With the February birthdays of both–arguably, our nation’s two greatest Presidents–Washington and Lincoln conflated into a national holiday this past Monday, I found a column by a Charleston (SC) Post and Courier pundit, published that same day, somewhere between amusing and disturbing.
At least this sentence–referring, as it does, to various ambiguities associated with America’s highest elective office. “Religion,'” he wrote, “once mattered, but concerns mount if the word ‘devout’ is attached.”
My observation would, rather, turn this statement on its head. For a President’s religion seems to matter more today–for too may, perhaps–than when one glances across the pages of history.
For instance, in his 2007 book entitled So Help Me God, the late Reverend Dr. Forrest Church, distinguished Unitarian minister and historian, explores the religious perspectives of America’s first four Presidents.
The title of the book comes from the question whether George Washington, in fact, uttered those words at his inauguration in 1789. He may well have. Nonetheless, as Church divulges, the religion of our nation’s first President at least seems to have had its eccentricities.
Since Washington–likely the wealthiest man in the new nation–was an Episcopalian, America’s peculiar brand of Anglicanism. He even served on the vestry of his local Virginia parish. Except Washington never observed communion, the centerpiece of worship among Anglicans. Indeed, it is well documented that when Washington occasionally attended church services, he habitually excused himself when it was time to observe the eucharist. In fact, he was once even chided, publicly, by a Philadelphia bishop for doing so.
John Adams is generally regarded as the most conventionally religious among America’s first four Presidents. He was especially critical of Benjamin Franklin, whom he considered morally profligate. Yet his Unitarianism would hardly be considered necessarily Christian as defined by what is called “evangelical” in the media these days.
Nor would that of the Deist, Thomas Jefferson, whose personal edition of the New Testament conveniently omitted any reference to Jesus’ miracles, as recorded in scripture, much less our Lord’s resurrection. In other words, anything suggesting the “supernatural” is trumped by Jefferson’s “humanist Jesus” whose exemplary teachings are merely morally commendable.
If James Madison may have initially studied under the Scottish Presbyterian influence of Princeton’s John Witherspoon, he gradually moved away from such an orthodox religious perspective and is considered a seminal proponent of the First Amendment to our nation’s Constitution which, to quote Jefferson (quoting the Rhode Island Baptist, Roger Williams) insures “a wall of separation” between church and state.
Whereas Abraham Lincoln–later, in the 19th century–if he regularly attended Sunday services among Washington, D.C. Presbyterians, he never “belonged” to a church and remained notably skeptical of religion, in general, and “organized religion,” in particular.
Which stands in glaring contrast to Ronald Reagan, in the 20th century, who seldom darkened the door of any church. Yet became a galvanizing figure in the emergence of the “Religious Right,” an idolatrous form of “civil religion” which persists in our nation’s political climate today.
Indeed, the Baptist, Jimmy Carter, has surely been the most “devout” of Christians among American presidents, likely in any era of our nation’s history, yet he was soundly rejected by those on his “political right” for not being at least “their kind of Christian.”
Not to mention, back in 1960, when John F. Kennedy, running for President, encountered considerable controversy for being, whatever else he may have been, a Roman Catholic.
“Religion once mattered.” Once? That seems hardly the case when one compares presidential politics in a more formative era of our national life with how religion is so stridently “traded on” among those vying for such a prominent public role these days.
If President Obama persists in not over-stating his consistent Christian witness by resorting to mere political “posturing,” his critics continue to claim (or at least imply) that he’s a Muslim. And “presidential religion”–especially the “wrong kind”–doesn’t matter as much today as once upon a time?
Among those vying presently for the Republican nomination for President, Governor Romney claims that Mr. Obama has forsaken “traditional religious values” in America in the name of a “secular agenda.” Except Mr.Romnney is politicking on thin ice, where religion is concerned, since he is a Mormon, which many apparently consider a “cult” that is hardly Christian–or at least “Christian enough.”
Senator Santorum, who appears to be running for “Theologian-in-Chief,” has lately reduced his politicking to, among other extremist commentary, that of merely exploiting a caricature of Roman Catholicism with which, according to most surveys, even most Catholics disagree. Is he not above “playing the religion card” in trying to disparage his primary opponent, Mr. Romney, and certainly President Obama?
While Newt Gingrich–who seems capable of exploiting anyone or anything in the service of his rather grandiose self-interest–despite his newly claimed Roman Catholic persona, he has hardly, by any consensus, distinguished himself as a poster boy for either ethical behavior or moral credibility.
And whatever one might think of Congressman Ron Paul’s extremist positions on various matters of political concern, to his credit, he seems the least given–among his fellow Republican presidential primary candidates–to “trading on” religion for whatever the political purpose.
“Religion once mattered” in American presidential politics. Once?
That seems hardly the case, at least to anyone who didn’t miss school the day they taught American history, or who isn’t, unfortunately, living under a rock these days–certainly where legitimate religious expression is concerned.
The implication of the First Amendment, of course, precludes anyone’s religion–or lack thereof–as a “test” in qualifying for public office at any level of government in our national life. A principle that is, in fact, stated in Article VI, paragraph 3 of the Constitution.
As for those who framed the Constitution, including our first four American presidents, much less someone of the stature of Abraham Lincoln–however unorthodox their religious views–unlike those engaged in current presidential politicking, they at least had enough sense to realize that when religion and politics get confused, it leads to little good for anyone. For tragically, not only does government get corrupted, authentic religion does as well.
