Robert A. Flutie

As an undergrad at Mercer University, I took a constitutional law class. We had a great professor, Dr. Cox, and his ability to draw a line of connectivity between cases that were decided in the US Supreme Court and our everyday life was extraordinary. I found the 1971 case of Lemon v. Kurtzman to be one of the more interesting cases that we studied. Essentially, that case created what is now known as “The Lemon Test” which aids the court in being able to decide if a particular act or acts involving government are a violation of the First Amendment.

We enter into 2008 with an abundance of exposure and awareness to the Presidential election. On the one side we have Hilary Rodham Clinton duking it out with Barack Obama. Across the aisle we have Romney and Huckabee taking shots. Sometimes we hear from good ‘ole Giuliani as he counters the attack from McCain and vice versa. Some find the tete-a- tete to be interesting, others find it entertaining. Some might not even notice, or even know how the respective candidates are addressing the relevant issues that are sitting on America’s doorstep (health care, immigration, the war in Iraq, the economy). What is not being spoken about, however, is the way that some of the candidates have worked religious influence into the process. Now, one could argue that running for The Office of President might make one immune from the issues surrounding the First Amendment. After all, if we were to apply The Lemon Test, we probably wouldn’t find that the candidates are violating the First Amendment.

My question, and ultimatly my concern, is “Are the subtle suggestions of religion in today’s political landscape a sign of how we can expect or anticipate religion to impact or influence us?”

If we take a look at the National temperament on the various topics being discussed by the candidates, we will find that the continued rise in uncertainty and instability of key social, economic and international issues has started a overwhelming shift towards conservatism. When chaos, confusion and haziness begin to take the advantage over confidence, assurance, and growth the populous begins to lean away from the center. Even the most open minded and explorative person will find themselves adrift. When the media bombardment continues to enforce the perception and notion that the ground beneath us is shaking, it becomes a natural inclination for the constituency to run for cover and seek comfort and safety. It is in these times that we are most vulnerable to outside influence and  this leads us into a trend to go towards what is comforting and, well safe. For 92 percent of Americans who are believers, the safest room in the house becomes religion.

I certainly can relate to the idea that in troubling, and not so troubling, times my spiritual salvation and belief provides an added base of steadiness. How I choose to travel my path in life is private and sacrosanct. Yes, I may choose to share it on a weekly basis with my friends in the congregation, but do I really want the religious influence to be woven into my political perspective? Not at all. In simple terms, it’s a conflict and violation of the First Amendment and no matter how gingerly we tip toe around the symbolic nature of religion, when we begin to head down the path of political aspiration we can not do so at the expense of our religious freedom.

If we were to plot out the trajectory of our social mindset, we can reasonably predict that the minor religious influences surrounding us will extend well beyond the Washington DC political platform. This wave of momentum will extend into the creative landscape and make its way into mainstream entertainment as marketers begin to respond to what they believe will be a conservative consumer disposition. And with such tremendous economic influence, these marketers will undoubtedly shape the taste and desire of the entertainment conglomerates (ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX and CW), as they seek to support programming that is reflective of the consumers “safe” mentality.