When our founding fathers created the principle of the separation of church and state, they did not envision an America devoid of religion. Their goal was to do just that, separate the church from having any power or influence over the state or vice versa. They had come from a European tradition in which each country had a state-sponsored religion. Further, within each of those countries, most of the people often did not have freedom of religion. The founders of Maryland, prdominately Catholics, served as some of the greatest proponents of adding freedom of religion to the bill of rights. However, none of the forefathers ever envisioned an America of atheists. In fact, their primary intention was to allow all Christians to practice freely.
Now the Atlantic not only divides secular from religious, but the tide has shifted. America has a far greater percentage of people who consider themselves religious or people who practice their religion than in Europe. Religion is being perceived ever more important in the American public arena than ever before. Perhaps political candidates are riding a new wave of religious fervor. Maybe they are simply appealing to something their constituencies can identify with or support. In either case, politicians have to be ever more aware that, by saying certain things, they bring certain people into the fold and shun others.
Barack Obama, the son of agnostics, joined the Christian fold when he was 26 on his own volition. John McCain wants to keep his religion and religious issues out of the public arena. One may think, therefore, that the parties have shifted their focus. I argue that it is the candidate, not the party, who determines the presence or lack of religious flavor in a campaign and whilst a politician is in office. If the party had enough control over Mr McCain’s oratory, they would have peppered it with a few more hints that their candidate is a religious man, able to identify with devout Christians nationwide. Conversely, if the demoratic party chose to continue its history as the secular party, they could have erased his religious utterings from his speeches and tried to convince him not to use them on the stump. Thus, I argue that that the latter of the two options I posited earlier, that they are simply appealing to something that their constituencies can identify with, supercedes. If Mr Obama feels strongly about his Christian faith, he should feel free to say so and let those who identify with his faith support him. If Mr McCain chooses not to speak about his faith because he does not feel strongly about it, he can keep mum as he is now.
Nonrtheless, if I may paraphrase the words of John F. Kennedy when he was running for President: “Obama is not the Baptist candidate for president. He is the Democratic Party’s candidate for president who also happens to be Baptist.” Above all, whoever the President is, he will primarily be subject to party pressures. The religion of an official may influence his or her decision while in office, but not to the extent that party pressures do. Further, the President of the United States practicing a particular religion may mean that his or her decisions are implicitly influenced by religion. What we should stray from is any explicit influence of religion on political decisions, as have happened under George Bush.
我々の建国の父が政教分離原則を創造した時に、宗教のないアメリカを想像しなかった。そのことさえをする目的だった。
