Just moments after President Reagan had been taken to the hospital following John Hinckley's attempt to assassinate him, Secretary of State Alexander Haig pronounced: "As of now I am in control here in the White House." Oops, not even close to the Constitutional intent for presidential succession. Secretary of State (Hilary Clinton, today) is fifth in line, rather than second. Even worse, the President had not been declared unable to fulfill the duties of his office.
While this gaffe is often thought to have ended Haig's nascent hopes for a political future, it is fair to ask just who, or, what, is in control of the Office of the President of the United States.
During his election campaign and presidency, Jimmy Carter made it clear that he was a devoted Christian. He also distinguished between the secular life and the religious life and, when asked, reiterated his inaugural pledge to uphold the law of the land and the Constitution of the United States. He made it abundantly clear that the business of governance was a secular one. He even cited Mark 12:17 as justification for this view. No such rationalization has been forthcoming from any sitting President since Carter left office.
Quite the contrary.
Let us look briefly at the recent past in the G. W. Bush administration. David Domke, writing for the Seattle Times, noted that the Dubya presidency would regularly conflate the notion of freedom and liberty with his own interpretation of what the deity wanted for the people of the world. Nine days after the 9-11 tragedy, "the president issued these powerful words: 'The course of this conflict is not known, yet its outcome is certain. Freedom and fear, justice and cruelty have always been at war, and we know that God is not neutral between them.' " Just whose God stands behind the President's remarks? Domke further notes: "In his recent second-term inaugural address, Bush mentioned a higher power seven times and used the words freedom or liberty, in some form, 49 times. Even if such beliefs are genuine (and I [Domke] don't doubt that they are), such a heavy presidential emphasis is strongly suggestive that there is a strategy behind the words — a wholly reasonable interpretation given this administration's long and documented history of political calculus."
The electorate is again wondering, does the President really think he receives guidance from the Deity, or, is it all merely a strategy to align political forces that are reliably conservative? Fast forward to 2011 with NBC's Brian Williams interviewing John Boehner, just installed as Speaker of the House (3rd in succession---shudder). Asked where he gets his strength, Boehner replied, "I pray...sometimes, I pray all day..." And, last week, Reince Priebus was elected Chairman of the Republican National Committee. Who could more clearly state that his political positions derive directly from fundamentalist fantasy rather than rational judgement. What has happened to "separation of church and state?"
As Sam Harris repeatedly warns throughout "The End of Faith", we should not take for granted that political figures merely allude to their religiosity to reassure their constituencies that they hold beliefs common to all. The question here is "common to whom?" Do these elected officials really believe the dogma espoused by their designated religions?
Harris also presents a very illuminating thought experiment. "Imagine that we could revive a well-educated Christian of the fourteenth Century. The man would prove to be a total ignoramus, except on matters of faith. His beliefs about geography, astronomy, and medicine would embarrass even a child, but he would know, more or less, everything there is to know about God. Though he would be considered a fool to think that the earth is the center of the cosmos, ..., his religious ideas would still be considered to be beyond reproach."
This insightful reflection challenges each of us to ask why it remains virtually impossible to question a political candidate's faith or religious beliefs. When an elected official claims to receive guidance from "a higher power" isn't it appropriate to ask what form that guidance takes? Is a vote about to be cast by an elected official being made under the duress of a vengeful God? Would believers and non-believers be equally vulnerable to such vengeance? Is it responsible decision-making for a politician to consult a coven of self-proclaimed witches for advice about governance? Does the statement: "life begins at conception" have a meaningful interpretation in medicine, biology, law, or religion? "Freedom of choice" has the same meaning in all these and other disciplines.
The upshot of all these deliberations is that President Carter, and the Founding Fathers, notably John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson were compelled to proclaim the necessity of a separation of church and state, if for no other reason, than to prevent the mutual corruption of one by the other. All were cognizant of the history of violent conflict among inter-sectarian beliefs and inter-faith beliefs. Who among Catholics and Protestants, Shia and Sunni, Mormons and Baptists, Christians and Jews, or Muslims and Christians could guarantee under their religious charters that their brand of governance would ensure equal protection under the law for all citizens, irrespective of their race, gender, sexual orientation or religious beliefs?
If there is ever a litmus test for fitness for political office in these United States, it ought to involve a declaration that political decisions based upon evidence, critical analysis, and reason will always trump those fueled by fear, mysticism, superstition and uncritical (and unaccountable) authority.
No comments:
Post a Comment