After a six-week hiatus in voting (but not the slightest pause in campaigning), yesterday’s Pennsylvania primary provides confirmation of marked trends in the Catholic vote for president during this election cycle. Looking at the exit polling in Pennsylvania, patterns in Catholic responses to the Democratic candidates that had emerged earlier in the campaign became more pronounced. Depending on who survives to become the Democratic nominee, the growing body of voting data could presage the most lop-sided outcome among Catholic voters in a fall presidential election in a generation. Given that the Catholic vote has gone with the winner in seven of the last eight presidential elections (here), as goes the Catholic vote so may go the nation.
As outlined in my March 22 post here at the Mirror of Justice, throughout the Democratic presidential primary season, Senator Hillary Clinton has out-polled Senator Barack Obama among Catholics by increasingly wider margins. Setting aside the result in Illinois (where favorite son Obama lost the Catholic vote but by a closer margin) and a few states with small Catholic populations, Clinton has carried the Catholic vote by about two-to-one in such states as Massachusetts, California, Rhode Island, and Ohio. In these past contests, Clinton’s margin has risen to nearly 3-1 among observant Catholics who attend weekly Mass.
In my prior posting on the Catholic voting trends six weeks ago, I noted that the next important data-point on this subject would be Pennsylvania. So what happened in the Keystone State? Senator Clinton’s victory among Catholics in Pennsylvania was nothing less than a rout of Senator Obama. As shown by the exit polls, among Catholics generally (who constituted more than one-third of Democratic primary voters), Clinton prevailed over Obama by more than two-to-one and by a margin of 40 points (70-30). Among observant Catholics who attend weekly Mass, Clinton’s victory over Obama was nearly three-to-one and by a margin of almost 50 points (74-26).
In the election coverage last evening, CNN political analyst Bill Schneider highlighted the continuing and growing Catholic margin of victory for Clinton over Obama, while observing that he had yet to see a persuasive explanation for this phenomenon. The difficulty in pinning this down may be that no one thing by itself explains Obama’s worsening “Catholic problem.” Rather a mix of overlapping and interacting factors may be at work, some based on substantive concerns and others grounded in general impressions about Obama’s cultural attitudes, social position, and political conceit.
One attempt to explain away the Catholic vote data that was offered early on by the Obama camp can now be definitively rejected. After the California primary in early February, the Obama campaign suggested the Catholic margin was simply a proxy for Clinton’s overwhelming margin among Hispanics. But once the campaign shifted to states like Ohio and Rhode Island with small Hispanic populations, the significant Catholic preference for Clinton (or disinclination toward Obama) persisted. Now adding Pennsylvania to the mix (where Hispanics were only 3 percent of primary voters), the sharp break toward Clinton and away from Obama in the Catholic segment of the electorate appears to have solidified and plainly is independent of the leanings of the Hispanic Americans.
In the earlier posting, I suggested demographics may well play a role in explaining why Obama has failed to attract Catholic voters in the primary campaign, but going deeper than strong Hispanic support for Clinton. Obama’s mainstays of support have been African-Americans and affluent white liberals (especially in college towns), among whom relatively few Catholics are to be found. By contrast, Clinton’s vote has been anchored in the traditional lunch-bucket Democrats of the working class, who in states like Massachusetts, Ohio, and now Pennsylvania are disproportionately Catholic.
But those demographic observations simply describe the phenomenon and do not really explain it. Why is it that Catholics, of whatever class or geographic location, are either attracted to Clinton or repelled by Obama (or both)? And the answer cannot be found in such recent episodes as Obama’s controversial association with a black liberation theology pastor or his unscripted characterization of small town people as “clinging” to guns and religion. These episodes have likely further embedded voting tendencies among Catholics and have made it more difficult for Obama to overcome his negative standing in that segment of the electorate. But the pattern in Catholic voting had emerged before those controversies, so they at most strengthen but did not create the trends.
In my prior musings, I suggested that a partial explanation may lie in the uneasiness felt by many people of faith, including church-going Catholics, with the sometimes messianic style of the Obama campaign. The self-reverential feel of the typical Obama campaign event may be off-putting for many people who do not look to a politician to find a savior. With some exceptions during the Pennsylvania campaign, Obama continued his practice of holding huge rallies with adoring crowds, while Clinton more often went to smaller venues and engaged directly with more people. Did this make a difference? Perhaps.
In a similar way, Obama’s approach to religious faith and communities, welcoming as it has been, still may not have resonated as well with many Catholics and other persons of faith. Last week, I shared my impressions (here) of the Compassion Forum in which both Senators Clinton and Obama participated and offered interesting thoughts about religion, values, and public life. I noted that Obama tended to emphasize the instrumental role of religion, focusing on the use of religion and faith communities in community organizing and to achieve political ends. By contrast, Clinton addressed the value of religious faith for its own sake, as a part of daily life and as a source of inspiration and hope. Might it be that Catholics, for whom the relationship with the living Christ is embodied in the Eucharist, were left unmoved by Obama’s description of being drawn into a particular church for reasons of its political and social activism in a community? Seen in full context, Obama did not neglect the salvific and personally uplifting aspect of religious faith, but the primary political anchor of his remarks may not have connected with the distinctly transcendent and worshipful place of religious faith for most believers. While Catholics have a tradition of putting their faith to work for the common good, including political work, those political views and activities flow out of but do not define our faith. Politics is not the reason for what we believe nor are political activities central to our faith.
In any event, what do the Pennsylvania and earlier primary results portend for the future with respect to the important Catholic swing vote in this closely-fought presidential election? Given the remarkable stability of the trends in the Democratic primaries since January, I would expect that the Catholic margin toward Clinton and away from Obama will continue throughout the remaining contests. But what of the November election, once the Democratic nominee has been confirmed?
Senator Obama remains the most likely nominee, if somewhat less likely today than he was yesterday. Should that happen, Obama now looks to be the weakest presidential candidate offered to Catholic voters by the Democratic Party since 1984. Looking at recent elections, Bill Clinton carried the Catholic vote twice in 1992 and 1996, Al Gore barely won the Catholic vote (52-47) in 2000, and John Kerry lost it by a small margin (47-52) in 2004 despite being a professing Catholic. In comparison with Kerry and Gore, who still could barely attract half of the Catholic vote against George W. Bush, Barack Obama begins with a staggering disadvantage among Catholics. Barring a seismographic shift in the electorate in the next six months, Obama does not appear to be a plausible bet to win the Catholic vote. Based on current evidence, the real question could be whether Obama’s level of support among Catholics may dive down toward the one-third basement level that has been the best he could hope for during most of the primary season. If present trends continue, Obama might rival (or fall below) Walter Mondale’s dismal showing among Catholics (estimated at around 43 percent of the Catholic vote by many, although Gallup pegged it even lower at around 39 percent). In sum, Obama as the nominee could convert the old-style “Reagan Democrats” into “McCain Democrats.”
To be sure, many Catholic Democrats who voted for Clinton in the primaries will come home to the party if Obama is the nominee. But present indications are that many will be unwilling to do so and that the cultural alienation from Obama felt by most Catholics will not fade away easily. And, of course, a large segment of the Catholic population left the Democratic Party way back during the Reagan years, giving any Republican nominee a solid Catholic base from which to begin. While premature to do anything more than note the possibility, the strong Catholic tide away from candidate Obama that has become a flood during the primaries might not only affect the outcome of the presidential race but begin to sweep away Democratic candidates further down the ticket. The electability concern could go beyond the top of the ticket. Still, election prognostications are always risky, especially this far out, although the Catholic voting trends have been remarkably stable for several months now.
By contrast, if Senator Clinton should run the table in the remaining contests and convince the super-delegates to swing the nomination to her, where then will Catholic voters go in the general election? In that event, Republicans had better hope that Clinton’s overwhelming margin in the Catholic vote in the Democratic primaries is more of a movement away from Obama than an attraction toward Clinton. Given that these Catholic voters have already made an initial commitment in Clinton’s direction by casting primary votes for her, separating them away from her as the Democratic nominee for the November election will be a difficult task for the Republicans. Of course, Senator McCain might still win the overall Catholic vote without these Democratic primary voters by holding Catholic Republicans and taking Catholic independents. In particular, Clinton has not done well with independents, tending to succeed better in states in which only registered Democrats are permitted to vote in the primary. But McCain's pitch to Catholic voters may be more difficult if Clinton is the opponent.
If he hopes to win the Catholic vote against Clinton, McCain would have to convince Catholics that, despite her victories with Catholic voters during this spring, he really has more in common with them than does she. That’s not an impossible task, as who would have imagined a few months ago that Hillary Clinton would become the flag-bearer for culturally-conservative and working class Catholic Democrats. And, of course, the abortion question may emerge as important again in the fall, a subject that for obvious reasons has not been prominent in the Democratic contest where neither Clinton nor Obama have shown acceptable respect for the sanctity of human life and both take positions on the far left of even their own party (here). Nonetheless, Clinton has proven to be a powerful contender for the Catholic vote. Who’d a-thunk it!
Moreover, whether it is Obama or Clinton, the Catholic trends in the Democratic nomination race may fall away if Senator McCain fails to convince Catholic voters that he is a worthwhile alternative. He has to appeal not only to the Catholic Republicans that already are falling behind him, but also to the working class Catholic Democrats who could be attracted to him on cultural and national security issues, notwithstanding a weak economy. On the one hand, early indications are that McCain is well positioned to pick up those Catholics who have found Obama unappealing and who have been further estranged by his belittling comments about “bitter” people “clinging” to religious faith in small towns. On the other hand, Senator McCain chose not to participate in the Compassion Forum at Messiah College earlier this month, saying that he takes a more private approach to his religious faith. We will have to see whether McCain then is able to convince faithful Catholics that he respects their perspective, values their communities, and understands the centrality of religious faith and observance in their lives. McCain's ability to speak directly to working class and non-urban Catholics has not yet been tested.
Whatever happens, I think we can agree that this has become very interesting election year — much more so than anyone would have expected back on New Year’s Day.
Greg Sisk
Thursday, April 17, 2008
Earlier this week (here and here), I posted my personal impressions about the unscripted, fascinating, and sometimes personally revealing observations of Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama about religion and faith and public life, during their participation in the Compassion Forum hosted by Messiah College in Pennsylvania on Sunday evening.
At the time of my first post on Monday, I noted my surprise and disappointment that this remarkable exchange had received so little public attention. As the days of the week have passed, this unprecedented dialogue about religious values in American politics has continued to be neglected by most of the media. Sigh. Unlike most commentators, Daniel Henniger of the Wall Street Journal did give it considerable play in a column today, concluding: “Some bloodless analysts have said for several years that Democrats had to say this [speak to the values of religious citizens] to win because, you know, a lot of people ‘go to church.’ And yes, what candidates seeking votes say may be false, faked or fantastic. What remains is the fact that these two, in competition for votes, have conferred political legitimacy and respect on this swath of America.” I agree that the forum was a step forward in conferring political legitimacy on people of faith as full-fledged members of our polity.
In this which will be my last post on the Compassion Forum, I move from the candidates’ general observations about religious faith in their lives and in the public square to the most prominent and controversial issue of public importance that implicates moral values—the sanctity of human life and protection for the unborn. To be sure, these Democratic candidates would resist the Catholic understanding of this subject as the foremost human rights issue of our day. But the Catholic witness for the sanctity of human life is clear and resolute, however politically inconvenient it may be for one of our two great political parties.
Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver has aptly said that “abortion is the central social issue of this moment in our national history—not the only issue, but the foundational issue; the pivotal issue.” And Catholic teaching on responsibility in political life is consistent and continuing. The American bishops’ statement on “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship (Nov. 2007), has been misleadingly cited by some as subordinating abortion in moral importance as a political issue, by selectively quoting the bishops’ phrase that “[a]s Catholics we are not single-issue voters.” In so saying, the bishops explained that “[a] candidate’s position on a single issue is not sufficient to guarantee a voter’s support.” In other words, being right on a central issue does not necessarily mandate support. By contrast, however, the bishops emphasized that being wrong on a central issue could well preclude support: “[A] candidate’s position on a single issue that involves an intrinsic evil, such as support for legal abortion or the promotion of racism, may legitimately lead a voter to disqualify a candidate from receiving support.”
The singular importance of protecting human life as an obligation for those in public life has been a clear teaching of the Church in America for many years. As the American bishops had previously stated, in words the parallel the most recent statement:
Any politics of human dignity must seriously address issues of racism, poverty, hunger, employment, education, housing and health care. . . . But being “right” in such matters can never excuse a wrong choice regarding direct attacks on innocent human life. Indeed, the failure to protect and defend life in its most vulnerable stages renders suspect any claims to the “rightness” of positions in other matters affecting the poorest and least powerful of the human community.
So, on that preeminent question of human rights and the legitimately disqualifying intrinsic evil of supporting legal abortion, how far have the national Democratic candidates come toward respecting the sanctity of human life? Sadly, the Compassion Forum in Pennsylvania last Sunday shows the two who remain in the race have not come very far at all. While one of the candidates now acknowledges that the pro-life movement is composed of people of good faith and vaguely suggests a moral dimension to the issue, without amplification or any apparent consequence, nothing of substance appears to have changed.
During their separate appearances at the Compassion Forum, each candidate was asked directly whether he or she “believe[s] personally that life begins at conception?” And each candidate struck out on this soft-ball pitch. In 2004, despite a long history of enthusiastically defending legal abortion, presidential candidate John Kerry did allow as how he personally believed that life began at conception. Now given that he was in political trouble at the time and on the path toward losing the Catholic vote, Kerry’s belated confession of faith in unborn human life was regarded skeptically by many observers. But, on Sunday evening, neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama could even hint at any personal opposition to abortion.
Senator Clinton responded by echoing the wooden and evasive phrase from Roe v. Wade itself, saying “I believe that the potential for life begins at conception.” If any element of the abortion debate can be reduced to a simple and objective scientific query, it is whether life begins at conception. The answer is indisputably “yes.” As anyone with even a little scientific understanding must admit, from the moment of conception, a distinct and unique genetic organism comes into being. And that individual life is plainly human (as opposed to some other species). The pro-choice movement instead must shoulder the heavy burden of persuading us that this human life is not worthy of protection, but it cannot rationally deny that it is human life.
Clinton then proceeded to inform us that her pro-choice views were based on her “personal experience” from visiting “countries that have taken very different views about this profoundly challenging question.” The contrasting examples she adduced were China, with its practice of “forced abortions and forced sterilization” to prosecute its one-child policy, and Romania, where women “were essentially forced to bear as many children as possible for the good of the state,” which included criminalizing abortion. Senator Clinton did not elucidate how these peculiar and extreme examples were supposed to inform the abortion debate in the United States. One may readily agree that the government should not force women to “bear as many children as possible,” and use secret police to aggressively enforce that mandate, without endorsing the radical abortion-on-demand regime that prevails in the United States but which is followed almost no where else in the western world.
Senator Obama’s answer to the question of when life begins was not much better, and indeed seemed feckless to me given the gravity of the matter. Affecting humility on the moral dilemma, he began by saying “[t]his is something that I have not, I think, come to a firm resolution on. I think it’s very hard to know what that means, when life begins. Is it when a cell separates? Is it when the soul stirs? So I don’t presume to know the answer to that question.” Thus he wobbled from the question of “when life begins,” for which a simple biological answer exists, to the question of when that life is worthy of value, which apparently he suggested might be “when the soul stirs.” And when does the “soul stir” for Senator Obama, so that we may confidently give legal protection to that life? In the third-trimester? At birth? When the baby is able to smile? When the child’s first word is spoken?
Most importantly, if Obama truly does not know the answer to the question of when life begins, then shouldn’t he come down on the side of protecting that putative life until its absence is clearly established? Because the choice is literally life or death for an entity that may be a member of our human family, and given that Obama says he harbors uncertainty about the answer, why would he then favor allowing termination of what he admits could be a human person?
In any event, Obama immediately thereafter fumbled back to the same posture as Senator Clinton, when he too referred to the unborn as having “potential life.” Despite his professed irresolution, he apparently has answered the question of when life begins, and not in a way that values unborn life.
Senator Obama did offer words of forbearance for those of us who disagree with his position on abortion, which was more than Senator Clinton provided. Obama said that we should “recognize that people of good will can exist on both sides. That nobody wishes to be placed in a circumstance where they are even confronted with the choice of abortion. How we determine what’s right at that moment, I think, people of good will can differ.” Candidly acknowledging that efforts to find common ground could only go so far and that at some point there is an “irreconcilable difference” between the opposing sides on the abortion debate, Obama also said “those who are opposed to abortion, I think, should continue to be able to lawfully object and try to change the laws.” Of course, we pro-life citizens do not exercise our constitutional rights of expression and democratic governance by the benevolent grace of politicians, but it’s still nice to be accredited by Senator Obama as legitimate voices in the public square.
In addition, Senator Obama adverted to “a moral dimension to abortion, which I think that all too often those of us who are pro-choice have not talked about or tried to tamp down.” But given Obama’s unwillingness to affirm that human life may be at stake, the nature of this “moral dimension” was less than clear. Or that it makes any difference. Beyond words, what exactly does this recognition of a moral element mean to someone like Obama who is asking to lead our nation? Is there any evidence that this “moral dimension” to abortion or the “moral weight” to “potential life” that he acknowledges has any consequence for Obama’s approach to public policy on the question?
An overwhelming bipartisan majority of Americans and their representatives in Congress oppose partial-birth abortion, a horrifying practice that a majority of the Supreme Court later characterized as the equivalent of infanticide. But Senator Obama (and Senator Clinton) have been indifferent to this atrocity. During this campaign, both Clinton and Obama have castigated the Supreme Court for not intervening to overturn the democratic actions of their fellow members of Congress who had provided some minimal protection to late-term unborn children. In fact, both of these candidates have emphasized that they would appoint justices and judges who would allow no such constraints on abortion, leaving the license unrestricted at any stage of pregnancy or for any reason. When serving in the Illinois legislature, Obama even blocked legislation that would have required health care providers to give medical care to aborted babies who somehow survived the procedure. Both candidates would also devote taxpayer funds to paying for abortion. How exactly do any of these positions give credence to Obama’s ascription of “a moral weight to [to “potential life”] that we take into consideration”?
To be sure, both Senators Clinton and Obama said that they hoped to reduce abortions, each specifying efforts to encourage adoption and reduce teenage pregnancy as the means to that end. But neither of these candidates for the highest office could bring him or herself to say, even as a matter of personal moral trepidation, that abortion takes a life. Thus, we may be sure that neither will be motivated in political office to pursue action on this subject for the purpose of enhancing the value of human life and resisting the culture of death. Accordingly, with respect to the sanctity of human life, the gulf that separates the national Democratic Party and its presidential candidates from those of us who raise our voices on behalf of the unborn remains very wide indeed.
Greg Sisk
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
During the course of their separate appearances at the Compassion Forum at Messiah College in Pennsylvania on Sunday evening, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were asked for their thoughts on the very propriety of the forum itself, devoted as it was to discussion of religion and public life. The contested place of the religious voice in the public square has been a subject of animated debate in both popular and academic circles over the past couple of decades. Many of the members of this Mirror of Justice blog have been leading figures in that important discussion, most prominently our own Michael Perry, whose several books on the subject are essential volumes in any library on religious expression in public life. (In one side-line of my academic writing, I have offered my own thoughts on this subject in the context of what I called the “quintessential religious witness in the public square” of Pope John Paul II (here).)
Was it appropriate to ask presidential candidates to share their views on religious faith and values in public life? While one would not expect politicians to offer reflections that rise to the quality of academic discourse, the responses of the Democratic presidential candidates may be revealing of how this public debate has moved over the years. Vigorously if imperfectly on the part of Senator Obama, and more haltingly on the part of Senator Clinton, their openness to religious participation suggests that we may be witnessing the beginning of a break from what then law professor and now federal judge Michael McConnell identified as a secularist “hold on mainstream thinking” about religion in the elite sectors of American society. The “Naked Public Square,” against which Richard John Neuhaus warned so eloquently many years ago, is becoming better clothed, even among the left-leaning political demographic that had seemed most insistent on denuding the public square of the religious witness.
In yesterday’s post offering my general observations about the candidates’ responses on questions about religious faith at the Compassion Forum, I shared my impression that Senator Clinton more readily and more comfortably connected with the spiritual dimension of faith as central to the lives and identity of so many Americans. Unfortunately, she faltered badly, in my view, on the central question of whether the subject was appropriately raised in the first place. When one of the moderators claimed that “there are a lot of Americans who are uncomfortable with the conversation that we’re having here tonight” and who “believe religion already has way too much influence in political life and public life,” Senator Clinton was immediately solicitous of those objections. She characterized this as “a fair question to ask” and said that she understood “why some people, even religious people, even people of faith might say, why are you having this forum? And why are you exploring these issues from two people who are vying to be president of the United States?” Still, she did conclude that “we want religion to be in the public square,” saying that “[i]f you are a person of faith, you have a right and even an obligation to speak from that well spring of your faith.” But, she insisted, people of faith must “do so in a respectful and inclusive way.”
By responding as she did, Senator Clinton gave considerable credence to the persisting anti-religious impulses of too many in her political party. By stating that it is fair for some to question whether it is proper even to host a forum that allows candidates for the nation’s highest office to share their views on faith and values, she suggested that the exclusionary secularist viewpoint is a legitimate one that deserves consideration, even if on balance but only after careful consideration she had decided to participate in the forum. Reflecting the antipathy to religion in liberal elite circles, Richard Rorty once argued that speaking of religion in the context of public policy should be sharply rebuked as displaying “bad taste” in polite company. While clearly struggling to find a way to do so Sunday evening, and succeeding in other ways, Clinton seemed unable to completely shake off a similar aesthetic discomfort with the topic.
In sum, in this passage from the forum, Senator Clinton offered a less than enthusiastic invitation to people of faith to participate in the public square and indeed set out terms by demanding that they do so in a “respectful and inclusive way.” While most of us desire to be as respectful and inclusive as possible in expressing our religious (and non-religious) views, short of compromising our principles, Clinton did not suggest a similar qualification on participatory rights for anyone else engaging in public discourse.
In contrast, Senator Obama began his response to the same question by rejecting those “elements, many of them in my own party, in the Democratic Party, that believe that any influence of religion whatsoever in the public debate somehow is problematic or violates church and state.” Instead, he explained, “[w]hat I believe is that all of us come to the public square with our own values and our ideals and our ethics, what we believe. And people of religious faith have the same right to come to that public square with values and ideals that are rooted in their faith.” Obama continued: “And they have the right to describe them in religious terms, which has been part of our history. As I said in some of my writings, imagine Dr. King, you know, going up before, in front of the Lincoln Memorial and having to scrub all his religious references, or Abraham Lincoln in the Second Inaugural not being able to refer to God.” Yes, it is unfortunate that Senator Obama felt obliged to toss out the canard that Republicans would abolish separation of church and state (in a passage not quoted above) and that he self-referentially cited his own writings about the essentiality of religious references to Dr. Martin Luther King's civil rights movement (in the passage quoted above), instead of giving credit to such scholars as Stephen Carter who brought that point front and center in our modern public debate about religion in public life. Nonetheless, and importantly, Senator Obama offered a ringing endorsement of religious participation in the public square and did not hesitate to separate himself from the secular exclusionists.
Unfortunately, after having done so, Obama too felt obliged to suggest special constraints on the religious voice, saying that, in the public square, we have to “translate our language into a universal language that can appeal to everyone.” As with Senator Clinton, Obama did not explain why people of faith are required to speak in a different voice, one that is “universal” and “appeals to everyone” before being heard. And having just defended the use of openly religious references, Obama’s insistence that religious language be translated into a universal style was somewhat contradictory. As Obama’s closing remarks in response to this question suggest, his concern apparently is to preclude “a certain self-righteousness,” as when a speaker implies he has “got a direct line to God,” a claim that Obama characterized as “incompatible with democracy.” But by thereby carving out forthright claims of religious truth from discourse that is appropriate for the public square, isn’t Obama’s invitation to people of faith significantly limited? Dr. King certainly claimed Biblical sanction for his views about the equality of all people. Nor, as Obama said should be expected of people of faith, did Dr. King "allow that we may be wrong" in thinking people of color were entitled to fundamental human rights.
While both Senators Obama and Clinton said that they welcomed the religious voice in the public square, and Obama did so in forceful terms, they also felt obliged to suggest that religious participation should be controlled and constrained, in a manner that we do not demand of others. Stephen Carter once wrote that a “cultural discomfort” emerges “when citizens who are moved by their religious understanding demand to be heard on issues of public moment and yet are not content either to remain silent about their religions or to limit themselves to acceptable platitudes.” By demanding “inclusive” or “universal” language or warding against claims of God-given truth as “incompatible with democracy,” is the Obama and Clinton invitation to people of faith effectively conditioned upon their willingness to utter “acceptable platitudes”? I don’t think either of them, and Obama in particular, mean to be so restrictive. But they appear conflicted in their instincts and have not yet thought through what it would mean to regard people of faith as first-class citizens in the public square. And neither Clinton nor Obama appears to be comfortable with what Stephen Carter referred to as the role of “prophetic religious activism,” observing as he did that “[t]he religious voice at its more pure is the voice of the witness.” But maybe that's to be expected. Clinton and Obama are politicians seeking power, and politicians seeking power are seldom comfortable with prophets.
In the next day or two, I’ll move from observations about the general subjects of religious faith in personal and public life as addressed at the Compassion Forum and offer my comments on how the candidates responded to questions about abortion and the sanctity of human life, which sadly if not unexpectedly was the nadir of the evening.
Greg Sisk
