Let me interject here with a small breakdown of what has happened recently involving Robert Bentley, who was recently sworn in as the Governor of Alabama. At his swearing-in, Governor Bentley stated, "anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I'm telling you, you're not my brother and you're not my sister, and I want to be your brother." I will say two things in Governor Bentley's defense before I explain my reasons for being incredibly disappointed and disturbed at this statement.
First, he did say this in a church and he is a Pastor. The problem with this being that when one takes on a role of leadership within the United States government, you must not show bias in the execution of your official duties. He chose the site of his swearing-in, and made this statement during the course of this ceremony. So while he may have slipped into "Pastor mode" a little bit, he should have been very wary of doing so. For those of you who may think that it is unreasonable to ask such a man to refrain from a proselytizing statement, remember this: He ran for office and he understands the job requirements. If you cannot accept that a position is supposed to maintain an air of neutrality, do not take the position. This is the same reasons that Hindus do not become cattle butchers or Jehovah's Witnesses do not become surgeons. But I digress.
Second, the statement within the context of the born-again Christian tradition is relatively harmless. To the vast majority of people in the room, the statement probably just washed over them without so much as a blink. But to a non-Christian, there is a very explicit message of inequality in that. If I were a Muslim or a Jew living in Alabama, whether or not I voted for Bentley, I would have been incredibly upset by that statement. Bentley also said, "if we don't have the same daddy, then we're not brothers and sisters." So while theologically I can make a sound argument that despite the later language, one could include Jews and Muslims, everyone else is clearly outside this fence.
To me, personally, there is nothing wrong with an elected official discussing their faith. Obama has done this more than most Presidents in memory (mainly due to the fixation of some in this nation that he is Muslim), but many other great statesmen of this country have done likewise. I will include some examples below:
Daniel Webster; Masschusetts Senator 1845-1850
"...our ancestors established their system of government on morality and religious sentiment. Moral habits they believed, cannot safely be trusted on any foundation other than religious principle, nor any government be secure which is not supported by moral habits... Let the religious element in man's nature be neglected, let him be influenced by no higher motives than low self interest, and subjected to no stronger restraint than the limits of civil authority and he becomes the creature of selfish passion and blind fanaticism... On the other hand, the cultivation of the religious sentiment represses licentiousness... inspires respect for law and order, and gives strength to the whole social fabric at the same time that it conducts the human soul upward to the Author of its being."
John Hancock, Governor of Massachusetts (from his inaugural address in 1780)
"Sensible of the importance of Christian piety and virtue to the order and happiness of a state, I cannot but earnestly commend to you every measure for their support and encouragement that shall not infringe the rights of conscience, which I rejoice to see established by the Constitution on so broad a basis; and if anything can be further done on the same basis for the relief of the public teachers of religion and morality, an order of men greatly useful to their country, and who have particularly suffered in the defense of its rights by the depreciation of currency; as also for the relief of widows and orphans, many of whom have been distressed in the same way, and who are particularly committed by Heaven to the protection of civil rulers, I shall most readily concur with you in every such measure."
John F. Kennedy, President (yeah, you probably know of him. Speech to a delegation of Protestant Ministers during the hysteria that ensued once people began discussing his Catholicism.)
For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew— or a Quaker or a Unitarian or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim, but tomorrow it may be you — until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.
There are thousands of examples like this. Where these messages greatly differ from the message delivered by Bentley is that these messages from great leaders are not exclusionary statements. They do not seem to lift any religion over any other. Certainly some founding fathers (notably John Adams) believed that Christianity, and in particular certain sects, should be superior. But they did not carry the day in 1787. Their arguments for Christian supremacy did not make it into the Constitution, and that was quite deliberate.
So we are right as a nation to be upset or disturbed when a leader of ours makes a statement which lifts one group of Americans over another. We are all entitled to equal protection of the laws. We are all entitled to a government which does not seek to influence our conscience on religious matters. These are the guarantees of the law; not moralisms, not norms, or modes of understanding. So it is written, so shall be done, as they say.
That is why a statement that can easily be interpreted as saying if you want to be my equal, you must become a born-again Christian, is not an acceptable one. If your faith requires you to believe that anyone who is not of your ilk is inferior, or that those who share your faith must be treated better than those who do not, you are not capable of service to the United States as an elected official. If you cannot do this, you should not run. Again, the same reason your surgeon is not a Jehovah's Witness.
But what about James Folsom? Why was a man voted out of office for his beliefs in Alabama? Well the trouble really started in 1949 on Christmas day. Traditionally, many elected officials make statements on Christmas, and many of them are religious, or have a religious tone. Well Governor Folsom was a strong Christian man, who decided that the time was right to talk about the love of Jesus Christ. And in the process, he damned himself. I will reproduce certain portions of this speech here, but you can find the whole thing online. I ensure you that I will not mischaracterize the nature of this radio address; if any of you believe I have once you have read it in its' entirety, I would welcome the opportunity to correct. (I should also note that William Safire currently holds the copyright to reproduce this whole speech. Hopefully this post won't be yanked)
I am happy to have this opportunity to speak to the people of Alabama on Christmas Day. This is the greatest day, the most revered day, of our entire calendar. It is the birthday of Christ, who was the greatest humanitarian the world has ever known....
The very foundation of democracy rests on Christianity, upon the principles set forth by Christ himself. And I believe that it is no mere speculation to say that, without a government that guaranteed freedom of religious worship, this nation would have never become the great America that it is....
Our negroes, who constitute 35 percent of our population in Alabama- are they getting 35 percent of the fair share of living?. . . Are they provided with sufficient professional training which will produce their own doctors, professors, lawyers, clergymen, scientists- men and women who pave the way for better health, greater earning powers, and a higher standard of living for all of their people?. . .
As long as negroes are held down by deprivation and a lack of opportunity, the other poor people will be held down alongside them. There are others too, who would share in our thoughts of the neglected - wounded veterans, the blind, shut-ins, the crippled, and on and on.
The job for us here in Alabama is a positive one. It is time for us to adopt a positive attitude towards our fellowman.
Folsom insisted that it was his Christian beliefs that forced him to take the stand that he did on the radio that day. Alabama was having none of it. The state legislature refused to work with him, shooting down everything that came before them. He was demonized by white Alabama; which was likely all Christian. The man who rode a populist wave of support into the Governor's mansion was then run out of town on a rail in the next one because he dared to put forth a message of charity and inclusion.
However, Alabama fell on hard times. In 1954, Folsom was re-elected. But once again, he refused to desert his position on American Civil Rights. Because he refused to condemn Dr. King as many of his colleagues did, because he wanted to enforce the Brown decision, Folsom was again cast out. This time permanently.
I have contrasted Bentley with Folsom for a reason. Bentley's message was one that could easily be taken as exclusionist. As Rabbi Johnathan Miller of Birmingham, Alabama said, in a letter to Bentley, "I felt disenfranchised from your grace as our leader in the hours after your inauguration." Miller's letter is also worth a read, and it is on the internet. But what do people say to those who were offended or hurt by the message? "Too bad." "Move to another state." "Who cares." "You took it the wrong way." Bentley's exclusionist language is excused, lauded, and we all move on, ignoring groups that the late James Folsom would have heartily reached out to.
But what happpened to Folsom? How did we react to his positive message? Well, Alabama voted him out of office. Twice. It is also worth mentioning who they put in his place, because it is a fellow some of you probably know of: George Wallace. The man who would later become famous for personally barring the entrance of the University of Alabama to black students. Alabama traded a man who believed that Christ was a champion of equality for a man who believed that Christ implicitly supported the slave trade.
Oh Yeah. This George Wallace.
It is critical that American citizens look at their public officials as being neutral, objective, and fair. Without that, people lose faith in the system. Look at countries around the world where religion or ethnicity is a legitimate legislating point, and look at what happens because of it. Sri Lanka has been in a civil war for about 30 years. The Sudan is about to split apart, and a genocide of unknown proportions has taken place there. Look at the Georgian war with Russia. Ethnic and Religious undercurrents pervade those conflicts. We do not allow these things to be legitimate points of governance because the Founding Fathers, by the majority, agreed that to do so would be to invite discord and violence.
I do not believe that Robert Bentley is a bad person; and I don't believe he meant his words to be taken to mean that he could not be a fair leader. And I do not believe that those words indicate he is incapable of doing so. But I do believe that if a man chooses to be a represent of all of his people, he must endeavor in every respect to do just that. Robert Bentley has stumbled out of the gates; and he has been called out on it. Let's not make more of it than what it was. Some people have gone way too far in their condemnations. But let's not act like it was meaningless, or acceptable. But I fear that in the great state of Alabama, such a message may be all too acceptable.
No comments:
Post a Comment