Since Dwight D. Eisenhower met Pope John XXIII every
president has met the pope. This week Pope Francis is visiting the United
States and met President Obama last Wednesday. At the elaborate welcoming
ceremony on the South Lawn of the White House, the Pope addressed 11,000
ticketed guests and the nation. In this address he shared his opinions on many
of the controversial issues that plague the American government. He gave his
support to President Obama's efforts on climate change, stating that he was
"accepting the urgency, it seems clear to me also that climate change is a
problem that can no longer be left to a future generation." Pope Francis
also agreed with President Obama's efforts to rebuild ties with Cuba; an
opinion not shared by many Republicans. While he agreed that the economy is
benefitting the few upper-class at the expense of many he also defended traditional
values. Pope Francis warned against protecting the institutions of marriage and
family; an opinion not shared by many liberals. The Supreme Court ruled only months
ago in the favor of nationwide same-sex marriage. He also spoke on behalf of
American Catholics stating that they were, "concerned that efforts to
build a just and wisely ordered society respect their deepest concerns and
their right to religious liberty..." President Obama was quick to point
out that "here in the United States we cherish religious liberty."
Pope Francis will continue his United States tour in New York and Philadelphia
stating that he is here to offer guidance about shaping the nation's political
future "in fidelity to its founding principles" and was ready to
listen to the "hopes and dreams of the American people." Some of the questions that the Pope's visit
leaves us with is whether or not his visit and guidance on politics blurs the
lines of religion and state too much. Plus on a broader scale, especially admits
candidate Ben Carson's controversial statements; should religion be discussed
in campaign debates if it supposed to be separate from the state?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/23/politics/pope-francis-washington-visit-updates/
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/22/politics/history-of-popes-and-presidents/index.html
5 comments:
I do not feel that the Pope's visit to the U.S. blurs the line between religion and state. While he may be the head of the Catholic Church he has been very open-minded in what he has said on political and social issues (much to the dismay of ultra-conservatives). Furthermore he speaks to people's sense of humanity and the more basic principles of Christianity which is to do good and to love one another, while not pushing the religion on others. Therefore his time spent in the U.S. does not cross the line and break that separation. As for religion in campaign debates, I personally have also found it ironic how we have this saying of 'separation of church and state' but all the while many of the politicians are using their religious background to make their decisions (especially on social issues such as abortion and same sex marriage). Therefore while I would like to say that I do not feel that religion should be discussed during campaign debates, realistically it is a necessary topic to hear about from the candidates. This is because religion plays a very big role in many people's lives and if it is in anyway going to have an influence or impact on their decision making then it is vital for the voters to hear about (sooner rather than later) so that the voters can have a clear insight into the direction that candidate may be leaning or may potentially lean on issues in the future.
I do not think that Pope Francis' visit to the U.S. blurs the line between religion and state at all. As stated in the original post, every president since Eisenhower has met the president, so why would it now be a violation of the separation of church and state. As a Jesuit, he emphasizes working for the poor and powerless, therefore, his speech brings the issue of poverty back to the forefront and reminds America of our ability to make a change due to our influential power. He believes in important causes that plague not only our world but our nation, such as climate change and immigration reform. Pope Francis is progressive and influential, and it is important for Congress and the people to hear about the importance of the issues he brings up. As for religion in the government and the recent campaign, I agree with Amanda that it seems very contradictory and hypocritical for politicians to discuss how their faith guides their decisions while the Constitution explicitly states the separation of church and state. For example, Ben Carson recently said that we should never elect a Muslim to president because Islam is not in line with the Constitution. This is both an ignorant and offensive statement. Religion should not be a topic of discussion during the campaign debates not only for the reason of the separation of church and state, but in order to focus on the more important issues that plague the nation. However, I think that this is unrealistic as for many candidates, their religion plays an important role in gaining support as well as their identity. For example, Mike Huckabee is supported by Christian conservatives due to his past as a Baptist pastor and evangelical beliefs.
Sources:
http://www.vox.com/2015/9/23/9383545/pope-francis-address-congress-washington
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/23/politics/ben-carson-fundraising-muslim-comments-fox-and-friends/
Thank you for posting this. I do believe that Pope Francis' first visit to the United States is a vastly important step in the turning tides of Catholicism. Many Catholics in the United States and in the world are from a Latin American background, so the fact that we have the world's first Argentine pope is evidence of this changing nature. In addition, Pope Francis is one of the most progressive and politically active popes in recent memory, as you mentioned. I certainly agree with many of his points about climate change, poverty and respect for all religions, and in particular I think the Catholics of the United State may begin to take a more politically active and anti-establishment stance in the next election. However, I disagree with the Pope's attitude towards Cuba. I was personally very offended that he visited the ailing Fidel Castro as if they were old friends; a government that carries out egregious human rights abuses should be religiously condemned, not appeased.
In regards to the separation of church and state, I don't agree with the other commenters completely. To many people, their religion is not just a system of Sunday traditions and annual holidays. It is a moral and ethical framework that guides their decisions. For this reason, candidates should be able to appeal to a religious audience as if it was any other personal voter dogma. The separation of church and state is not being challenged, because this principle was founded to prevent religious leaders from becoming political leaders, not to prevent politicians from being religious. Pope Francis is a valuable and influential political voice, and thus President Obama is right to give him a warm welcome.
The visitation of the Pope to the United States and the White House has raised questions about the separation between Church and State. I agree with Ally that the Pope voicing his opinions on political issues does not blur the lines between the government and religion. The Pope is not directly involved in the government and has every right to advise and comment on the issues of America. Furthermore, the opinions of the Pope represent the views of many Americans throughout the country. historically speaking, the Pope has a tradition of speaking on the problems that plague not only the United States, but countries around the world. The larger issue is the insertion of religion into political debates and campaigns. For instance, the first GOP debate ended with the question of whether or not the candidates had recently received any messages from God. The problem with this question is that it targets anyone who would say no and corners candidates into expressing their religious perspectives. The debates should focus on the issues that plague confront our country and how to solve them. The discussion has moved away from this and towards arbitrary questions on the religious standings of the various GOP candidates. Although religion is frequently an influence upon the opinions of voters and politicians its entrance onto the political stage and is leaning towards basing political merit on religious views. The visit of the Pope itself is not the issue, rather the questions and concerns it raises about the political systems of the United States.
I have to disagree with Gwen in your statement that expresses that “the opinions of the Pope represent the views of many Americans throughout the country” because that rather supports the idea that the church and state coincide. It may be true that many Americans share their belief in Catholicism, however I do not believe the Pope is a voice of this country, or its people, I must argue that his voice is that of the church. Furthermore, the Pope may have a strong and influential voice to citizens of the United States, however I do not agree with the idea that he reflects the views of many Americans. I agree with Ally in the fact that the Pope outwardly expressing his political and social beliefs does not blur the lines between the government and religion. To continue, it is recognized that the Pope's presence in the United States gathers a significant crowd of Catholics, but this doesn't mean the government is enforcing Catholicism onto the American people. Therefore I do not believe that Pope Francis' visit to the United States blurs the line stated in the first amendment demanding separation of state and church. Claire posed the question in regards Ben Carson’s statement in which he asked should religion be discussed in campaign debates if it is supposed to be separate from the state? I believe that although Ben Carson has a valid stance, the controversy of religion is a part of politics and cannot be ignored because many Americans define themselves by their religion. Therefore, the idea that religion should no longer be discussed in campaign debates is a statement I must disagree with because i feel that religion has a great impact on politics, as well as the way our country function, even despite the fact that it is separated from the state.
Post a Comment