Written by J. Brent Walker
I know, I know. We’re all tired of politics. After nearly 20 months of incessant
electioneering, reported by ever-looping 24/7 news cycles, it’s time to give it a rest — at
least for a while.
Indulge me one retrospective on the election. (At least some political junkies out there
will be happy to get some help dealing with withdrawal.) After all, this was an historic
and terribly important election in many ways. The first African-American was elected to
the presidency defeating a genuine war hero with 25 years of national political service; a
female was the runner-up in one party and another vied for the vice presidency in the
other. All of this came in the midst of both the worst economic crisis in nearly 80 years
and two seemingly unending wars.
It was a remarkable election on the religion front, too. The CNN Compassion Forum led
by Jon Meacham and Campbell Brown and Rick Warren’s Saddleback Church Civil
Forum provided a national audience a chance to listen to the presidential candidates talk
about their faith and related issues for four hours. Although these efforts were far from
perfect (I’ve critiqued them in previous columns) and with a few other exceptions —
notably the false charges that Barack Obama is a Muslim and the anti-Christ — religion
was handled and discussed in this campaign about as responsibly as we’ve been able to
do it in this country.
Two events occurred during the campaign that I hope we can learn from and use as
models for future elections.
The big news on Sunday, Oct. 19 was Gen. Colin Powell’s endorsement of Sen. Obama
for president on Meet the Press. In that interview with Tom Brokaw, Gen. Powell made
what I thought was a point vastly more important than his endorsement. Seeking to knock
down the patent lies that seemed never to die about Obama’s religion, Gen. Powell said:
I’m also troubled by, not what Senator McCain says, but what members of the party
say…. ‘Well, you know Mr. Obama is a Muslim.’ Well, the correct answer is he is not a
Muslim, he’s a Christian. He’s always been a Christian. But the really right answer is,
what if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The
answer’s no, that’s not America. Is there something wrong with some seven-year-old
Muslim-American kid believing that he or she could be president? Yet, I have heard
senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, ‘He’s a Muslim and he might be
associated with terrorists.’ This is not the way we should be doing it in America. (bold
added)
Gen. Powell concluded with a poignant story of a mother in Arlington Cemetery
caressing her 20-year-old son’s grave. The top of the headstone did not bear a Christian
cross but the crescent and star of Islam. Kareem Rashad Sultan Khan was Muslim from
New Jersey who gave his life for this country, his country.
If the ban on religious tests for public office in Article VI of the Constitution means
anything — in letter and spirit — it is that there should be no faith litmus test for our
national leaders. We presently have two Muslims serving in the Congress: Rep. Keith
Ellison from Minnesota and Rep. Andre Carson from Indiana. Hardly anyone thought we
would see an African-American elected to the presidency in our lifetime. Who knows,
one of these, or maybe Gen. Powell’s imagined seven-year-old, may contend for higher
office— even the presidency— in our children’s lifetime. It would be just like America to
do something like that.
The other important event was Sen. McCain’s laudable refusal to use the Jeremiah
Wright flap as a political weapon in the campaign. (Yes, surrogates surely did, but
McCain, to his credit, declined to elevate it to the top of the ticket.) The place where
candidates worship and whom they choose as spiritual mentors is not irrelevant. It is part
of the mix that makes up a candidate’s character. But we should indulge a strong
presumption against making such things a campaign issue.
That is, we should bend over backward to permit candidates to exercise their religion
freely and not skew their decisions by fear of having to pay a political price if they chose
a pastor that is controversial or given to harsh rhetoric — particularly when the candidate
unequivocally repudiates the preacher’s statements. I would hope candidates will listen to
prophetic preaching every day they worship. They need to hear it as much as we do —
maybe more. But a widespread attitude that straps candidates with isolated, out of context,
statements of their pastors and spiritual advisers will have the effect of encouraging
candidates to abjure the prophetic pulpit in favor of a blander form of preaching. That
would be a great loss for the candidate and for the public.
Yes, this was an historic election — for more reasons than we had thought. And next time
we’ll do as well — or even better — in solving the perennial conundrum: how we uphold
the institutional separation of church and state while affirming the relevance of a
candidate’s religion to politics, but without imposing a legal or practical religious test. I
think we’re making progress.
This column originally appeared in the November/December 2008 edition of Report from
the Capital.
