" …The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
The U.S. Constitution, Article 6
The U.S. Constitution, Article 6
The current fabricated hysteria over the sermons of Pastor Jeremiah Wright raises some serious questions regarding the above quoted Article 6 from the U.S. Constitution. I remember watching the Arizona Debates during the 2004 presidential campaign. Questions were asked of George Bush and John Kerry regarding their faith, etc. etc. Bush, an evangelistic, re-born Christian was aflame with his adoration of Christianity etc. etc. Kerry, a Catholic not accustomed to defending or saluting his faith in open forum, was rather subdued about it and failed to match the spirit of George Bush.
I have always felt that John Kerry’s lack of passion about his religion contributed in part, to loss of goal to become president of the United States. In the balance, we got the continued presidency of a man who went to war because he felt "America is led by the hand of God". Four years later, we are in serious trouble over his "divinely conceived" plan to invade a sovereign nation without legal cause. The current recession is part of the fallout. George Bush tipped the scales in that very close finish because he pandered to the more generically appreciated, bible-belt, conservative style of Christianity. His is a religion that mixes well with patriotism, mom, and a slice of old fashioned apple pie.
As a former Divinity School student, in the 70’s, I have a fair amount of knowledge about the history of black religion and its inseparable association with the politics of social justice. Slaves were not allowed to worship with their white masters even though it was from them that the religion came. At best, they were allowed to sit in the balconies of the churches and keep their silence. It wasn’t long before slaves began to worship their own unique form of Christianity, seasoned with the religions of their African homeland. Soon, the black spiritual became a venue for secret messaging which aided and abetted the success of The Underground Railroad. The black spiritual, born in the spirit of black Christianity, became most useful as a communication tool for enabling the escape of slaves to freedom in Canada. From the moment it was taught to the slaves, Christianity became a beacon of hope and a tool of justification for throwing off the shackles of slavery and every social inconvenience that has come in the wake of it’s abolition in 1863.
This is not intended to be a lecture on black religion. It is my intention here, to describe the nature of black religion as expansive. It includes not only the worship of Christ and the hope of salvation, but in a very real sense, it accommodates just about all aspects of life in the experience of being Black in America. The black church became far more fundamental to the lives of African Americans than just a place to go on Sundays and worship God. The black church is the apex of the community. Its association with freedom movements and resistance to the government of the United States came with the package. In confronting the thinking of Barack Obama’s pastor, the more fundamental question even more primary than First Amendment consideration, is the interpretation of Article 6 of the US Constitution.
Article 6 came along because the founding fathers did not want the same restrictions placed upon Americans that they escaped from by fleeing the Anglican Church of England. A test of religion implies a prerequisite based on the choice a candidate has made regarding the manner in which he practices his religion. Article 6 is an open statement that could produce a great deal of intrigue at the level of the US Supreme Court as regards interpretation. In the Arizona Debates of 2004, the questioner was clearly testing the measure of belief. One could argue that since the moderator was not a government official, the tone of Article 6 did not apply. One could also argue that if the answers given by the candidates were not satisfactory to the voting public, they would be denied the ultimate public service position; the presidency of the United States. If by failing the test of religion, an aspiring candidate loses the election, then I personally believe Article 6 has been violated by the moderators. I would leave it up to the Supreme Court to make a final decision.
In the case of Barack Obama, who has, for his own reasons, chosen to belong to the church pastored by Jeremiah Wright, the exposing of Wright’s thinking in such a way as to inhibit Mr. Obama from succeeding to the presidency, brings up the same question regarding a violation of Article 6. I know it could be a stretch to see it this way, but for the last week we have been bombarded by Jeremiah Wright’s sermons, not as they apply necessarily to a judgement of Rev. Wright, but as they apply to the candidate that belongs to his church. Questioning Barack Obama’s affiliation with the United Church of Christ as he runs for president is administering a test of his religion. It is, in effect, saying "You, Mr.Obama, belong to the wrong kind of church with the wrong kind of pastor and therefore the public has the right to dismiss your candidacy on the grounds that you may, with your religion, be associating with Anti-American sentiment."
It seems that before we elect a person to the office of president, we want to know what his religious beliefs (or lack of such) are all about. The voting constituency of the American population acts as the administrator in offering the job of the presidency to the candidates seeking that office. If the US Constitution forbids a test of religion"as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States", then any undue scrutiny of a candidate’s association with his choice of religion, church, synagogue, temple, mosque, tent in the open woods or whatever, raises valid issues regarding the meaning of Article 6.
Now obviously, one might raise the example of devil worship, or witchcraft and so forth as a valid reason to question a candidate’s association with those "religions". Chances are, a voodoo priest could get elected president if objections to the practice of Voodun were not allowed in debating forums.
How many times did the Mormonism of Mitt Romney get thrust into the consideration of his becoming president? Maybe Article 6 needs to be amended. Maybe it wasn’t intended to allow Satanists or Frog Worshippers to inhabit the office of the presidency, or any other office of the US Government for that matter. Maybe a test case, or a class action suit needs to be brought before the Supreme court if it can be concluded that Barack Obama’s candidacy was offended by questions pertaining to his pastor’s sermons or the church he chose to join.
Obama’s recent speech on racism, Jeremiah Wright, and the ills of American society, attempted to link the rhetoric of preaching to the overall experience of being Black in America, reaching back into slavery. Since there is a clear connection between black religion and social activism responding to accumulated consequences of the Black experience, it should come as no surprise that Jeremiah Wright chose the pulpit to exhort his opinions about American Policy at home and overseas. His sermons were not anti-American. They were "anti" the America that has ducked under the radar of the US Constitution as well as the Declaration of Independence. Wright’s sermons were a call to what America can and should be, in his opinion. They were a calling of American policies onto the carpet and a suggestion that quite possibly, the actions of American governments over the years have violated moral justice and the thought of the Founding Fathers.
Barack Obama became associated with Wright’s United Church of Christ when he was organizing and advocating for the rights of dispossessed, disadvantaged Americans, most of whom happened to be black. They lived in the worst areas of Chicago and were too poor to matter to that city’s government at the time. The United Church of Christ belonged, at that time, to a council of churches which funded support groups and active efforts to respond to issues of heat, asbestos contamination, single-parent familes, unwed mothers, incarceration issues, HIV-Aids administration and so on. Barack Obama gave up a promising legal career to work for those people and it was the churches in that area that provided money and meeting places as well as other support facilities. If Jeremiah Wright and his congregation hadn’t the heart and spirit to reach out and assist people whom the government ignored, perhaps the association would never have come to fruition.
It could be argued that the facilitation of Obama’s mission in the Chicago housing ghetto was a more fundamental reason for his joining that church. It could be argued that despite the flaming rhetoric of his pastor, he was attracted to the willingness of Jeremiah Wright to be part of the solution, not part of the problem. Barack Obama found a comfort zone in the religion of the church he decided to join and enough political activism in the ideology of Reverend Wright to form a relationship with him, which suited Mr. Obama and his family. Now he is being handed a test of his choice as he continues to defend his religion against those who seek one thing: The discrediting of his candidacy for the presidency of the United States.
The ongoing exposé of the ideas and sermons of Jeremiah Wright is a masquerade; a sleight-of-hand operation to deny the presidency to Barack Obama by manipulating the mind of the electorate. If the sermons of Jeremiah Wright were so caustic and abrasively damaging to the character of America, then why NOW are they being paraded in the media and on the opinion pages of publications all over the land? This is not even a violation of Wright’s right to speak his mind. It is simply an effort to obstruct the path to the presidency of Barack Obama, using a test of religion.
Somewhere in the future of presidential campaigns, an agreement of protocol is going to have to come about which adheres to the thinking of Article 6. Hinting at his Muslim and Atheist background was a clear consensus of the idea that a person cannot be president unless his religion satisfies the public conscience. Linking him, through Jeremiah Wright, to Louis Farrakhan, a proud and prominent practitioner of Islam was designed to motivate the fears inherent in the current age of terrorism and anti-Semitism. If religion is to play a deciding part in the election of a US president, then Article 6 must come to the attention of the Supreme Court in terms of revision or official interpretation because it sure sounds to me like we have an infringement here.
The attempt to derail Barack Obama’s candidacy with the ongoing debate over the content of the sermons of Jeremiah Wright has hit its mark. There has been a drop in the Nominating polls along with a rise in the general election polls favorable to Hillary Clinton. If this association between Barack Obama’s faith choice and his chances for winning the presidency prove to be detrimental then bringing a challenge before the Supreme Court regarding Article 6 could be a reasonable consideration.
RWH 3/22/08
