Religious Beliefs and Government Leadership - Research Paper Example

? Religious Beliefs and Government Leadership Introduction Liberalism characterizes contemporary leadership, and it covers the separation between the Church and State in all affairs. In fact, Walzer (1984) states that Church-State separation serves as a wall that sets apart the jurisdictions of both state and religious affairs (p. 315). This also allows leaders to draw a line between their personal religious beliefs and political ideals wherein they also exercise objectivity in all their affairs, be it political or religious ones. Accordingly, this paper discusses the religious beliefs of popular American politicians, such as Barack Obama, John F. Kennedy, Mario Cuomo, and Mitt Romney, through their speeches. Accordingly, this paper hopes to uncover their stance of those politicians concerning the separation of the State and Church, particularly their perspective of religious beliefs as part of political qualification, or disqualification. Initially, this paper asserts that American citizens, particularly presidential candidates, are entitled to run for public office regardless of their religious views. Religious Liberty and Public Policy Senator Barack Obama (2006b), in his keynote address for the Call to Renewal Conference, declared that the pluralistic society today is entitled to unbiased government policies that are uninfluenced by the religious views of leaders when they passed those policies for legislative approval (para. 11). In addition, Obama (2006b) relates the absolute separation of State and Church affairs to the inherent rights of every American citizen to freedom of political opinion and religious beliefs, which is as fundamental as the right to freedom of property and self-expression. Giving unbiased policies does not come out of fear lest the majority cease to support their political endeavors; instead, Obama argues that giving unbiased political policies strengthens the diplomatic and democratic strategies of the nation. Mitt Romney supports the same argument about religious beliefs and political policy. In his speech entitled “Faith In America,” Romney (2007) states that, although religious beliefs serve as the foundations of one’s principles in life, those should not impede leaders from passing policies for the common good (pp. 1-2). Although Romney (2007) cites the influence of religion in the principles of America’s founders, he also states that times has changed, and the emergence of cultural diversity in America requires leaders to maintain their objectivity when making public policy. With his speech, it is evident that Romney supports the notion of Church-State separation, although he admits that his Mormon faith helped shape his values and perspectives in life. In analyzing the speech of Obama and Romney, one can say that both leaders support the separation of Church and State affairs, particularly in their presidential candidacy and in creating leadership policies. For instance, both leaders cite the necessity of providing state benefits and programs that will benefit the majority, regardless of religious beliefs. Thus, although religion influences the decisions of public leaders, politicians should exercise control over their personal opinions lest their opinions violate the beliefs and rights of the majority. However, considering Romney’s argument on faith as a source of one’s fundamental moral principles, one can say that religion, in one way or another, influences how leaders develop their strategies (p. 4). This idea is also evident in Obama’s (2006b) argument about the religious freedom through defining ethics in social interactions (paras. 18-23). Consequently, as a political leader, Obama argues that leaders should take concern of their policies, particularly in the way those policies affect the relationships of the majority. Considering the two speeches, one can say that leaders cannot escape from the influence of religion in their policies, and this is because of the innate tendency of human beings to draw conclusions from our personal experiences, regardless of how hard we try to separate ourselves from such experiences. Relatively, the Americans can only rely on the Constitution in undermining policies that transgress religious freedom, and this may also include the practice of checks and balances among political authorities. This ensures that leaders maintain their objective judgment on political matters and disregard their personal, religious opinions. Influence of Religious Beliefs on Leadership Strategy Amendments to the Constitution during the 1870s and 1880s ensure the barrier between Church and State affairs; those were passed by Liberalists who seek to maintain democracy, diplomacy, and objective government policies (Hamburger, 2002, p. 287). This is because of the potential capacity of leaders to manifest their personal, religious views on their policies. For instance, Obama (2006a), in chapter six of his The Audacity of Hope, states that religion influences the decision of leaders, particularly in addressing sensitive issues such as “economic inequality, racism, sexism, and American militarism” (p. 312). Obama (2006a) added that religion plays a vital role in promoting political ideas and policies about such matters, particularly in popular culture and contemporary media. However, considering the potential biased portrayal of religious traditions in the current pluralistic American society, Obama (2006a) states that leadership strategies should focus on generating policies that strengthen diplomacy as this ensures objectivity. Relatively, as Obama focuses on the influence of religion on interactions, one can say that Obama’s view on his political office is merely a neutral ground wherein he can discuss policies without having to consider his religious opinions. Church-State separation also regulates the power of both political and religious leaders wherein neither can advise the people on their political and religious preferences, particularly during elections. For instance, Kennedy (1960), in his speech in Greater Houston Ministerial Association, states that American citizens may freely exercise their religious freedom, unless their exercise of such rights does not impede others in exercising their rights as well (para. 3-4). Kennedy states that ministers should not take advantage of their preaching authority to sway the opinions of their religious flock in the same way that presidents do not have the right to make his political position a reason to influence the religious beliefs of the voting citizens. Governor Mario Cuomo (1984) also held the same opinion about the influence of religion on leadership strategy. For instance, Cuomo (1984) states that the opinion of religious leaders often comes in conflict with critical issues including gay rights and abortion (p. 2). This requires people to exercise their discretion in choosing their political party regardless of their religious preferences. In analyzing Cuomo’s and Kennedy’s arguments, it is evident that political leaders should remain on neutral grounds in addressing issues that have religious and cultural sensitivities. Considering this idea, the notion of religious beliefs as a qualification of presidential candidates is not applicable, considering that candidates, once elected, are bounded to abide by the Church-State separation clause of the American Constitution. This requires political authorities to disregard their religious views in resolving crisis even in dealing with issues such as gay rights and abortion. Conclusion The Church-State separation may be considered one of the most challenging aspects of the society, considering that one should maintain objective judgment on critical socio-political aspects. This is particularly true among political leaders, who have to face the challenges of leadership while aligning their values with their existing leadership policies and religious beliefs. For instance, the arguments of Obama, Romney, Cuomo, and Kenney illustrate the challenges of becoming a political leader, which is resolving a crisis while maintaining their diplomacy and religious neutrality. For instance, Obama and Romney share the same value of political leadership through diplomacy and equal treatment for all religious denominations in the society. On one hand, Cuomo and Kennedy support the idea of isolating oneself from religious and political influence when creating public policies. Considering that legal enforceable rule on Church-State separation, one can say that presidential candidates should not be evaluated according to their religion. American citizens, regardless of religious beliefs, have the right to establish their political views without undergoing the same religious prejudice that they wish to eradicate in the society. References Cuomo, M. M. (1984). Religious belief and public morality: A catholic governor’s perspective. Retrieved from: http://ia600803.us.archive.org/0/ items/ReligiousBeliefAndPublicMoralityACatholicGovernorsPerspective/ Mario_Cuomo_Speech_1984.pdf Hamburger, P. (2002). Separation of church and state. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kennedy, J. F. (1960). I believe in an America where separation of church and state is absolute. Retrieved from http://www.beliefnet.com/News/ Politics/2000/09/I-Believe-In-An-America-Where-The-Separation-Of-Church-And-State-Is-Absolute.aspx Obama, B. (2006a). The audacity of hope: Thoughts on reclaiming the American dream. New York, NY: Random House. Obama, B. (2006b). “Call to renewal” keynote address. Retrieved from: http://obamaspeeches.com/ 081-Call-to-Renewal-Keynote-Address-Obama-Speech.htm Romney, M. (2007). Romney’s ‘Faith in America’ address. New York Times. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/ us/politics/06text-romney.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 Walzer, M. (1984). Liberalism and the art of separation. Political Theory, 12 (3), 315-330. Read More