past several days, since mega-pastor Rick Warren interviewed Barack Obama and John McCain at his Saddleback Church, most political debate has focused on who won…
The winner, of course, was Warren, who has managed to position himself as political arbiter in a nation founded on the separation of church and state. The loser was America.
It’s a fair point. Speaking as an atheist–but one who feels no desire to convert others to my lack of faith–I was indeed struck by the anomaly of my finding the event both interesting and informative, much more so than the other TV debates, even though the religious trappings ought to have made me uneasy. Parker continues:
His format and questions were interesting and the answers more revealing than what the usual debate menu provides. But does it not seem just a little bit odd to have McCain and Obama chatting individually with a preacher in a public forum about their positions on evil and their relationship with Jesus Christ?
What is the right answer, after all? What happens to the one who gets evil wrong? What’s a proper relationship with Jesus? What’s next? Interrogations by rabbis, priests and imams? What candidate would dare decline on the basis of mere principle?
Both Obama and McCain gave “good” answers, but that’s not the point. They shouldn’t have been asked. Is the American electorate now better prepared to cast votes knowing that Obama believes that “Jesus Christ died for my sins and I am redeemed through him,” or that McCain feels that he is “saved and forgiven”?
In the end, I think Parker has chosen the wrong target. If presidential candidates profess faith, and promise to be guided by it in office, then their faith is a legitimate and indeed necessary area of inquiry. And I think Warren is to be congratulated on his courteous and informative probing. It is an error, in my view, to say this violates the principle of separation of church and state. The aim of that principle is not to stifle faith (or lack of it) but to assure that no one faith (or lack of it) is granted an official licence to stamp out the competition. This is a very frequent confusion. Nothing in the Saddleback event threatens anybody’s religous freedom.
The proper target for Parker’s displeasure, it seems to me, is the great American public, which insists that its leaders be God-fearing types (or at least say they are). That is certainly a species of intolerance; but the remedy is not to shroud candidates’ faith in silence. Parker says:
And while, yes, everybody has some kind of worldview, it shouldn’t be necessary in a pluralistic nation of secular laws to publicly define that view in Christian code.
Perhaps not, but it certainly is necessary that they define it in plain English–and if that worldview includes the belief that Christ died for our sins, then I for one want to know that, and to understand what (if anything) it implies about the candidate’s likely conduct.
There are two significant points about the church format. One is cynical Rovian politics of getting evangelicals to vote against their own economic interests by appealing to their religious values (or prejudices, depending upon one’s viewpoint).
The other is to show the white churches are “good” and black ones are “bad”. Obviously, it is inconceivable that a forum like this could ever take place in a black church, to matter how long established and well-regarded.
Having said the above, I still think that Obama missed a golden opportunity to come out swinging. Instead of letting himself be side tracked by metaphysical discussions about evil and the beginning of life, which are best left to theologians, he could have zoomed in on the economy, on McCain’s belligerent foreign policy, on his ties to the Bush/Cheney plutocracy, on his flip-flops, and, especially on his connections with corporate lobbyists.
Most of all, Obama could have challenged McCain to disavow Jerome Corsi’s slimy, hate-filled book of falsehoods, just has Obama himself was forced to disavow Jeremiah Wright’s off the wall rants.
What a shame, what a terrible Shame, that Obama, so desperate to buttress his image as a reasonable, thoughtful politician (which he clearly is), missed this chance to come out fighting. How many more chances can he miss and still hope to win the election?
Posted by: algasema | August 20th, 2008 at 4:46 pm | Report this commentOops! “that white churches”, not “the white churches”. Another “algasema”.
Posted by: algasema | August 20th, 2008 at 4:49 pm | Report this commentAlso, “shame”, not “Shame”. I must really be having an attack of algasemia today.
Posted by: algasema | August 20th, 2008 at 4:51 pm | Report this commentWhy is to decline voting for a Leftist voting “against your economic interest”?
Perhaps economic interests are fairness across the board, rather than penalizing an unpopular set of voters to reward a popular set.
Most people (evangelical and otherwise) can see the cage the Left is building for them, even if they are currently not canaries.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | August 20th, 2008 at 9:16 pm | Report this commentFair enough, Clive, but do you ? Do you now know, as you express a desire to in your last sentence, what the belief that Christ died for our sins implies about the candidate’s likely conduct?
Given that almost any candidate would profess his faith in pretty much these same terms, it is astounding that the implications in terms of their public policies and personal conduct differ so widely. Mustn’t we conclude then that any public talk about faith has in fact zero correlation with what you call the candidate’s likely conduct?
E.S.
Posted by: Emilio Strada | August 21st, 2008 at 10:21 am | Report this commentThe entire process was an exercise in nonsense but highly revealing about the candidates personalities. The question not asked but which is crucial to our welfare is *How much of your decision making process is controlled by the concept that it is preferable to have faith in ideas that you can not know or prove?*
Posted by: khcasey@sbcglobal.net | August 21st, 2008 at 5:10 pm | Report this commentThat the United States is “a nation founded on the separation of church and state” is a modern myth. The principle is nowhere mentioned in the Articles of Confederation or in the original constitution.
The First Amendment does not use the Kathleen Parker’s words in quotes. Although Thomas Jefferson introduced the phrase “a wall of separation between church and state” a decade after the First Amendment was drafted and ratified, he had no direct influence on its drafting. In point of fact, he was pandering to one religious group, the Danbury Baptists, at the expense of another, the Congregationalists, whose religion was the established religion of the state of Connecticut. That “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …” is, in the context of the founding, a defense of religion from federal interference and a limiting of federal power (six of the states had established religions and the central government was being prohibited from establishing a nationally established religion.)
The most crucial issue facing whoever is elected is the inflation that is undermining the dollar as a reserve currency and eviscerating world economic growth. Nevertheless I agree with you that understanding how the candidates think and what motivates them gives us insight into their character. This is vitally important. Having followed a dozen presidential elections I have learned one lesson. The issues that defined the subsequent presidencies were almost never discussed in the preceding campaigns. Similarly, issues that loomed large in the campaigns often were in history’s dustbin after the elections. I want to understand the person who will make the decisions we have not yet anticipated.
-Malcolm Harris
Posted by: Malcolm Harris | August 22nd, 2008 at 3:03 am | Report this commenthttp://mammonamongfriends.blogspot.com/