Religion and Popular Culture

Jesus Christ for Barack Obama: Religion and Politics
Uploaded by Jesus_Christ4Barack_Obama. -

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22767392/

Obama had a plethora of work cut out for him, at least in the sense that he had to convince many of the American public that he's NOT a Muslim!

Obama said that he has attended the same Christian church for the past twenty years, although his father and stepfather were Muslim. His campaign stepped up the game, trying to get voters to vote for the Democratic candidate.

This campaign was a primary example of how religion can be instrumental in politics, at least in terms of popular culture. As the article states, Obama's image was shown with the words "COMMITTED CHRISTIAN" in an attempt to convince people that he does possess good, wholesome, CHRISTIAN values.

Obama also apparently "believes in the power of prayer."

It is impossible to imagine this sort of situation as a violation of the separation of church and state, as Obama is simply expressing his identity in an attempt to get elected. It shows that religion and politics will always overlap, no matter how hard society attempts to avoid it.

Church and State in JFK's America

To counter this week's earlier theme of church and state separation as naivete:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/church-and-state-in-jfks_b_356162.html

John F. Kennedy's extreme Roman Catholic faith left many constituents wondering about where his "loyalties" lay: with the Church or with America. Kennedy put these concerns to rest with his complete endorsement of the separation of church and state, saying that he believed in an America where "no public official accepts orders from a Pope." He was our first elected Catholic president. Unfortunately for us, fifty years later, the Catholic Church is currently threatening to withdraw any support and funding from major legislation due to a move by D.C. to enact a pending same-sex marriage law. The Vatican has issued statements that it has a grave and clear motivation to oppose any pro-abortion and pro-same-sex marriage laws that may be attempted. Catholics and other religious faiths have increasingly attempted to mix religion with politics, and it is imperative to remember the difference between what JFK termed "the national interest" and "religious dictates."

In my opinion, much like Kennedy, we must find a balance, a way to mix the way we were raised with the way the country must be run. For the good of all people, not just those who may be Christian, Catholic, Jewish, etc. Freedom of expression without discrimination is, as always, the key.

Evangelical Death Threats?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/11/18/rachel-maddow-frank-schae_n_362415.html

Longer video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ho2fvjhSmF8

Rachel Maddow and Frank Schaeffer discuss the apparent "death threat" to Obama. Liberally portrayed, the press in this case displays religion as evil, or else that "Psalm 109:8" is just a "cheekily coded death threat." The verse reads, "May his days be few, may another take his place in leadership." This also ties in with Psalm 109:9 - "May his children be fatherless, his wife a widow." The more standard representation of this idea has been seen on shirts which read "Pray for Obama." Schaeffer is of the mindset that this Biblical language is even more threatening, as it really hypes up all of the anti-democratic feeling. It is already an issue that Obama is "un-American," possibly due to his skin color. It seems as though the religious right is calling for a "holy war," simply because of Obama's seemingly radical views on controversial issues. (abortion, healthcare, etc) It's fairly shocking that people would go to lengths of this magnitude to discredit the government as an institution, simply due to their basic beliefs.

I do think that in this case, religion was portrayed negatively, but with good reason. The bias is made out of fear and shock on the part of the media telling the story.

Separation of Church and State Naive?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/1117/1224258981090.html

The separation of church and state has been a hotly debated issue for as long as there has been a government to dispute religious matters, or else, "The Word of God." To me, and to most, this makes the most sense. Mixing religion with government is similar to trying to prove the existence of God through science: it doesn't work. Feelings and fact are not the same. Former EU Ambassador John Bruton thinks otherwise.

Bruton states that the breakdown of democracy stems from our denial of religion, and that as long as religion exists, it is ridiculous to assume that it can be kept separate from our governing procedures. There should be clear distinctions of function, but it is not logical to assume that one forgets about one's beliefs when considering political preferences. Pushing religious belief away from people has the same effect as pushing it on people, and neither is fair.

Gubernatorial Candidates Protest Religious Monuments

http://blog.al.com/live/2009/11/some_gop_gubernatorial_candida.html

Gubernatorial candidates in Montgomery, Alabama, state their concern over monuments on government property not Jewish or Christian in nature. They would like all religious faiths to be able to express themselves, but would prefer a certain brand, as it were. Most believe that the Bible is literally true, all advocate prayer in schools, and most believe in creationism over evolution. I find this coincidental array of characteristics quite hilarious. The hypocrisy of the situation is maddening, as government officials say that they want a balance of expression, but in reality that only applies to their own religion. This directly undermines the First Amendment, and is another prime example of how church and state should remain separate. No religious monuments should stand if not all are free to.

The Power of Prayer, Part Deux

http://www.examiner.com/x-7160-Sacramento-Nutrition-Examiner~y2009m11d9-Senate-health-bill-would-pay-for-prayer-treatment-but-not-for-treatment-by-unlicensed-nutritionists

http://cambridge.films.com/id/11516/Does_Prayer_Work_A_Medical_Perspective.htm

I'm curious also as to why the Senate would consider paying for health care centered around prayer, but wouldn't support "unlicensed dietcians" that are trying to educate the general public. The primary controversy surrounding this issue is that church centered healing treatments could ask for reimbursement, much as hospitals do, and prayer techniques are offered as an option to real medical treatment. The problem is that Christian medical care providers are free to receive traditional health care whenever they need it, and their patients may not. This hypocrisy is startling, to say the least.

Prayer is also subjective, as it works for some, and not for others. Science and medicine are the only proven methods that may work for everyone who is human.

Banning Christian License Plates

http://www.theweek.com/article/index/102720/Banning_Christian_license_plates

Christian license plates are un-American, according to a South Carolina federal judge. License plates displaying a cross and the phrase "I believe" were censored this week because of their controversial nature, and there are two opposing sides regarding the matter.

Apparently, many consider the plates un-constitutional, and believe that the government must never display favoritism of certain religious persuasions over others. However, others on the "believing side" argue that they are being censored, and want the right to choose a faith-based license plate when they pick from one of South Carolina's 103 tags.

In this case, I would tend to agree that religion should never be mixed with government-issued items. The separation of church and state, as always, should reign supreme. The Christians do have a right to express themselves, but by expressing themselves in such a manner that pertains to government, they may be violating that separation.