The Relationship between Church and State in Obama's Administration

After reading in the New York Times that Obama hosted a Seder in the White House, I was intrigued. Given Biden's recent criticism of Israeli President Benyamin Netanyahu's plan to build 1,600 new settlements in East Jerusalem and the responses of Clinton and other senior officials of the Obama Administration, this celebration may seem strange or even contradictory to some. (Some of the more conservative pro-Israel groups have accused Obama and his administration of being "anti-Israel" and "anti-peace". Others, including Netanyahu's brother-in-law, have even gone so far as to accuse Obama of anti-Semitism, which would make his celebration of Passover especially strange.) That a Christian president would celebrate a Jewish holiday seems absurd in itself. In this way the Seder reflects the complex and ever-changing symbolic relationship between religion and the Obama Administration.

The US Government - and, more specifically, the White House - often celebrates and endorses Christian traditions - for example, the annual Easter egg roll on the White House lawn, or the First Lady's festive decor revealed through thousands of televisions across the US every year around Christmastime. While these customs do not have any real policy implications, they reflect the dominance of Christianity in our society and its strong (albeit indirect) influence on the government.

Obama, however, has diverged from this pattern. In his inaugural speech, he included some religious rhetoric, but also openly embraced non-Christians: "We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers," he said. His 3rd annual celebration of the Seder also reflects this willingness to accept other religions and recognize their role in public life. Too often minority religious and belief groups (atheists and agnostics are two examples of what I would consider to be a "belief group") feel discrimination based on their views and practices. In some sense, there is a religious "tyranny of the majority", as Tocqueville put it: since Christianity predominates greatly, there is often great societal pressure to conform to Christian norms and standards, whether in politics or in social life. (Obviously this pressure will vary geographically: a Jew or atheist in the evangelical South is far more likely to face discrimination and hatred than in New York City, for example. While that isn't to say atheists or others don't judge mistreat Christians, their bigotry is often less widespread and has less impact than Christian bigotry because of the numbers of both groups.) Obama's acceptance of these minority groups, however, alleviates this pressure to conform, allowing greater discussion of policies and views, especially those Christian belief usually condemns (e.g. pro-choice or pro-gay marriage policies). Even if public deliberation ultimately discards such policies, it will at least have ensured that there would be no better option than the one they chose. Recognizing and considering alternative viewpoints is an important part of the legislative process, and while I don't think Obama has fully liberated political discussion from a religious "tyranny of the majority", his actions tend towards that direction.

Obama's stance on religion does not have a direct impact on policy. But it does secularize the US government's image: if public officials recognize all of their constituents' religions, they cannot logically allow one ideology (Christianity, that is) to hold strong, monopolistic influence over them (and thereby over the policies they create). I am interested to see if this trend is just an anomaly of the Obama administration or if it is a sign that American society is moving away from a "Christianized" public life in response to (what some would call) "extremism" and bigotry from some members of the Religious Right and other religious groups.