HOME
Message Board
CURRENT COLUMNS
- Editor's Corner
- Blogfest 2005
- Commentary
- Commentary Too
- Down The Middle
- Faulking Around
- Global Warning
- This guy walks into a bar...
- Investing 101
- Faulking Opinions
- Off The Rail
- Words
ARCHIVES
LINKS
CONTACT US
 | |||
Commentary Too - Feb. 8, 2008 - Printable Version
- American Messiah
by Robin Buckallew
A funny thing has been happening around the country in this election year. On the one hand, we have Hillary and Bill Clinton running for president. Rudy Giuliani is running for emperor. Mitt Romney is trying to be elected John F. Kennedy, and John McCain appears to be running for hall monitor. Barack Obama is running for Messiah. One problem with Barack Obama is, he sounds so great when he talks that very few people listen to what he actually says. His rhetoric is unquestionably the best of any presidential candidate on the campaign trail, and he could easily be the best orator we’ve had nationally since the death of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The fact that his talk is laced with religious references hasn’t escaped the notice of most, because it is hardly subtle, but many people find his view of religion much more palatable than the alternative we have in Mike Huckabee, and also more to their liking than the ongoing apocalyptic vision of the current occupant of the White House. OK, so he prays and he thanks God regularly, and he invokes common religious phrases. It’s obviously not a put on, he comes by it naturally, so what’s the problem? After all, the First Amendment doesn’t say our president can’t have a religion, and it doesn’t say he can’t express it – it only says he can’t favor it over other religions in his governing of the country (or, if we read the thing carefully, can’t even favor it over non-religion or even anti-religion). Since all the candidates are expressing religious views at every stop, why do I single out Obama as candidate for Messiah? What makes him different?
Partially because Obama is so obviously sincere. Oh, Huckabee is sincere, too, but he really only wants to be disciple-in-chief. I’m not so sure about Obama. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think he’s conscious of running for Messiah, but I think he is unquestionably doing just that. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out his rhetoric, but it does take someone who listens to the words, who understands where they fit in common religious rhetoric, and who is willing to accept that people often actually mean what they tell you. With Obama, I don’t think many people would accuse him of being disingenuous. I think most people give him credit for honesty and integrity. Yet for some reason, they don’t seem to understand the implications of his saying what he means.
This isn’t about going to church conspicuously – all the candidates are doing that. It isn’t about praying at every single gathering of 1 or more voters – all the candidates are doing that. It isn’t about invoking God’s blessing on the country and on the election – all the candidates are doing that to. This is something substantially deeper and more disconcerting. It’s about a candidate who believes in himself as Savior. Even more worrisome, it’s about a candidate whose supporters believe in him as Savior.
Superficially, I suppose Obama is comforting and inspiring, with his message of hope and promise (perhaps salvation would be an appropriate word?). He’s attractive, compelling, and even at times hypnotic. His oratorical skills surpass those of John F. Kennedy. I believed in him. I cheered him on. I probably could still believe in him and cheer him on, except at some point I awakened from my trance long enough to actually listen to him. What I heard disturbed me.
One of the biggest shocks I received was when I heard that Obama had referred to “Generation Joshua” in one of his speeches. Following the speech, he gave an explanation of how this generation followed “Generation Moses”, and was going to bring new hope. This isn’t really encouraging to those of us who have read the story of Joshua, but that in and of itself isn’t what concerned me. What concerned me was the fact that those are the code words used by many on the religious right to refer to a generation of home-schooled fundamentalist Christian children who have been raised totally apart from secular society (untainted I believe is the word they use). This generation of children who are raised with total immersion in Biblical law and practices are expected to be the generation that will bring down the wall – the wall of separation between church and state – and usher in God’s Kingdom on Earth, bringing Old Testament law to fruition within the highest reaches of government. For Obama to use a phrase so common among the religious fanatics of our day could be a mistake, merely mouthing a phrase that had been picked up and sounded good – if he weren’t Barack Obama. If he were Hillary Clinton or Rudy Giuliani, it could have been a mistake. If he were John McCain, John Edwards, or Mitt Romney, it could have been an accidental usage of a poorly understood phrase. Barack Obama, however, has deep ties with the religious right in Washington. His best friend in Congress is Tom Coburn (R-OK), one of the key players in the dominionist movement in Washington. In making his bipartisan overtures to the other side of the aisle, he has formed alliances with some of the most deeply committed Christian nation advocates in our government. This, of course, doesn’t mean that he agrees with them on all things, or even on most things. I always assumed it was positive – until their phrases started dripping out in his speech. Then, I sat up and took notice.
Throughout Iowa, prior to the recent caucuses, the Obama campaign made a very strategic, low-profile, under-the-radar move. They began sponsoring prayer meetings and religious revivals throughout the state. They made it known to the Christian community in Iowa that they were one of them. These were real, rock-the-rafters, old-fashioned religious gatherings. For some reason, the national media failed to comment on this. Perhaps they didn’t know it. Perhaps they didn’t care. Perhaps they’re so used to the religious gestures of Senator Obama that it didn’t seem like news. Perhaps it shouldn’t be news – after all, our Constitution guarantees that there is no religious test for public office, so people should be free to wear their religion on their sleeve and have just as much right to be considered for office as those who pray quietly at home, or those who don’t pray at all. It is perfectly all right to be religious when you’re political. It just isn’t all right to obscure the line between the two roles, and mix up your sermons with your campaign speeches. Mitt Romney had to go out and make a stump speech assuring the voters he won’t mix up his religion with his politics, but none of the other candidates have been challenged on that. Of course, the reason is obvious – Mitt Romney is a member of a religion a large portion of the religious electorate is somewhat uncomfortable with, and even fewer of the electorate understand. Barack Obama is clearly a dyed-in-the-wool, all-American Christian, recognizable as such by Christians across the spectrum. He wears his sincerity like a halo, and people respond.
In this election year, we should all be very aware of one thing – we are electing a president. We need a president, preferably a good president. We do not need a Messiah. In fact, a Messiah could be a very dangerous thing for this country right now, with so much instability and unrest around the world. Just remember the words of Sinclair Lewis: “When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross”. No one ever said it had
Voice your opinion on our message board (you don't have to sign up to post).