Even if the phrase “In God We Trust” were stripped from the dollar bill, religion could not be stripped from the current presidential race.
And I, for one, am glad.
Religion is the lens through which people view the world. It will influence every decision these candidates would make in office if elected.
Rick Warren, pastor of Saddleback Church in Orange County, Calif. who hosted senators Barack Obama and John McCain at a televised forum on religion this month, agrees that what they believe should matter to us.
“We believe in the separation of church and state, but we do not believe in the separation of faith and politics because faith is just a worldview, and everybody has some kind of worldview,” Warren said.
I was intrigued by what President Bush’s former speechwriter, Michael Gerson, had to say about the candidates at a conference I attended this summer.
After spending considerable time traveling with Obama, Gerson us he views Obama’s adult conversion to Christianity as one of earnestness and authenticity.
“I have no reason to doubt his faith,” Gerson said. “He is more comfortable speaking theology than any president since Jimmy Carter.”
McCain biographer, Paul Alexander, says McCain is more reserved about his faith because, at his core, he remains a military man, trained to keep it to himself.
As was stressed in the forum, both candidates can tell genuine stories of Christian faith impacting their personal lives.
Regardless of how convincingly these candidates can profess their religions in the public spotlight, we voters are left to discern what will most impact their decisions in office.
Though the candidates are banking that the evangelicals — an estimated 20 to 25 percent of the electorate — will vote like they usually do, there is no guarantee that a Christian president would vote like a Christian in office (not that there is any consensus on how a Christian should vote on issues).
As useful as it is to hear politicians talk about their faiths, they are still politicians. What matters is how they act on those words.
Both candidates have served as senators and logged pages of voting records.
Voting is what turns all this election talk into paper and pen, signature or no-signature decisions.
Our generation is swayed easily by the sincerity of a speaker and how we feel when we listen to him or her. I may be a practiced judge of character, but when it comes to politicians, I rarely trust my instincts.
I look at voting records, available at Web sites like votesmart.org,, to see how the candidates voted on issues that matter to me and how they voted on the issues they say matter to them.
For example, Obama says he is pro-choice, but he chose “Not Voting” three of the four times abortion issues were presented to the Senate, according to voting records. The issue will be divisive in the upcoming election, but so will almost every issue he would encounter as president.
Meanwhile, the pro-choice stance of his new Catholic running mate, Sen. Joseph R. Biden, Jr., elicited a scolding from Archbishop Charles Chaput of Denver, who asked him to refrain from communion because of the gap between his beliefs and his politics.
While McCain remains more reserved about his personal faith, his value-oriented rhetoric is rooted in military honor. His decisions based on that foundation alone could align with the originally faith-based precepts on which our forefathers built this country — but it is still a stretch from what evangelical voters would like to see in a president.
President Bush’s openness about his Christian faith earned him more than 70 percent of evangelical votes.
At this point, McCain has about as much support from that group as Bush did prior to election, though it is less enthusiastic, according to a poll from the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.
But conversations about the religious worldviews of these candidates should matter to more than the evangelical voter who may share a pew with their beliefs.
It should matter to all voters because the decisions of our elected president will affect all of them.
Whitney Coleman is a journalism senior. Her column will appear every other Friday.
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size
Print Story
Mail to Friend
More Stories
Comments
You do make a valid point people who ARENT religious should be concerned about the decisions being made by the "religious." Religion should have no place in the political forum I want to know how the candidate is going to fix the surmounting problems facing the U.S today not what church he goes to or how many times he prays every day. You say that religion is the lense by which people view the world, if true I sure dont want a president who has a belief of some celestial dictator in the sky I want a president with sense of reality which religion is not a reality its man made superstition. We have a constitution to guide us on making political decisions and the fact that you even suggest that you want a president to be making decisions in office based on his religion is a terrifying thought we are not a theocracy. Faith should not be a qualifier for the presidency infact those without it should be considered all the more. I'm glad to see the first attempt at a pro-religion piece this year was such a half-hearted attempt to prove a scary truth of the dangers of people of faith
redbull560, you want no religious discourse or reasoning in the political forum, and seem to suggest that a politician doing anything political with religious motivation constitutes a theocracy. That is absurd. Everyone works out their world-views - that includes political views - on the basis of theological presuppositions. My theological presupposition is that the God of the Bible exists and the Bible is the sole, infallible source of truth. Yours appears to be that there is no God. Basing political decisions on one's world-view only makes sense and does not constitute a theocracy. I know of no one trying to create a state church or require everyone to be Christian (which is an impossible task). And if there is a group proposing such, they are in the severe minority. I think religious ideas ought to be thoroughly discussed in the public square - and if you think Christianity is ridiculous and dangerous, then simply bring it into the public arena and refute it if you can.
"Religion is the lens through which people view the world."
What does this mean?
I hope it doesn't mean people allow their religion to guide them. That would just be irrational. Religion is faith. Faith lies outside the realm of the explainable, i.e. irrationality and the acceptance of such irrationality.
Hopefully, the next leader of the free world takes into consideration the advice of people who are the most qualified at what they do instead of praying to a god that doesn't answer.
EN, it does mean that "people allow their religion to guide them." It is not irrational - you simply o dismiss religion instead of interacting with the claims religions make. As a Christian, I believe that faith is immensely important, but my definition of faith is likely radically different than yours.
Considering the advice of qualified people and praying to God are not mutually exclusive.
Brian you are so deluded in your thinking, you honestly believe the horrid things george bush has done in his foreign policy were not somewhat motivated by his religion, he has said time and time again he think god is calling him to do these things and that its his holy responsibility to carry out gods will. While I do realize he is not totally driven by this and I would just as soon assume its all an act but we have plenty other legislatures who make crazy decisions based on their personal mystical beliefs in some god. we have crazed southern republicans rallying against gay marriage and abortion because they think their holy book is right. I'm sorry you are so upset by a rational choice of no faith and I would gladly take christianity into the public arena anytime with you and easily refute it for it is you who have the burden of proof to a God with no evidence.
BrianCBiggs:
But they are mutually exclusive, because a top senior adviser and a deity are two radically different sources of information. The adviser makes decisions and responds in a timely and efficacious manner to the president of the United States. The other, not so much. I'm not trying to be difficult, and it's obvious we see things from different points of view - I am simply being practical.
And religion IS irrational. Again, I am being practical: Christians, or anyone who worships to a god, acknowledge freely that their god(s) operate on a scale beyond human logic and reason. To understand something beyond human logic and reason, and what is not believable or provable, is irrational, given what we know as humans. That's a minimalistic viewpoint, but I don't see what part you can't agree with me.
redbull560, I said nothing about Bush. And even if what you say is true about Bush, it doesn't change that we do not live in a theocracy. Once again, people voting and acting on their beliefs does not constitute a theocracy.
And if you would like to debate me or talk with me about Christianity, I'll gladly do it. My email is brian [at] briancbiggs [dot] com.
EN, a leader can pray to God, read the Bible, and consult an advisor and take the advisor's advice without contradiction. If I were the leader of an organization and I needed to hire a secretary, what quality would you think I would look for first and foremost in that person? The ability to type. I don't see any contradiction between praying and taking good advice.
Religion can be irrational - Biblical Christianity is not. God may operate on reasoning that surpasses human reasoning, but it is never contrary to logic. And Christianity is believable, not irrational. If you do not think Christianity is believable and want to debate or talk with me about it, my email is brian [at] briancbiggs [dot] com. I would love to have lunch with you and talk about it.
Post a comment
Commenting requires registration.