Obama to emphasize faith-based appeals

The Wall Street Journal had an item today on the Obama campaign rolling out a “new nationwide faith effort” that will, among other things, make it clear that the Democratic candidate is a Christian.

The initiative represents a direct challenge to Republicans, who successfully wooed conservative evangelical votes that in turn fueled President Bush’s re-election in 2004. Liberal evangelicals — such as some members of mainline Protestant churches — have been vocal during this election season, reminding voters that some evangelicals favor abortion rights and gay marriage and oppose the Iraq war, and also vote Democratic.

“The Obama campaign is preparing a robust effort to reach out to people of all faiths, all religious backgrounds and moral beliefs and to bring new faith supporters in,” said Joshua Dubois, the Obama campaign’s director of religious affairs. “We’re trying to connect Americans to one to another. …What we’re conveying is his Christian faith and his core values.”

It’s apparently quite an aggressive initiative on the campaign’s part. The Journal noted that Obama’s team has distributed copies of a letter by the senator, “intended to be read during church services, highlighting the senator’s Christian beliefs.” A letter distributed in Ohio said, “[I]f there is one thing I’ve learned from my time as a community organizer…it’s that ordinary people, with the grace of an awesome God, can do extraordinary things.”

The Rev. A. Russell Awkard, pastor of New Zion Baptist Church in Louisville, said, “No one ever sent a letter before. I don’t think I have ever encountered a campaign that is more intentional in reaching our community. They are not getting to the grass roots. They are boring down the rock. They leave nothing for chance.”

This came up a bit in January, when the Obama campaign produced a direct mail piece, featuring pictures of Obama praying and speaking from a pulpit. It featured a large graphic that reads, “Committed Christian,” touts the “power of prayer,” and includes an account of the moment that “Obama felt a beckoning of the spirit and accepted Jesus Christ into his life.” Similar pieces are hitting mailboxes in Kentucky this week.

I’m inclined to find much of this excessive, but I can’t help but feel like it’s a political necessity.

In a general sense, Obama’s religious outreach is not new. DNC Chairman Howard Dean, for example, has made outreach to evangelicals a key priority this year. For too long, the phrase “religious issue” has necessarily been used to describe conservative opposition to abortion rights and gay rights. If Dems can expand the definition to include issues like poverty and climate change, it’s to everyone’s benefit, and has the potential to change the political landscape.

At the same time, however, Dems clearly seem to appreciate church-state separation far more than Republicans do, and have generally realized that when it comes to national elections, we’re electing a president, not a preacher. Hearing a Democratic candidate mention, in the midst of a debate, that he “believes deeply in the precepts of Jesus Christ” — as Obama did earlier this year — was a little unusual.

My first instinct was to think of the faith-based style employed by Mike Huckabee, and his ad touting him as a “Christian leader.” Of course, the comparison is hardly exact — Huckabee told voters on the campaign trail that he wants to change the U.S. Constitution to bring it in line with “God’s standards,” not to mention all the time he’s spent with Christian Reconstructionists — but the Obama’s overt religious appeals are at least vaguely similar on a rhetorical level.

And since I was critical of Huckabee for this, I’m acutely aware of the danger of hypocrisy here. I don’t want to give a Dem a pass because he’s a Dem.

But to reiterate a point I raised a few months ago, there’s a reason why I’m hesitating and inclined to give Obama a pass: Huckabee isn’t the target of a coordinated smear campaign, and Obama is. Literally millions of people have been falsely told that Obama is a secret Muslim who was educated in a radical madrassa. It comes up in his town-hall forums; it’s come up in nationally televised debates; it’s been distributed by Clinton precinct chairs (all of whom were fired); it’s been referenced by Clinton surrogates (such as Bob Kerrey); it’s been promoted by at least one official Republican website; and plenty of West Virginia Dems cited this nonsense last week.

Because the smear is a religiously-based lie, it seems the appropriate response is the religiously-based truth.

Huckabee swung the Jesus bat, it was excessive, in large part because it’s unnecessary — he’s a former Baptist preacher, and everyone knew it. Obama’s religious background, on the other hand, is less well known — indeed, it’s become the subject of widespread confusion as a result of the coordinated smear.

Under the circumstances, I don’t think Obama has a lot of choice.

Kevin, as a West Virginian who was more than dismayed by the interviews with “slack-jawed yokels” I agree. He has no choice. Properly framed, it also becomes another teachable moment.

  • Quite right, CB. One of the big complaints about the Dukakis campaign years ago was that he tried to take the high road and not respond to all the mud that was flung at him at the time. Morally that’s great, but politically it just encourages more slime.

    Thank goodness the Obama campaign is taking a different approach. Shine the light of truth into the darkness and watch the cockroaches scurry for cover. It will totally confuse them and they will have nothing else to fall back on.

  • Yeah, as an atheist I could do without this, but understand the rationale behind it. I trust Barack to uphold church/state separation so the rest of it does not worry me too much.

  • “It’s apparently quite an aggressive initiative on the campaign’s part. The Journal noted that Obama’s team has distributed copies of a letter by the senator, “intended to be read during church services, highlighting the senator’s Christian beliefs.” A letter distributed in Ohio said, “[I]f there is one thing I’ve learned from my time as a community organizer…it’s that ordinary people, with the grace of an awesome God, can do extraordinary things.”

    I think it’s great the Obama campaign is doing this, but isn’t it illegal to talk about politics in church without losing tax exempt status? I mean, I know the Republicans have been doing it for years, but I’ve always thought it was vaguely illegal.

    So, can a liberal church read a direct letter from a candidate?

  • CB, you are somewhat of an expert on this question: from your post it sounds like the Obama campaign is preparing letters to be read in church, during services – doesn’t that run the individual churches afoul of the IRS?

  • So, can a liberal church read a direct letter from a candidate?

    only if it is cosigned by the prince of darkness, satan, himself.

  • The (Wall Street) Journal noted that Obama’s team has distributed copies of a letter by the senator, “intended to be read during church services, highlighting the senator’s Christian beliefs.”

    Not to nitpick, but that’s grounds for a church to lose its tax-exempt status. Is that really the intention of the Obama campaign, or the WSJ making stuff up again?

    I post comments to the local newspaper’s website, making fun of the morons who believe simultaneously believe that Obama is a Muslim and a Christian who attends a church that had a pastor who said crazy things with which Obama agrees. They must think that the Rev. Wright controversy was to draw attention away from the fact that Obama is really a Muslim. Or something like that. It’s hard to understand what the hell some of these folks are saying.

    The effort to reach out to religious folks is unfortunate. We really ought to be able to keep religion out of politics. But I’m afraid it’s necessary. When Democrats stand back and let themselves be painted by Republicans as anti-religious hedonists, we have to respond effectively. The other values held by those of us who really are anti-religious hedonists (charity, peace etc.) we hold in common with many traditionally religious people.

    But this will have no effect at all on the most ignorant of the Culture Warriors. We’re only talking about peeling off some of the Republicans’ marginal support here.

  • Pandering of the worst sort, plain and simple.

    (A) Kennedyesque speech(es) would be more appropriate, in which he manages to make clear that although he is a Christian, he embraces all faiths and naturalist philosophies equally (that is, everyone of us is welcome, not just religious people), but that he also believes in the doctrine of the separation of church and state.

    Look, he has to counter the rumor that he’s a Muslim. I understand that. But coming on like a Christian evangelist is just as shameful as what the Republicans do. We don’t need “awsome God” inspirational messages from presidential candidates.

  • As long as they don’t tell people to vote for Obama I think they’re o.k. I agree with CB that he needs to do this, but I don’t like it one but.

  • Jesus was a liberal. A radical liberal. And what he said most often was to help the poor, which of course is about as close to Democratic dogma as you can get. Maybe (I hope) a few Christians have actually read their bibles?

    And according to Novackula, McCain also has a Christian problem:

    …the word is that some evangelicals dispute Huckabee’s support. One experienced, credible activist in Christian politics who would not let his name be used told me that Huckabee, in personal conversation with him, had embraced the concept that an Obama presidency might be what the American people deserve. That fits what has largely been a fringe position among evangelicals: that the pain of an Obama presidency is in keeping with the Bible’s prophecy.

    According to this activist, at the heart of the let-Obama-win movement is longtime Virginia conservative leader Michael Farris — the nation’s leading home-school advocate, who is now chancellor of Patrick Henry College (in Purcellville, Va.) for home-schooled students. Best known politically as the losing Republican candidate for lieutenant governor of Virginia in 1993, Farris is regarded as one of the hardest-edged Christian politicians. He is reported in evangelical circles to promote the biblical justification for an Obama plague-like presidency…

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/11/AR2008051101786.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns

  • Yeah, it a better world it wouldn’t even *matter* if he was a Muslim. I won’t presume to know what a perfect world would be. Anyway, the fact that he has to fight this misconception (and he absolutely does if he wants to be elected) is pretty sad.

  • In terms of political tactics, I agree this is a necessary evil. But on policy grounds, I actually don’t think it’s the worst thing in the world. (And, for the record, I’m an agnostic, so I don’t have a dog in the fight… even though I actually first typed “god” instead of “dog.” Sometimes a typo is just a typo.)

    When Bush/Rove launched the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, what was disgusting about it wasn’t the concept that there are services church-affiliated groups might more effectively offer than secular counterparts, but the see-through cynicism of the effort. It’s been painfully evident that Bush couldn’t give less of a shit about the quality of service delivery; all he (or rather Rove) wanted was to peel off some chunk of African-American support, and further reward allies already in the Republican electoral coalition. The implementation of the Initiative has been marked by zero accountability, which has thrown the whole effort into disrepute.

    But I think that there are legitimate public interests that church-affiliated groups might better serve–including child-rearing and family counseling. Let’s set clearer goals and measure performance–and let’s absolutely not discriminate against non-religious groups, as the Bush program has done–but if there’s a better return on public investment to be recognized by working through religious groups, that’s worth exploring.

    I believe that Obama can thread this needle, potentially to a greater extent than any Democratic president we’ve ever had.

  • I understand why he has to do it, but it still feels slimy. I’m also more than a little concerned with this letter intended to be read during church services, which seems to come dangerously close to politicizing the pulpit and, as Mark Pencil noted, putting churches’ tax-exempt status in jeopardy. Since Democrats have been pretty aggressive about similar Republican tactics, this isn’t the sort of thing we should be condoning.

    On the other hand, it seems like Obama might finally be the candidate to succeed in divorcing religiosity from hard-right politics in the public’s eye, and I guess that would be a good thing. Maybe.

  • The smear is all you need to justify the response. Call me a Muslim when I’m not, I have every right to say that I’m a Christian. I only wish we were sufficiently sophisticated (and Constitutionally attuned) that it wouldn’t matter what I am, including deist, agnostic or atheist.

  • While Obama does infuse more religion into the campaign than I would like, the reasons to do so do make sense politically. I find it much more tolerable from Obama considering that he has also spoken out strongly in defense of separation of church and state several times during the campaign.

  • I understand why so many of you here bristle whenever any candidate uses religious language and whatnot. We’ve all been battered around by the GOP in that regard for so many years, the distaste is instinctual. However, while religion has been used to divide and conquer people throughout history, it has also inspired goodness in the world– just look at Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Unlike the fundamentalists of the GOP, who usually turn out to be hypocrites anyway, King actually absorbed the positive tenets of his faith, which fueled his efforts in the fight for equality. He never attempted to impose his faith on anyone else– the fight for civil rights was certainly not about tearing down the barrier between church and state– but was nevertheless driven by the principles of peace and love that can be found in both the Old and New Testaments.

    Similarly, when Obama has used religious language in his speeches, he has not done so as a means of division, of inciting hatred of the “other” in order to scare up votes. That’s the big difference between his efforts and those of the GOP; when the GOP appeals to the proverbial “values voters,” they do so by using the tactic of fear– fear of Muslims, fear of gays– and the gullible masses, unfortunately, drink it up. When Obama talks about religion, he is talking about peace, about looking out for your fellow human beings, no matter who they are. That’s the good side of religion, and I’m glad he is able to talk about it and connect with voters, unlike our stodgy candidates in the past, who sounded stiff and forced whenever they mentioned anything about faith.

    And, just so everyone knows, I am not a spiritual person at all; I am a practicing Jew, because I have immense respect for the struggles of my ancestors in their search for equality, but I couldn’t care less as to the existence of a higher power (I guess I’m an apatheist!) But I know that many people in this country are very religious, and if a Democratic candidate can appeal to the proverbial “angels of [their] better nature,” all the better!

  • obama: ooooh, i’m a christian…

    ME: OBAMA’S A MUSLIM!!!!!!

    o: i’m a long time church goer….

    ME: REV. WRIGHT HATES AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    …an active member of the…

    DO YOU ENDORSE FARRAKHAN?????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHY WON’T YOU DENOUNCE FARRAKHAN?????????????!!!!!!!!!!

    …i love the country…

    WHERE’S YOUR FLAG PIN??????????!!!!

    …i wear a flag pin…

    WHERE IS IT???? HUH?????? HUH????????

    …right here….

    WHERE?? I DON’T SEE IT!!!!! DON’T YOU LOVE AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    …hope…

    TRAITOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    …unity…

    MUSLIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    …end of partisanship…

    WHERE IS YOUR FLAG PIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHY WON’T YOU DENOUNCE FARRAKHAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    …to work together…

    YOU APPEASE NAZIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NAZI!!!!!!!!! LIKE WILK CHAMBERLAIN!!!!!!!!!!

    …not red america…

    …..OSAMA!!!!! OBAMA!!!!!!!!

    …or blue america…

    WHERE’S YOUR TIE, OBAMANAMAJOB???!!!!! OSAMA!!!!!!!!! OBAMA!!!!!!!!!!!!

    …but a purple america…

    OSAMA! OBAM! OSAMA, OBAMA, OSAMA, OBAMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    i win on the issues…

    I WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! VICTORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! IN YOUR FACE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

  • it’s been distributed by Clinton precinct chairs (all of whom were fired); it’s been referenced by Clinton surrogates (such as Bob Kerrey); it’s been promoted by at least one official Republican website; and plenty of West Virginia Dems cited this nonsense last week.

    Let’s remember Shillary herself saying “as far as I know” when asked if she believed Obama was a Christian.

    Given the truth of nobody ever going broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people, it is crucial that he do this. Let’s remember the hillbillies last week saying that “Obama isn’t an American name, not the name of a President.” That crap is real out there among the droolers – unfortunately, droolers are allowed to vote.

  • Ed @ 16, what’s sadder still is that some people consider calling someone a Muslim a “smear.”

    Count me in as among those who are sad that campaigning has come to this, but understanding as well. As far as the letter-to-churches thing goes, I believe what others have said is right, Obama can ask for a letter to be read during church services (anyone can, really, and it’s up to the priest running that particular show to oblige or deny) and as long as it has none of the election buzz-words (no “If I am elected” or “my opponent would have you believe” or any of that claptrap), it’s up to the discretion of those who run that church/ parish/ temple/ synagogue/ etc.

    Having said that, though, I find that the timing of this letter could bite Obama in the ass. Just yesterday, the Democratic Party, almost as one voice, bitch-slapped President Bush for the comments he made about appeasement in Israel, how inappropriate they were, how slanderous. How much you want to bet people will pore over this letter like it was a treasure map, hoping for something to be used against Obama as a political message sent to churches, as opposed to merely a message from one religiously-minded person to be shared with others? I suspect GOP loyalists will try to say this orange is the exact same thing as their apple. It’s not, of course, but enough will try to make their base believe it, OR they’ll try to make it worse. Guaranteed, some nutjobs who don’t evne go to church, and who’ll never read the letter or have it read to them, will grip about that sumbitch Muslim tellin me MY God is wrong.

  • Its sad that this is neccessary, but unfortunately it is. What this country really needs is a no-nonsence athiest President concentrated on taking care of the very real problems of the here and now.

    Personally, if I were President I would be like Caligula. I would simply proclaim myself a god and that would be the end of it…or else.

  • Ok, solely for the sake of argument, I’ll accept the premise that Obama has to do something to promote his Christian religion in response to the claims he is a Muslim (others have already touched on how offensive it must be to all Muslims in the US and elsewhere, peaceful or radical, that “Muslim” is both meant as a smear and is reacted to by alleged progressives as if it is in fact a smear – not Obama’s most “uniting” theme).

    That still leaves the not so little matter of implementation. How do I detest this line:

    “[I]f there is one thing I’ve learned from my time as a community organizer…it’s that ordinary people, with the grace of an awesome God, can do extraordinary things.”

    Let me count the ways.

    First, it is disempowering. Ordinary people acting together normally cannot do extraordinary things? How about if they just have the grace of a middling god? Which brings me to. . .

    Second, this mine is an awesome god version of Christianity is precisely what gets us in trouble around the world. It is so terribly close to “my god is better than your god” – “hey, don’t even get me started on Wiccan pantheists. They think their god in a leaf. Newsflash, my god created the whole damned tree. I win. Damn my god is awesome!”

    Third, if this awesome god really were showing grace, maybe there wouldn’t be a quarter million dead bodies in Burma and China these past two weeks? (Maybe the awesome god part of the equation was there but the Asian people weren’t ordinary enough?) Better still, we could have used a little grace in preventing a Bush Presidency.

    I could go on but you get the idea. Which is to say, even if I liked the concept as a political exercise (and those with or without faith should hate seing “religion” and “political exercise” in the same thought), I really really dislike the specifics.

  • I think that it mght be OK for the churches in question to read the letter IF the following are true-

    The churches don’t endorse Obama.
    The letter speaks about Obama’s religious beliefs, and not other policy.
    The churches would be willing to read similar letters from other candidates who might want to submit them.

    Remember, churches can sponser political debates as long as they don’t discriminate when issuing the invitations and as long as they don’t endorse.

    If I were a church leader, I would wait to see if the other candidates want to write letters too, just to cover the holy assets.

    My opinion (I’m an atheist) is that Obama should deal with the Muslim rumors in some other way. Some church leader is bound to screw this up. And I would be a lot more comfortable if Obama would get specific about what he plans to do with the faith-based initiative programs. (Preferred answer- repeal or ignore the 1996 Charitable Choice amendment and go back to requiring churches to separate fed funded programs from their other programs.)

  • Toast @19

    I wouldn’t call “Awesome God” a dog whistle, since it is just saying that God is great and doesn’t have a non-obvious meaning (like vertical). It’s a phrase used in religious circles – a term of worship. It’s a way to speak as an enthusiastic Christian.

  • Walking a slippery slope is what the GOP wants the opponent to do. In this situation, he is damed if he does and he is damned if he doesn’t. It is my belief that if the political climate were not what it is Mr. and Mrs. Obama would not have to counter the lies that are being said about them and their faith with ads like that. Who is the one ALWAYS bringing up the religious aspect? The Obama campaign? Or the media?

  • I really hate this idea, and see it as a slippery slope. I hated it when the Republicans tried similar actions and I hate it when my candidate does it. It will also backfire big time on both Obama and the Dem party and the “liberal” church. Mark Pencil expresses it best for me. Don’t go there!

  • “Awesome god” is also one of the most resonant and well-remembered phrases from his very, very popular 2004 convention speech:

    “We worship an awesome God in the blue states, and we don’t like federal agents poking around our libraries in the red states. We coach Little League in the blue states and, yes, we’ve got some gay friends in the red states.”

    He’s building and reinforcing a lexicon of Obama phrases associated in the public’s mind with the messages of change and increased unity.

  • Will Pagan groves and Wiccan covens receive a letter like this, backing up their own religion? How about Hindus or Buddhists? Native American Shamans?
    I think not. So why send these messages to only Christians?
    I do understand the whole “Muslim” thing, and I understand it is political necessity. But we, too, are American citizens and vote. Will anyone ever notice?

  • So why send these messages to only Christians?

    Not that it’s a good or reasonable answer, but the simple answer is: because a) Obama is a Christian, not a Wiccan or Hindu or Buddhist, b) the vast majority of Americans are at least nominally Christians, and c) most of the people in this country who are knee-jerk negative about/afraid of Islam are Christians.

  • Most of you people are nuts. You’re completely around the bend in your defensiveness. Come to grips with the fact that are atheists, be proud of it, and let other people be proud of their religious beliefs.

    We, as atheists (I’m actually agnostic in the tradition of Hume) are a minority. Fine. There are certain things we should expect from believers. At the top of the list is respecting our right to believe what we choose, and use our philosophical underpinnings to guide how we live.

    Guess what, folks. If you want that respect, then you have to be willing to give it. Clearly, a lot of people here aren’t.

    Understand what you are arguing for. You are saying that, in the political debate, the majority of the people in this country are not allowed to make arguments from first principles. I highly doubt that you are willing to make the same concession.

    The problem with the religious right isn’t that they are religious. The problem is that they are wrong on policy grounds. From a philosophical standpoint, I also think that many of them have a huge disconnect between their first principles and the policies that they advocate, but, again, that’s a debate problem, not a religious problem, per se. I’d argue that, if they paid more attention to their religious beliefs, they’d adopt a more liberal set of policies on many issues. Not all, but many.

    Of course, it’s impossible to get them to think through their positions if you completely ignore the moral foundation of their beliefs. Arguments that refuse to build from first principles are inherently unstable. In the end, they aren’t going to be very convincing if you don’t already agree with the conclusion.

    So, you are not only wrong in refusing to respect other people’s right to invoke their moral base, you desperately want to hamstring our candidates, and force them to make inherently less convincing arguments. That’s stupid.

    Stupid and wrong is no way to live. Quit being scared of the people around you and your own beliefs.

  • Because the smear is a religiously-based lie, it seems the appropriate response is the religiously-based truth.

    It also bats a tried-but-true Rovian tactic as a line-drive right into the faces of the fascists – “attack their strengths.” The “religious right” is only one sliver of the faithful demographic. As mentioned above, Democrats in general have been effectively neutralized on this topic … until now, it seems.

    The Senator from Illinois ain’t just woofin’.

  • Where I’d really like to take the argument with the Christianists is to ask them why Christians came to America. I believe the answer in many instances will be “To escape religious discrimination”. If that is the answer, then the next question would be “Well, who was discriminating against them?” and the answer is “Other Christians” (provide examples along the lines of Protestants v Catholics). So the reason for the separation of church and state is not to protect Christians from government or vice-versa, it is to protect Christians from each other.

  • What a bunch of hypcrites! You demean all those “far right” people for their beliefs then don’t call out Obama for pandering to the same religious groups. I guess the end always justifies the means. Pathetic. Be careful what you lefties ask for. Jimmy Carter Obama will lead us there.

  • This is just pandering, absolute pandering by Obama. It looks bad and it smells bad. I doubt that voters in Kentucky won’t see this for exactly what it is.

    Aside from that, it’s dangerous. WTF was Howard Dean thinking when he decided that Democrats should go after Evangelicals?

    I’m sorry, but religion is a private affair that should not come into the public sphere. Additionally, doesn’t anybody recognize what Obama is doing by asking that his “statement” be read in churches/pulpits about his christianity? He’s putting Dems and separation of church and state at risk doing this. I don’t care which party does it, it’s wrong!

    I’m more inclined to let individuals believe as they do and eliminating any pandering by politicians. Frankly, I always expect Republicans to tout religious beliefs. And I pay no attention to it. When Dems start doing it, though, it smacks of political opportunism and is very disingenuous. It isn’t even “counter-intuitive”, it’s just blatant hypocrisy and — beyond that — sheer stupidity.

  • As long as he respects me, as an atheist, to allow me not to believe in the power of prayer… I do not care if he personally believes in the power of prayer and I am not bothered that he feels the need to defend his belief to the core of churches who also believe.

    Yes, it disturbs me that this is a political necessity, and that my belief means that if he shared it or admitted sharing it he could not be elected.

    But my personal rights and respect are more important than my constituency being electable. It’s a slippery slope? It goes the other way, as well. The more respect elected officials accord us, the more likely we will become electable by changing society.

  • Mabelle,
    Unless you think that Evangelicals are the devil incarnate, so to speak, it makes sense to think about what kinds of beliefs they might have that could be consistent with Democratic goals, and to work on forging some connections with them on that basis. That seems to me a big part of what Obama’s candidacy is about; his years of doing community work, among other things, taught him that trying to find a win-win strategy between different parties accomplished a lot more in the long run than struggling to have the views of one side win out.

    JC,
    Haven’t heard anyone make that point before, about the purpose of church–state separation being to protect Christians from each other. I like it! Thanks–

  • 31, Maria said: So why send these messages to only Christians?

    So I went back to read the post we’re commenting on and found this:

    “The Obama campaign is preparing a robust effort to reach out to people of all faiths, all religious backgrounds and moral beliefs and to bring new faith supporters in,” said Joshua Dubois, the Obama campaign’s director of religious affairs. “We’re trying to connect Americans to one to another. …What we’re conveying is his Christian faith and his core values.”

    It’s apparently quite an aggressive initiative on the campaign’s part. The Journal noted that Obama’s team has distributed copies of a letter by the senator, “intended to be read during church services, highlighting the senator’s Christian beliefs.”

    Now this doesn’t say that this letter is being sent only to Christian Churches, nor does it say it’s being sent to any other-than-Christian entities. But I’m willing to bet that the Obama campaign is not so stupid as to ignore Jews and Muslims in expressing the religious sources of his political convictions. My guess is that Wiccans, et. al., are out of luck on this go-round though…

    Me – I’ve never completely recovered from being raised Catholic, even though I veered off into intense agnosticism soon after I graduated from St. Joseph’s grade school into a public high school and found out how many lies the nuns had been telling about Protestants. This was back in the days of Pope John XXIII, than whom no other Pope to my knowledge has ever been more representative of what goodness there is in organized religion. He might have pulled me back in if he’d lived a few years longer…

  • Mabelle at 36 says: I’m sorry, but religion is a private affair that should not come into the public sphere.

    So I guess Mabelle would have had Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King remain silent, keep their religion to themselves. We should try to think about the implications of what we’re saying when we tell people they should keep their religious beliefs/feelings to themselves – it’s not unlike forcing gay/lesbian/etc. people to stay in their closets.

    BTW – as self-appointed judge of comments on this thread, I hereby declare J. Michael Neal’s at number 32 to be the winner – I’ve copy/pasted it into a permanent file to reread again when I think about these issues.

  • 31, Maria said: So why send these messages to only Christians?

    I’m not the one who said this. I was responding to the person who did.

  • The problem is he is pandering not just to the religion of the evangelicals but also their beliefs on abortion, gays, and Israel.

    On abortion, since when does a Democrat talk about the “sanctity of sexuality” (from the fundamentalist “commitment ceremonies”) or that pro-choice people have to be more compromising or that women need to discuss whether they should have an abortion with their pastors before making any such decision.

    Obama can’t be all things to all people though he sure is trying. He’s trying to build a new Democratic coalition cutting out the Clinton voters and replacing them with the evangelicals. Problem is the evangelicals for the most part though wonderful human beings they are not progressive in their politics.

    And I wonder how the black Jesus in his Christian flyer is going over in Kentucky.

  • This is the same con man who had the inside dope on the ‘bitter’ people who ‘cling’ to church … now shoving church-speak down the same folks throats which paint him as the savor.. This is cynical and offensive.

    He’s the same Chicago pol whose minions strong-armed his opponents in Illinois – the press has glossed over his real record to pander to a public ironically hungry for fake Christian outreach. Sun Myung Moon got a million together for as irrational a gathering as Barack’s 75,000.

    I’m terrified of this con man and this cynical manipulation of the religious right is a telling metaphor for his insane ambition.

  • Comments are closed.