Of Pastors and Presidents: Securing a Secular Bully Pulpit David Masciotra. The Humanist. Washington, DC: Jul/Aug 2008.

Vol. 68, Iss. 4; pg. 7, 3 pgs Copyright American Humanist Association Jul/Aug 2008 ON READING John F. Kennedy's 1960 address to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on the separation of church and state, one stands in awe of Kennedy's masterful rhetoric, his vision for a tolerant and reasoned approach to politics, and his candor towards critics. But one is also embarrassed for America when realizing the quality of discourse and level of rationality that has been lost during the past forty-eight years. Although the full breadth and power of Kennedy's remarks can only be gained from reading them in their entirety, it's useful and revealing to consider the following excerpt and to imagine the unpleasant chorus of idiocy that a current candidate for president would illicit should he or she express a similar sentiment: I would not ... look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test, even by indirection. For if they disagree with that safeguard, they should be openly working to repeal it. ... Whatever issue may come before me as President, if I should be elected-on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling, or any other subject-I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be in the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressure or dictates. One can already see the modern pundits' faces reddening in preparation to launch their condescending and accusatory inquiries: "Is he a person of faith?" "My God! Where will she get her morals from?" President Kennedy belonged to the Roman Catholic Church, and he delivered the Houston address in order to quell the xenophobic paranoia of detractors who assumed that he would be phoning the pope from the Oval Office before making any policy decisions. Of course, it turned out that Kennedy kept his promise by consulting no religious leader before formulating an agenda or issuing an executive order. A comparison to President George W. Bush, who claimed that God wanted him to be president and entertained a weekly phone call to discuss policy with fraudulent hypocrite Ted Haggard, motivates tears or howls of laughterdepending on one's current mood and temperament. The only statement that would upset certain ultra-religious factions that wield considerable power in America more than Kennedy's praise of the establishment clause is an admission of personal secularism. If a presidential candidate were to respectfully and politely confess that he or she is comforted by no faith, the next speech would most likely be one of resignation-if the candidate could be heard over the screams of people damning him or her to hell.

The only thing close to such a moment in recent memory occurred during the battle for the Democratic nomination in 2004 after it was revealed that Howard Dean rarely attended church. Following the revelation, Dean conducted an interview with Newsweek in which he was asked about his favorite books of the Bible. Perhaps a more important question would have centered on his unique opposition to the war in Iraq or his having granted universal health coverage to children and pregnant women in Vermont while governor. Instead the mainstream press acted as if he were running for the position of church elder, not for leadership of a secular republic. Things were different in the days of Thomas Jefferson, who wrote that one should "Question with boldness even the existence of a God." And Abraham Lincoln wouldn't have fared too well with the current media, considering he wrote a pamphlet in his twenties decrying Christianity. Dwight Eisenhower would have faced enraged questioning had his comment about only being willing to enter a church "dragged, feet first" become public. It doesn't take an advanced degree in history to be confident that neither Jefferson or Lincoln, Eisenhower or Kennedy consulted a preacher on issues of war and peace or economics-nor did Franklin Roosevelt, who was a Christian in his private life but observed the church-state separation in public affairs. The political narrative was different during their respective eras. There was no pressure to appear extremely devout. In most cases religiosity wasn't even an issue during debates or press conferences. Juxtapose that with some of the creepshows Americans have had to endure during the current contest for the presidency: * Mitt Romney, attempting a Kennedyesque moment by easing people's concerns about Mormonism, promises to subvert the constitution and "follow Jesus" should he be elected. * Mike Huckabee, wearing his commitment to theocracy on his sleeve, didn't even pause when the press reported that he signed a letter supporting the traditional Christian role for wiveschiefly staying at home, away from all that guy stuff. And now, as the nomination process comes to an end, it is important to acknowledge the fools that have marred the campaigns of the presumptive nominees, Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama. Much attention was given to Obama's "spiritual mentor" Rev. Jeremiah Wright-who, despite devoting a lot of time to helping the poor, seems to have his clock permanently set on half past noon. He believes the U.S. government created AIDS and just adores professional hater Louis Farrakhan. Meanwhile, McCain has been forced to distance himself from Rev. John Hagee after once calling him his "spiritual advisor." Hagee can't wait for the End Times when everyone who doesn't believe as he does will be lowered into a torture chamber for all eternity. His thoughts on gays

(the cause of Hurricane Katrina) and the Catholic church (the "great whore") are equally hateful and stupid. None of this seemed to trouble John McCain. He cast Hagee into political purgatory only after it was publicized by the Huffington Post that this so-called friend of the Jews asserted that Hitler performed God s will by killing millions of them, because the Holocaust hastened the desire of the Jewish people to return to the "Holy Land," and eventually assured the creation of the state of Israel. These kinds of characters belong off in the wilderness handling snakes, alienated from any important discussion. Instead they were brought into the campaign because both Obama and McCain must pretend to be apostles in order to appease an ever-growing and politicized religious constituency and a media that bizarrely does its bidding. Under their influence, the national political dialogue has become simple, shallow, and unnecessarily divisive. They have been given a free pass for preaching dislike of people whose lives they know nothing about and for subverting serious conversations about serious issues with dogma that is inapplicable to modern life. The rest of the electorate, which constitutes the majority, should do our best to challenge, humiliate, and fragment them. This country can't afford anymore Ted Haggards, Jeremiah Wrights, or John Hagees having the ear of the president. The stain they and others like them have left on American politics must be removed. Almost fifty years ago John F. Kennedy offered the best possible advice: we should look upon those who would bring irrational hate, division, and ignorance into public policy with "no favor." We should also continue working for the day when a candidate can declare full support for free inquiry, science, and human progress without controversy. [Author Affiliation] David Masciotra is regular contributor to The Herald News in joliet, Illinois. He has also been published on Pop/Matters and Common Dreams. He lives in Dyer; Indiana, and can be reached at DavidMasciotra@gmail.com.