Call to Renewal Address: Barack Obama

David Barton’s Original Intent: The Courts, The Constitution, and Religion, breaks down the significance of how religion was intended in the First Amendment and its effect on the phrase, “Separation of Church and State.” Barton well illustrates how the founding fathers incorporated the position of religion into the First Amendment. Barton explains how the House Judiciary Committee believes, “The founders did respect other religions; however, they neither promoted pluralism nor intended that the First Amendment do so” (175). They continue to discuss how the founding fathers were all Christians and they expect it to remain that way in the lives of the citizens. In Barton’s views of the First Amendment, he believes it has changed dramastically

Through his speech “Faith in America” Romney appeals to pathos in order to persuade the American people that even though he has his own beliefs people should not define his candidacy by his religion. Romney says that “A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.”(2) Mitt Romney doesn’t try to hide his religious beliefs but keeps on saying that his faith has no meaning when he will make decisions as a president and that it won’t interfere with his duties as a government official. By stating that religion and state should be separated he doesn’t want people to feel that what they believe in is wrong compared to his beliefs. American people don’t have the same beliefs and Mitt Romney wants to make sure that no matter what religious views the American population has he will try to convince people that as a president he won’t make decisions based on his faith or religion.

“Faith, Truth, and Tolerance in America,” is a speech by Edward M. Kennedy established through literary devices. As he spoke to the college through this dialog there was historical, political and social views but also historical political views and points in which the speech had progressed by expressing views of religion being an aspect in how the government were to rule. Though there is multiple literary devices that are used to create ethical, emotional, and logical appeal, although the majority is ethical, he brings historical factors of political views of past politicians of whether or not it should be an aspect or an influence in government, most of which were presidents at one time or another. Thus informing the audience of the support

In American Gospel: God, the Founding Fathers, and the Making of a Nation, Jon Meacham explores the dynamic relationship between religion and government in America in the hope that contemporary America can learn from the past. The period covered by the book spans from 1620 until Reagan’s presidency in the late 1980s. However, Meacham focuses on the Founding Fathers stances and their continued impact on American politics. More specifically, the book details the conflict over the separation of private religious expression and the more neutral ‘public religion’.

Summary: The division between church and state is a gray line that is often crossed and argued about. For example, Gwen Wilde, the author, argues that the words “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance requires people who do not believe in God to recite something they do not necessarily believe in. If a person chose not to say the full Pledge, including to utter the words “under God” they run the risk of being called unpatriotic. The author continually argues that the words “under God” add a religious doctrine that not all Americans believe in.

Believing in an idea that regulates everyone’s life, will influence all aspects of everyone’s life. One simply cannot live a “Christian life” solely involving religion and divide themselves when they deal with politics. Thus believing in anything shapes each individual as a person: creates their boundaries, defines morality, and what is just and unjust. Therefore, religion will always be tied into politics. Consequently, I am researching the inevitability of the two seemingly separate ideas overlapping and impacting one another.

In my opinion “I believe that faith groups and institutions should be allowed to form political parties and they should attempt to gain influence in the workings of government for their views and values by entering the realm of political discourse and attempting to elect their own politicians.”

I attended an event held by the Veritas Forum, “‘In ___ We Trust’ Finding where division ends and unity begins” on January 26th. Conversation ensued between Professor Gillespie and Professor Smith who shared their insight into government and their faith. They spoke about where they saw the government headed and the deep-seated religious ties that America has. Professor Gillespie said she had to have hope and believe that the right things would be done, while Professor Smith said he looked to the future to see how President Trump would handle his obligations and how he would respond to threats to national security. At the end of the discussion, Professor Smith stated that discussion between people from both parties was needed in order to move forward and work together.

ought to play in the public life of the American nation for the first time

This paper is a book critique of The Godless Constitution. The first chapter of the book is titled “Is America a Christian Nation?” and it is an introduction for the rest of the book. In this chapter, the main idea is to open the reader’s mind about that the constitution was created with the idea that religious believes will not influence in the politics of the nation. The authors state that “The principal framers of the American political system wanted no religious parties in national politics” (Kramnick and Moore, 23). Actually, the creation of a constitution without influence of religion was not an act of irreverence. The authors believe that the creation of the constitution was a support to the idea that religion can preserve the civil morality necessary for democracy, without an influence on any political party. The end of the chapter is the description of the following chapters and with a disguise warning that both authors were raise in religious families and they wrote the book with high respect for America’s religious traditions (Kramnick and Moore, 25). The second chapter, called “The Godless Constitution” explains how the different terms to talk about God were taken out and a “no religious test” clause was adopted with little discussion. This clause was a “veritable firestorm” during the ratification debates in several states (Kramnick and Moore, 32). For many people the “no religious test” clause was considered as the gravest defect of the Constitution (Kramnick

Senator Obama is a Christian whose religious views developed in his adult life. He wrote in The Audacity of Hope that he "was not raised in a religious household"(241). Obama explained how, through working with black churches as a community organizer while in his twenties, he came to understand "the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change." With this in mind, I believe chapters 6 and 7 are perfect examples of ethos in this novel, describing racial heritage, racial equality, and faith. In chapter 6, Obama attacks the issue of religious faith, mainly focusing on roots and influence of the Democrats growing uneasiness with the displays of religious faith. Because this is such a controversial topic, I must say, I was a little skeptical as to how he would present his arguments, to a group of readers with such a variety of opinions. I was intrigued when Obama recounted his own journey from atheism to faith, contending that the structure of religion has invigorated and expanded his moral beliefs. Due to the high degree of religiosity reported in polls of Americans, he contends that regaining a sense of ease with religion is the only way that the Democrats will be able to connect with a majority of the public. By using this cause/consequence approach to how we should handle religion, he makes people understand that we should only respect each other’s

“American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us,” by Robert D. Putnam and David E. Campbell, and “America and the Challenges of Religious Diversity,” by Robert Wuthnow, give different thoughts to religion and politics in the United States. Putnam and Campbell utilize the concepts of shocks and aftershocks to highlight religious changes in the United States. On the other hand, Wuthnow uses observations to focus on the encounters of religious diversity in the United States. Wuthnow compares American Christianity with other popular religions in America and how Christianity has affected the perception of religion. Putnam and Campbell’s “American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us” is a more persuasive assessment of American religion and politics.

America wastes a lot of time trying to create a democracy completely absent of the moral expectations that our ancestors have put into place. Our founding fathers’ dream of establishing a country in which all people would be accepted has begun to fall. In our attempt to rid our country of a democracy contaminated with any belief in a supreme power, we have rid ourselves of many of our values and morals. Perhaps it is impossible for religion to dominate our political country, but we have misinterpreted the original intent of “separation of church and state” and taken this concept too far.

On July 12, 2007, for the first time in American history the Senate session that day was opened by a prayer; unlike any other prayer, it was given by a Hindu priest. At first sight, it would seem as though the ideals designed by the framers of the Constitution were alive and well; the pluralization of the United States of America, the land of freedom of religion, and the right to worship without persecution. However, the Christian right wing religious group Operation Save America entered the Senate floor and began to heckle Rajan Zed, the Hindu priest, perpetuating that Hinduism is an “abomination”, as Hindus do not worship “The lord Jesus Christ”. This leads us to ask the question: Is America a land of religious pluralism, or is it a

We need to pay close attention to the effects of secularism: confining the role of religion to the private domain of the individual and creating a dichotomy between "religious" and "worldly," between "private" and "public." It denies religion and its mediating institutions any public function and influence in shaping matters of public policy.