In Public Discourse, W. Bradford Wilcox discusses the effect that Obama will have on religion in the United States:
His cultivation of churchgoing Americans has not let up since winning the election. From his selection of Rick Warren to deliver his inaugural invocation to his public support for charitable choice to his recent remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast, President Obama has sought to signal to the faithful in America that his administration is no enemy to religion.
I do not doubt the sincerity of Obama’s religious intentions. But while many social conservatives have pointed a spotlight on Obama’s socially liberal policies (repealing the Mexico City Policy, for example) few have paid attention to the likely impact his stimulus, bailout, and economic welfare programs will have. One unremarked and unintended consequence of Barack Obama’s audacious plans for the expansion of government—especially in health care, education, and the environment—is that the nanny state he is seeking to build will likely crowd out religious institutions in America. In other words, if he succeeds in passing his ambitious agenda, the Obama revolution is likely to lead the United States down the secular path already trod by Europe.
Read the full article here.
[via RealClearPolitics]
I have a great deal of respect for Brad Wilcox’s work. However, on this one I may have to disagree.
The last time we had such a sea change in government was with FDR. Though the 1930s were labeled a religious depression, the post-FDR era turned out to be the high water mark for church attendance for the 20th century (and perhaps in American history). Part of that had to do with World War II, but it is hard to make the case that FDR’s unprecedented expansion of the state undermined American religion. Then, as now, religious folks were part of FDR’s coalition (people like the Right Reverend New Dealer Monsignor John Ryan).
Professor Wilcox’s discussion of the imminent decline of religion in America and its consequences is a compelling challenge to Obama’s promise of religious commitment and the benefits of an expanded welfare state. However, Wilcox neglects to differentiate between the consequences from decreased religious attendance and those from a decreased sense of community and purpose.
It certainly makes sense that those who turn to the church for reasons beyond faith in God may fall away when their needs are fulfilled elsewhere. However, this does not necessitate the decline of the “civil and moral fabric” of our country. The ill effects described in the Scandinavian countries may very well be correlated with decreased religious attendance (although correlation does not always imply causation), and I absolutely agree that being part of a community, such a private religious community, encourages a sense of responsibility for each other as well as charitable work. However I would argue the problems to which Wilcox refers stem from a loss of this community and purpose rather than strictly the decrease of religious attendance or faith in their God. This is especially evident as those who join or leave religious organizations due to economic and social security are doing so based on their fulfillment of economic or social needs rather than faith and belief in God.
Something Wilcox does not consider is the increased effect of civil religion, something that is integral to the “Obama revolution.” Obama’s “common good” mantra aims to unite Americans, specifically under God. While his sentiments are often translated into a secular mentality, he is forging a national community with a religious inspiration. Ruth Braunstein quotes Obama in her piece Obama’s faith in the common good, “I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper, we are all children of God.” She discusses his commitment to social action under a form of religiosity that is not limited to one tradition, encompasses all citizens and endows Americans with the charge to maintain a divinely sanctioned morality. This civil religion can provide a tradition-based narrative that allows citizens to find meaning, connect with a larger purpose, and establish a sense of community in which everyone feels responsible for the future, similarly to the work of private religion. In this way, civil religion leads to social solidarity. While Obama’s plans may lead to decreased religious affiliation or religious attendance, it is accompanied by increased religiosity of a different kind.
I understand that this may be an overly optimistic view of the power of Obama to create a “common good” that could match the inspiration to do good of private religion. However, the solidarity and community of Obama supporters leading up to the election certainly support his ability to organize and inspire. While private religion may not be the basis for this new sense of community, civil religion can fill the potential void for the motivation to “attend to the social, material, and emotional needs of family and friends,” and inspire a “feeling of moral unity.”