You are here

Presidential Forum on Faith, Values & Poverty

Jim Wallis of Sojourners organized the above-titled forum that was shown on CNN last night featuring Edwards, Obama, and Clinton answering questions about their faith and its relation to their presidential aspirations. David Kuo's take on the forum is here and on the Dems and faith in general is here. Andrew Sullivan's take is here. One of the more memorable moments for me was when Edwards, like most of the rest of us, couldn't bring himself to confess a specific sin. On the positive side, it was good that Edwards said this:

O'BRIEN: If you think something is morally wrong, though, you morally disagree with it, as president of the United States, don't you have a duty to go with your moral belief? EDWARDS: No, I think that, first of all, my faith, my belief in Christ plays an enormous role in the way I view the world. But I think I also understand the distinction between my job as president of the United States, my responsibility to be respectful of and to embrace all faith beliefs in this country because we have many faith beliefs in America. And for that matter we have many faith beliefs in the world. And I think one of the problems that we've gotten into is some identification of the president of the United States with a particular faith belief as opposed to showing great respect for all faith beliefs.

...as opposed to the "inject faith into policy" from Hillary and the "biblical injunction" for policy from Obama. I think I know what they meant (in Edwards words, their "...belief in Christ plays an enormous role in the way [they] view the world", but I like Edward's acknowledgment that there can be a big down side of the president wearing his faith on his sleeve and allowing it to shape policy rather than the constitution and the law and personal freedom and what's best for the country as a whole. The transcript is here. Here are the clips from YouTube (with poor quality audio that is out of sync with the video):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments

You've said before you don't like President Bush wearing his faith "on his sleeve". If you believe in God and Christ, live your life according to scripture, what do you base your moral decisions on if you don't base it on your beliefs?

I base MY moral decisions on my beliefs and I would hope that any president would base his/her personal moral decisions on their own beliefs BUT I don't think a Christian should impose their moral beliefs on others.What really impressed my about Edwards is that he said he doesn't believe America should be known as a "Christian Nation". That belief is constitutional sound AND of even more importance, biblically sound.... Neither Jesus or his disciples were in the business of nation building. Instead they focused on spreading the good news and striving to live their own lives in a holy and God-pleasing way.

As president, the leader represents all of the citizens of our country. Many of them are Christian, but many are not. Therefore, decisions should be made based on the body of morality shared by most all religious people as well as secular/non-religious citizens interested in the common good of the nation, the principles of personal liberty and the constitution, etc. I'm glad for the president to make his/her personal decisions based on his/her faith, but the decisions made in the role of president must be based on something more general and common and representative of all than an individual's personal religious beliefs.As I've mentioned before, I am also troubled by a leader who is so vocal about his faith and about our country being Christian because (perhaps) a country and its leaders sometimes have to do things that are in the country's best interest that aren't very compatible with the fundamental principles of the leaders' personal faiths. Obviously, I don't approve of what we've done in Iraq, but maybe some of what we did in Afghanistan was necessary for the good of our country. Even so, I don't want the rich guy who drops bombs that kill and maim children and approves of the use of torture to be the face that the rest of the world identifies with Christianity.

Great thoughts, Jonathan. It's a true conundrum and one of the major reasons why I eschew entertaining political races as part of my own future.Edwards is probably pretty wise not to confess a specific sin. That'll get you pretty beat up. Especially in a lot of churches.

Like it or not this nation was founded on Christian principles and most of the people in this country consider themselves to be Christian. I don't want a president who "sniffs the wind" or by popular opinion to make a decision. I want one with convictions and is willing to stand by those beliefs and convictions. Like the country song says, "If you don't stand for something you'll fall for anything." That the problem with a lot of folks today.

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying that the president should make decisions based on opinion polls. I would be thrilled to have a president who governed with integrity, rejecting the petty and underhanded and (sometimes) illegal tactics that are par for the course in the field of politics. I have not seen such a president.I'm saying that there is a common set of convictions and principles that are the true basis of our society that can be accepted by all of us, regardless of whether or not we are religious. It is true that these common convictions have been shaped by Christianity as well as many other types of influences, but they are not equivalent to any one particular faith.From the declaration of independence:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.PreambleWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

It's philosophical background (from Wikipedia):

The Preamble of the Declaration is influenced by the spirit of republicanism, which was used as the basic framework for liberty.In addition, it reflects Enlightenment philosophy, including the concepts of natural law, and self-determination. Ideas and even some of the phrasing was taken directly from the writings of English philosopher John Locke. Thomas Paine's Common Sense had been widely read and provided a simple, clear case for independence that many found compelling. According to Jefferson, the purpose of the Declaration was "not to find out new principles, or new arguments, never before thought of . . . but to place before mankind the common sense of the subject, in terms so plain and firm as to command their assent, and to justify ourselves in the independent stand we are compelled to take."

From the constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It's influences (from Wikipedia):

Several of the ideas in the Constitution were new, and a large number of ideas were drawn from the literature of Republicanism in the United States, from the experiences of the 13 states, and from the British experience with mixed government. The most important influence from the European continent was from Montesquieu, who emphasized the need to have balanced forces pushing against each other to prevent tyranny. (This in itself reflects the influence of Polybius' second century BC treatise on the checks and balances of the constitution of the Roman Republic.) John Locke is known to have been a major influence, and the due process clause of the United States Constitution was partly based on common law stretching back to the Magna Carta of 1215.The United States Bill of Rights were the ten amendments added to the Constitution in 1791, as the supporters had promised opponents during the debates of 1788. The English Bill of Rights (1689) was an inspiration for the American Bill of Rights. For example, both require jury trials, contain a right to bear arms, and prohibit excessive bail as well as "cruel and unusual punishments". Many liberties protected by state constitutions and the Virginia Declaration of Rights were incorporated into the United States Bill of Rights.

These are the types principles on which our country was founded. Are they consistent with and influenced by Christianity? Sure, but not exclusively so. In my opinion, the government should take or not take an action because it does or does not serve one of these goals: "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity", not simply because it does or does not jive with my personal view of the Bible or any other religion.And even if we restrict our scope to Christian citizens of America. Are Christians homogeneous and anywhere close to unanimous in their view on issues like capital punishment, pre-emptive war, the use of torture, gay marriage, abortion, issues of poverty, etc? Absolutely not. So, even in this unreal hypothetical world where everyone is a Christian, reliance on so-called "Christian principles" is not sufficient to provide direction for our governement.

Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer