Senator Barack Obama voted not to confirm John Roberts as Chief Justice of the United States because of Roberts’ values. If Obama applied the same standard to himself, he would vote no a second time.

     In rejecting the justice, the senator explained that about five percent of the Supreme Court’s docket involves legally indeterminate questions “that can only be determined on the basis of one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.” In other words, “the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge’s heart.” Because Roberts’ value system had consistently favored the strong over the weak, Obama found him unworthy of a seat on the Court.

     Obama practices a religious variant of preferring the strong over the weak, favoring people of faith over nonbelievers and Christianity over other religions. In his now-famous speech calling upon Democratic politicians to speak more openly of their faith so that they may reclaim religious voters, Obama recommended that politicians translate their religious convictions into universal language and then into law. Obama’s motivation is clear. He is tired of the dominance of the Christian Right’s political positions and wants to replace them with the ideas of the Christian Left, which he believes are more beneficial to the poor.

     Christian government, however, whether conservative or liberal, favors the country’s religious majority and ignores citizens of other faiths or no faith at all. Obama’s words suggest that he will do just that. His opposition to gay marriage, for example, is based on his interpretation of the Christian Bible and his belief that marriage is a religious, not a legal, institution. Obama begins his campaign rallies with prayer even though governmental prayer “sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.” That message is reinforced by Obama’s website, which has a special listing for “people of faith.” Obama believes other citizens should not object to the Pledge of Allegiance because he does not feel “oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase ‘under God.’” Although Obama’s position on aid to faith-based organizations is vague, his fundamental principle on these matters is to protect the church from the state rather than emphasizing other constitutional considerations (such as the need to protect the state from religious influence or to respect the consciences of citizens who do not want their tax dollars used to support religion).

     On all these subjects, and many more, the President of the United States exercises far more discretion over public policy than one of nine justices voting on five percent of the Court’s cases. By Obama’s standards Obama is unfit for office. 

     Like many politicians of the Christian Right, Obama forgets that his faith is Christian, not universal, and therefore cannot provide common principles by which all Americans should be governed. Translating Christian principles into secular language, as Obama proposes, does not solve the problem. It merely masks the basis of the policy. If, in Obama’s heart, the Bible determines the illegality of gay marriage, the place of prayer in governmental ceremonies, the type of aid that churches receive, and the appropriate reaction to the pledge, then the people are not being governed by the Constitution, but by Christian norms cloaked as political principles.  In religious matters, this is the dominance of the strong over the weak.

      Obama’s response to rumors that he is Muslim confirms the danger of campaigning and governing as a Christian in a land of religious diversity. He calls the rumors “scurrilous,” part of a “smear” campaign and a “dirty trick.”  These strong words are followed by a perfunctory reference to Muslim dignity. Obama’s denials come up short and sound insulting. Being Muslim is not a smear. Obama’s eagerness to distance himself from Islam “sends a message to [Muslims] that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to [Christians] that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.”

       As soon as a president, whether Republican or Democratic, George W. Bush or Barack Obama, campaigns on his Christian identity, and promises to govern by Christian principles, he loses the ability to stand for all Americans, people of faith or no faith, Christian or Muslim. Just like Supreme Court justices, presidents should follow constitutional principles and not the values that are in their hearts.