Visit Your Local PBS Station PBS Home PBS Home Programs A-Z TV Schedules Watch Video Support PBS Shop PBS Search PBS
Religion & Ethics NewsWeekly -- An online companion to the weekly television news program
Keyword Search
Topic Index Stories by Week
Home
Current Stories
Headlines
Election Coverage
Special Issues
TV Schedule
Calendar
Newsletter
Subscribe or unsubscribe to the E-mail Newsletter, or edit your preferences.
The Series
About the Series
Funding
Biographies
Awards
Credits
For Teachers
Overview
Lesson Plan List
Tips
Teacher Resources
Resources
Viewer's Guides
Videotapes
Featured Sites
Feedback
Contact Us
Story Suggestions

Entries tagged with “Liberty” from Religion and Ethics Newsweekly

When was the last time Pennsylvania Avenue and Times Square and countless other locations across the country were packed with crowds at 1:00 in the morning following a presidential election? The same nation that elected George Bush by the hanging chads of 2000 has just given the presidency to someone who was relatively unknown at that time.

Will historians mark this election as the passing of a generation of American leadership that preferred partisan politics to productive policies? Can the massive and euphoric following of a President Obama resist the temptation to lord it over those who didn't see their light? Can the idealistic and visionary Obama avoid the missteps associated with the failure of that other new kind of president, the one from Georgia, to master quickly enough the labyrinth that is Washington politics? Will the flawless campaign inspire a flawless first 100 days? Will the voices heard in "the backyards of Des Moines and the living rooms of Concord and the front porches of Charleston" continue to reach President Obama when he resides in the White House? These questions will be answered in short order, no doubt.

BO b110508.jpgWith a compelling popular and electoral college victory, Barack Obama can claim a clear mandate to address the economy, to restore the image of America abroad, to bring change and, perhaps much more importantly, to restore hope to a nation and a people desperately in need of it. Perhaps, just perhaps, on November 4, 2008, the nation itself somehow embodied the change we've heard so much about. After all, this is the same country where, less than 55 years ago, Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King gave soulful voice to freedom long denied, where Emmett Till and James Reeb, so different from one another, were beaten to death for the sins of others, where Selma and Montgomery and Bull Connor and Watts each exposed the ugliness of our American experiment struggling to maintain some semblance of order while unraveling in its inner core. Do you remember the events of Grant Park just forty years ago? On election night 2008, the same park hosted a genuine "rainbow coalition" that elected the nation's first black president. What does it all mean?  

In early May 1955, as the Supreme Court carried on its hearings about how Brown v. Board of Education might be made effective, Reinhold Niebuhr noted Madison's observation that "it was easier to guarantee liberty than equality by legal means." In referring to Madison's insight, Niebuhr drew attention to the fact that liberty and equality were not synonymous; one did not lead automatically to the other. One could have in one's possession all human liberties as guaranteed by law, while not yet having achieved equality. To have equality, one had to depend upon both the mores of the community and one's access to a fair share of economic resources, neither being easily addressed by law. Where the mores of the community assume inequality, and the economy is governed mostly by privately held interests, equality is indeed hard for some citizens to come by. That lesson has especially been driven home in recent months.

The problem of racial prejudice has always reached much deeper into cultural life than just the way it has affected the rights and liberties of individuals. The problem facing African Americans in 1955, at the beginning of the civil rights movement, was systemic, deeply woven into the cultural fabric of the nation. One might say, in fact, that racism provided the "tacking stitch" that prevented the various pieces of American culture from moving out of their place. Historically, for the vast majority of American history, it has run through the whole religious, social, economic, and political quilt of American life. For that reason, racism has never been merely a problem solely preventing liberty or rights.

The total eradication of racism and other forms of mainstream cultural hatred has always demanded more than the simple act of imprisoning offending parties or voting out legislators who have kept particular Americans from exercising their God-given rights. American culture itself has always been the culprit. Individuals have only embodied it. To right the wrong of racism and prevent the spread of hate crimes of any other sort, every aspect of American life must be transformed. Only then can genuine equality be achieved for all Americans, those defined by Obama's victory speech as "young and old, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican, black, white, Latino, Asian, Native American, gay, straight, disabled and not disabled." The election of the first black American president just might signal a significant tipping point in that process. So long, that is, that President Obama himself both remembers and heeds the biblical injunction: "From everyone to whom much is given, much will be required" (Luke 12:48).

-- Mark G. Toulouse is professor of American religious history at Brite Divinity School and the author of GOD IN PUBLIC: FOUR WAYS AMERICAN CHRISTIANITY AND PUBLIC LIFE RELATE (Westminster John Knox Press, 2006). Beginning January 1, he will be principal and professor of the history of Christianity at Emmanuel College, Victoria University, in the University of Toronto.

| Comments (2)

A lot can hang on a preposition. Mitt Romney first promised a speech about his faith, then backed off to offer a broader take on America's religious landscape and its heritage of religious freedom. So rather than offering an apologetic for his own faith, Romney instead offered an account of "Faith in America." But the speech has me wondering whether there's a difference; more specifically, I wonder what's at stake in that "in." From where I sit, it looks like Romney's "own" faith is faith in America. Americans needn't worry about Romney's Mormonism because, at the end of the day, the faith that trumps all others is "Americanism."  

Don't get me wrong: this religion has a long and illustrious history (documented in David Gelertner's recent book, AMERICANISM: THE FOURTH GREAT WESTERN RELIGION). It is a noble faith that feeds off the blood of its martyrs - in particular "the greatest generation" to which Romney first appeals -- who made the greatest sacrifice for the sake of the religion's highest value: freedom (understood, I should note, in largely negative terms as freedom of choice). Indeed, "freedom" and "liberty" are the mantras of this faith, and Romney's speech invokes these shibboleths no less than thirty times (God or "the Creator" or "divine author" comes in at a close second with 21 references). And Romney doesn't fail to allude to the great artifacts of this religion. Americanism has its own sacred documents (the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution), its own saints (the Founding Fathers), and has even birthed its own cathedrals and grottos (just stroll the National Mall).

So if Mitt Romney was looking to quell concerns about his religion, I think he's performed admirably! He has indicated, in no uncertain terms, that he is an "Americanist" like almost every other presidential candidate (from I don't care which side of the aisle). He is an American before he is a Mormon. He is primarily interested in conserving America's role as a hegemon ("preserving American leadership" is the guise under which he segues to talk about religion). And he enthusiastically adopts Sam Adams's axiom that it's not the specifics of piety that matters, but rather whether one is a "patriot."  

If conservatives were worried about his Mormonism, I think Romney has laid his cards on the table and said to them: "Look, don't worry. Mormonism doesn't prevent me from being an Americanist.  We're brothers in that cause."  

In a way, this is refreshingly honest theology. In fact, if one pays close attention to the actual theology at work here -- that is, if one starts asking just which God is being invoked -- one finds that it is a particular deity: "the divine 'author of liberty.'" The god of the culture warriors has always been a generic god of theism (precisely like the god of the Founding Fathers): a "God who gave us liberty" (to do what we want). The "Creator" is a granter of inalienable rights and unregulated freedoms, a god who shares and ordains "American values." If evangelical culture warriors had worries about Romney's faith, his jeremiad today should confirm that he pledges allegiance to the same "God of liberty" that they do. We're all Americanists now.  

But I hope Mr. Romney and his culture warrior friends (whether on the right or left) won't be surprised if some of us find it hard to believe in Americanism and its God of liberty. Some of us just can't muster faith in the generic theism that is preached on the campaign trail, whether from the right or left. Some of us Christians have a hard time reconciling the Almighty, all-powerful, law-giving God of liberty with the crucified suffering servant born in a barn and executed at the hands of the elite. Some of us are trying to figure out what it means to be a people who follow one who relinquished his rights rather than asserted them, who considered submission a higher value than freedom. We serve a God-man who wasn't concerned with "preserving leadership" and the hegemony of the empire's gospel of freedom, but rather was crushed by its machinations for proclaiming and embodying another gospel.  

We're not out to win a culture war; we're just trying to be witnesses. We're not out to "transform" culture by marshaling the engine of the state; we're trying to carve out little foretastes of a coming kingdom. And so we can't share Mr. Romney's evangelistic zeal for the god of Americanism.

-- James K.A. Smith is an associate professor of philosophy at Calvin College and a fellow at Calvin's Center for Social Research. His books include INTRODUCING RADICAL ORTHODOXY (Baker, 2004).
| Comments (4)

Mitt Romney's speech today focused ostensibly on religious liberty and tolerance, with the direct implication that his Mormon faith should not be an issue for voters. But it is not clear that the political goal for the speech -- to woo evangelical Republicans in early primary states -- was achieved.

There was, apparently, quite a bit of controversy within the Romney campaign about whether this speech should be given at this point or at all. Most observers believe that it was the recent success of the Huckabee campaign in Iowa that prompted the speech at this time. I think pundits will be debating the wisdom of Romney's choice for quite a while. Romney had very little to gain and much to lose with this speech. Most general polls suggest that the average voter cares little about Romney's Mormon faith, but that a significant portion of likely Republican primary voters (and caucus attendees) are evangelicals who don't fully support the idea that a Mormon should be president. Endorsements of Romney's candidacy by Christian Right leaders aside, most evangelicals believe that Mormonism is a cult and not a Christian denomination. Some evangelicals were willing to vote for Romney because he was a better alternative than the pro-choice, twice divorced Rudy Guliani. But the advent of Mike Huckabee as a legitimate candidate, with his social conservative and evangelical faith credentials, makes Romney second choice for many evangelicals. This could be disastrous for the Romney campaign, particularly in Iowa and South Carolina.

So Romney's challenge was to convince evangelicals that it doesn't matter that he's Mormon, that he'll support the right policies when the time comes. In a race where there were no viable evangelical candidates, this would have been a winning strategy. But a focus on civil religion and the importance of faith in American's lives is not enough for most evangelicals to choose a Mormon over a former Baptist preacher. Romney's strongest argument to evangelicals is not his faith tradition or the need for Americans to be religiously tolerant; it is that he is the only conservative candidate that can win the Republican nomination. But Huckabee's recent surge calls even that argument into question. So while the goal of the speech was to reassure evangelicals that being a Mormon is OK and that he is still a good candidate for them, all it likely did was more starkly draw the lines between his Mormon faith and the evangelical faith of his newly strong competitor. That is not a recipe for a Romney win in Iowa or South Carolina.

-- Kimberly H. Conger is an assistant professor in the political science department at Iowa State University.

| Comments (1)


Tag Cloud