Guest Post by Morbo
A new book about Barack Obama’s faith is raising eyebrows — mainly because of its author.
Stephen Mansfield’s The Faith of Barack Obama is due out in August. The Politico received an advance copy and reports that it’s a very positive portrayal of Obama and his religion. This surprised some people, because Mansfield is a conservative who earlier penned a flattering book about President George W. Bush’s faith.
The Politico says that in the book, Mansfield writes:
“For Obama, faith is not simply political garb, something a focus group told him he ought to try. Instead, religion to him is transforming, lifelong, and real.”
He goes on to contrast Obama to Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, presidents Mansfield says erected a “wall of separation” between their personal religious views and political positions.
The implication is that Obama will not erect such a wall. I’m a secularist, so I must be pretty worried, right? After all, we secularists have spent a lot of time beating on the Religious Right for trying to convert its religious vision into public policy.
But I’m not worried about Obama’s religious vision, and here’s why: Obama (and the many religious progressives who follow him) are merely putting a religious gloss on things we should be doing anyway, things I want our nation to do. This does not trouble me.
Obama may sometimes argue that we need to provide health care or help those in need because Christian virtues require us to care for one another. Fine. If that’s what it takes to motivate some religious believers, so be it. I look to a more secular motivation: We should do this because it’s the right thing. We can still work together.
Liken it to the coalition that smashed segregation in the Jim Crow South: Some were motivated by religious convictions and others by a secular morality. Both were welcome in the struggle. They joined forces to end an evil.
This is a far cry from what the Religious Right seeks: A system of laws based on a narrow vision of the scriptures that restricts, not expands, human rights. One can easily articulate a secular rationale for providing health care and helping the poor. What is the secular rationale for teaching youngsters creationism in public schools or banning same-sex marriage? Obama’s public policy vision may be influenced by his faith, but his positions do not end with “because the Bible says so.” The Religious Right’s do. That makes all the difference.
Obama has also stated that he will respect the separation of church and state in his administration. Compare this to Bush, who has funneled millions to fundamentalist outfits under “faith-based” initiatives to provide things like “abstinence-only” education in public schools – even though study after study has shown that it is ineffective and that some of the groups taking the money push theology. Obama is likely to continue the faith-based initiative, but he won’t use it as a battering ram against the church-state wall as Bush has done. Public funds can flow to religious groups to provide secular services if certain conditions are in place to protect First Amendment rights. I’m confident Obama will put those protections in place.
It’s a religious country. Politicians who speak the language of faith generally do better at the polls. I’m not alarmed by a little religious rhetoric on the stump. I am alarmed by candidates who either use religion as a weapon to attack others or who cynically manipulate faith to win votes. I’m also alarmed by anyone who can’t understand the difference between democracy and theocracy.