Obama has completed his first year in office and one of his biggest criticisms has been that he has cast himself in the role of religious savior. Whether this is factually accurate or not, this narrative remains in the media. This week, the Washington Post’s “On Faith” section deals with this topic: Presidents as saviors.
Do we expect our presidents to be spiritual leaders as well as political leaders? Can they be? Should they be?
One of the dangers of religion is that it cannot be questioned or criticized in polite conversation. When someone uses their religious belief in God to inform or justify their political opinions, there is no rational means to change those political opinions.
When the leader of a nation tells the people that he or she is in communication with God, the leader’s political decisions become religious decisions. To question such a leader means to question one’s religious faith. To do so is usually considered blasphemous.
This is the reason why in 1954, America added the phrase “Under God” to our pledge of Allegiance. This is also the reason why America’s motto was created in 1956 to be, “In God We Trust.” The idea is that God is on our side and therefore any decisions our political leaders make are approved by God. If someone disagrees with a particular government policy, then that person isn’t just labeled unpatriotic, but also evil.
I remember talking to a religious fundamentalist friend in the suburbs of Philadelphia while George W. Bush for President. He told me that Bush was the next best thing to Jesus himself. His view was that God had elected Bush Jr. and that the President was in direct communication with God. Of course toward the end of Bush’s Presidency, my friend had a very different opinion of his savior.
The irony is that America was established as a secular nation and yet we have allowed religion to control our government more often then our European neighbors. The idea of America was to escape theocracy in favor of democracy. Yet in our modern world, it is bronze-aged mythology which more often than not informs most American’s political decisions. As a result, the Presidency has become more of a religious office in order to capitalize on the religiosity of the people.
If you enjoy this article, please consider sharing the link and subscribing to the Philly Atheist Examiner column using the "Subscribe" button above!
On Faith Series:
On Faith: Does God allow Haiti to suffer?
On Faith: Media biased against Christians?
On Faith: Free speech vs. God
On Faith: Religion’s Impact 2009
On Faith: Climate change a moral issue?
On Faith: Good News -- Oral Roberts is dead
On Faith: Just war or holy war in Afghanistan?
On Faith: A crèche in the White House?
On Faith: Swiss ban on Islamic minarets
On Faith: holidays or holy days?
Atheism 101 Articles:
Atheism 101: What is the difference between atheism and agnosticism?
Atheism 101: Is there moral grounding without God?
Atheism 101: The Purpose of Life
Atheism 101: The Nature of Good and Evil
Atheism 101: The Problem of Evil
Atheism 101: Is the Bible the inspired word of God?
Atheism 101: The anti-intellectualism of religion
Atheism 101: Why has Christianity demonized nudity, sex and sexuality?
Atheism 101: How to respond to the lord, liar, lunatic argument?
Atheism 101: Does it take more faith to be an atheist?
Atheism 101: What came before the Universe?
Atheism 101: How to respond to the ex-atheist
Comments
I recommend reading "The Prince" by Niccolo Machiavelli. In it you will find an adherence by our leaders almost to the very letter.
(wikipedia/wiki/The_Prince)
"Do we expect our presidents to be spiritual leaders as well as political leaders?"
I don't, and I don't think anybody should, but apparently people do
"Can they be?"
I imagine a spiritual leader could be elected as President, but they should put their career as a spiritual leader on hold while performing as President.
"Should they be?"
NO
Unasked questions:
Has President Obama represented himself as a Religious Figure?
No, not that I've ever seen
Have the Republicans represented President Obama as someone who represents himself as a Religious Figure?
Yes
Martin Luther said he would prefer to be ruled by a good Turk than a bad Christian. I agree. The only difference between a Christian and one who is not, is that the Holy Spirit is within the Christian. We can choose to obey him then or not- I have done both as have all Christians.
No. That's the Pope's job (or the Dali Lama)
The Royal Houses of Europe, play the the political and religious figurehead. The Queen of England is head of the Church of England, and the Queen of Denmark is head of the Danish Lutheran Church. Neither are true Democracies.
This is what the Republicans have wanted since the Dominionist takeover of the party in 1980. To be a religious aristocracy.
<i>"One of the dangers of religion is that it cannot be questioned or criticized in polite conversation. When someone uses their religious belief in God to inform or justify their political opinions, there is no rational means to change those political opinions."</i>
Interesting that you feel that way. I question and criticize religious beliefs (my own as well as others) all the time in polite and impolite conversations.
As for a rational means to change one's political opinions based on a religious belief in God (or a religious belief that there is no God)? Of course there is. You don't seem prepared, however, to grant (for the sake of discussion) that it might be possible to be Christian and reasonable at the same time. I can't speak for other religions but I imagine they can also be reasonable as well as hold to their beliefs.
The question is will they be? Now to see if your response can be rational over my questioning your religion :)
Hone, I think you are reading into this a little. I didn't say that religious people can't be rational. I said, "When someone uses their religious belief in God to inform or justify their political opinions, there is no rational means to change those political opinions." If you truly believe that God is against a certain policy, then no rational justification for that policy will convince you to support it. If you don't think God has made his position known on a policy, then we can have a rational discussion on that policy without your religion getting in the way.
Its interesting that you trumpet the ever popular "this nation was founded as a secular nation" and ignore the larger issues behind that. It was intended by the founding fathers that people would be entitled to hold whatever religious beliefs (or lack there of) they wished. It was intended that Government would not make any laws regarding the practice of religion. The founding fathers themselves on the other hand were largely to a man devoutly religious men most of whom feared the idea of a country run with out God. Even Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin (the two least religious men among the founding fathers) were still deists who believed God did exist (Jefferson regularly attended sunday church at the capital building and Franklin felt Christian morality should be taught in school). They questioned God's action in the world today not whether or not he existed. Several founding fathers (including Washington) wrote of their fears of a nation that has forgotten God.
(continued) I'd also observe that the world has seen completely secular nations where religion was a criminal offense. Given the choice i'd certainly take living in the US under George W Bush (who I'd consider one of the worst examples of a religious president) then in Soviet Russia under the avowed atheist Joseph Stalin or in Communist China.
The mentioned myth that religious people are less inteligent then atheist is of course ubsurd to any one who has spent time seriously studying the history of science. Modern scientists don't often announce religious views because its a good way to ruin you're career (althuogh a few have the courage) but modern science was built on the backs of religiou men and magicians. Biology in particular is interesting since while Darwin's theory of evolution is an accepted principle of modern biology the modern science of genetics was founded on Gregor Mendel's (a catholic monk) laws of inheretence instead of Darwin's idea of pangenesis.
Kevin, you have created the false dichotomy here. Either live in Bush religious America or Stalin's atheist Russia. I would argue that Stalin believed that the State was god and therefore that was not a rational position to hold. I strongly support everyone's freedom to believe whatever ridiculous thing they choose to believe. However, I still think it is best if people choose not to believe ridiculous things.
Our founding fathers understood the need for freedom and I support that. But they were men living in a different time. They were also politicians who needed to get elected by the very religious public. Thomas Paine, the least religious founding father was also anti-atheism. But he didn't know about Secular Humanism at the time. Many of the other founders still held on to religious belief because of the first cause argument and because they thought without god there could be no morality. Today we dealt with both issues.
In closing, I would like to reassert the view that we live in a freemarket of ideas and that religious ideas are ridiculous and can't compete with reason and logic. People should be allowed to believe ridiculous things, but we should also be allowed to criticize and mock them.
Kevin Meares writes:"The founding fathers themselves on the other hand were largely to a man devoutly religious men" that's hard to say. Most were nominally Christian, and religious piety was pro forma speech, especially for politicians. But devout?
" most of whom feared the idea of a country run with out God."
More accurately they still had the illusion that good behavior was fostered by religion.
Even Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin .. were still deists who believed God did exist (Jefferson regularly attended sunday church at the capital building and Franklin felt Christian morality should be taught in school)."
The degree and nature of Jefferson's participation is unknown. At the time any moral teaching was called Christian.
"They questioned God's action in the world today not whether or not he existed."
But Jefferson defended atheists.
"Several founding fathers (including Washington) wrote of their fears of a nation that has forgotten God."
Not clear. (conti
More important than their religious belief was their conviction that religion was a personal matter and not something to entangle the state.
The view was (and should be in my opinion) that the state is entirely a practical institution whose aim is to benefit the people. Practical matters are informed by fact, to the degree possible, and religious notions which aren't subject to factual verification are simply irrelevant.
Its important that people obey rules (laws) instituted to prevent harm to others (murder, assault) etc. It needs no theological basis. Common sense and upbringing do fine.
Kevin,
I'll just add that you seem to have confused "secular" with "anti-religion". That we are a secular nation simply means that our government is meant to be separate from religion, not anti-religion. It all about protecting all it's citizens' rights to believe (or not) what religion they want to.
Can you even imagine what our world would be if every man got to his knees every day and gave God praise....the thought is too awesome to contemplate....(heaven on earth)
No Barb, I think it would be awful.
One pair of hands working will do more than a million clasped in prayer.
No, the president can not be a religious figure it is absolutely impossible to make educated decisions for the freedoms of anyone who has contrasting views when the president has basically made a stance that can not be taken back. They are more than welcome to be religious, that is fine but they can not make a country religion for the 4 or 8 years they are in office. They have to be able to make contrasting laws and they can if they are a religious person but not if they have to adhere to a certain set of religious scriptures.
"Of course there is. You don't seem prepared, however, to grant (for the sake of discussion) that it might be possible to be Christian and reasonable at the same time."
No we often say you can't be a religious fundamentalist and be rational, every religion has them and they are the ones that try to make laws.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!