Obama’s faith-based appeals — excessive or understandable?

Last night, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama, unprompted, started talking about Democratic electability in November. They all made reasonably good points, but Obama added a comment that, under normal circumstances, would have been terribly disappointing.

Obama was explaining his take on reaching out to people outside the traditional Democratic fold, and noted “the issue of faith.”

“You know, I am a proud Christian. And I think there have been times — there have been times where our Democratic Party did not reach out as aggressively as we could to evangelicals, for example, because the assumption was, ‘Well, they don’t agree with us on choice,’ or ‘They don’t agree with us on gay rights, and so we just shouldn’t show up.’ And when you don’t show up, if you’re not going to church, then you’re not talking to church folk. And that means that people have a very right-wing perspective in terms of what faith means and of defining our faith.

“And as somebody who believes deeply in the precepts of Jesus Christ, particularly treating the least of these in a way that he would, that it is important for us to not concede that ground. Because I think we can go after those folks and get them.”

Now, some of this is not new. DNC Chairman Howard Dean has made many of the same comments as part of his own outreach to evangelicals. 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.

At the same time, however, Dems clearly seem to appreciate church-state separation far more than Republicans do, and have consistently 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” was, shall we say, unusual.

And then there’s that new eyebrow-raising mailing that the Obama campaign sent out.

It’s a little too big to reproduce here, but Greg Sargent and Ben Smith have posted the images of a new direct mail piece, which features pictures of Obama praying and speaking from a pulpit. It features 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.”

My first instinct was to think of Mike Huckabee’s faith-based style, and his ad touting him as a “Christian leader.” Of course, the comparison is hardly exact — Huckabee has said publicly 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 overt religious appeals are at least similar on a rhetorical level.

And since I’ve been very 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 here’s why I’m hesitating: 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 it’s circulated more and more on a daily basis.

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

Huckabee swinging a Jesus bat has been excessive, in part because it’s unnecessary — he’s a former Baptist preacher, and everyone knows 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.

If recent history is any guide, Obama’s Democratic detractors will say his religious talk is offensive and his Democratic backers will say it’s acceptable. Objectively speaking, I can relate to the detractors’ concerns — my six years of service at Americans United for Separation of Church and State should offer a hint about my inclinations in this area — but under the circumstances, I don’t think Obama has a lot of choice.

Thanks CB… As always…

  • Fight fire with fire, I guess. Not to mention “all’s fair in love and war … and especially in politics”.

    Still, there is Matthew 6:6 – “But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.”

    And for those of us, like me, who don’t believe in Santa Claus for Grownups, the whole thing issimply embarrassing. Go ahead and practice whatever religion does it for you but, like your sex life (straight or gay), I”d rather not hear about it, thank you.

  • I think he risks falling prey to the “methinks he doth protest too much” trap, and I think it – again – risks taking him way off message as he answers the inevitable questions.

    What I do not like about it is that I DO NOT WANT to have to see the same kind of thing coming from the Clinton or Edwards campaigns, DO NOT want a debate about who is the most religious.

    I get why he thinks he needs to do it, but I don’t know that it will have the effect he intends.

  • I don’t have a problem with any candidate talking about their religious beliefs. But if Obama starts praising Bush’s faith-based initiatives, that’s another story.

  • If we willingly make this about who can show the most religious bona fides in the public square, we play right into the hands of the Republicans.

    As he does on numerous other issues, Obama starts the debate by accepting the Republican frames (presumably that is part of “reaching out”): that they have had more intellectual vigor than the Dems, that a public profession of faith is necessary, that Social Security is in crisis.

    Yes, he then tries to spin those memes, to argue his way out of it, to present a different conclusion — but once you have let the Republicans set the agenda and terms of the debate, you’ve spotted them 50 yards in a 100 yard race, and for those who don’t listen to the whole discussion you’ve validated the anti-Democratic position along the way (and offended more than a few Democrats).

  • Ed S:

    Go ahead and practice whatever religion does it for you but, like your sex life (straight or gay), I”d rather not hear about it, thank you.

    Okay… I’ll give you back your guru card for that one…

  • I think he has a choice, and he’s making the right one. Not only does he need to counter the madrassa smearing, he needs to gather votes from the center.

    I have no fear that he will implement any of the religious bullshit the Republicans are always trying. On the contrary, a religious Democrat can oppose and roll back this crap because they’re religious. I do think he has a good point that will resonate with many people of faith, that Jesus supposedly* said we were supposed to care for the poor, a point that should be hammered home on Republicans at every opportunity, because their voters know they suck at it. And again, he can make that point stick because he’s religious and has served poor communities.

    He’s hitting at the Republicans’ strong point (their Christian support) and he’s doing it legitimately. More power to him.

    * I am an atheist, and do not even accept that Jesus existed.

  • Appealing to the religious voters is actually something that ALL the Dems should be doing, because, as Drew Westen noted in his 2007 book The Political Brain, people vote with their guts, not their heads. To deny the reality that a large swath of the American electorate is religious is to deny reality. The objective is for Democrats to weld the positive tenets of faith (e.g. loving your neighbor, helping the poor) to the Democratic cause. For too long, we have run campaigns that rely upon reason in stump speeches, rather than upon emotion. Our policies our reasonable; we have no need to change those. I definitely think we can uphold progressive policies– including, CRUCIALLY, the separation of church and state– while speaking to the American public in a language they understand. If a Democratic candidate advocates a universal health care program or stands up for the rights of the disenfranchised, who cares if their original motivation for doing so came from religion, reason, or some combination thereof? Public expression of religion is not something with which to take issue; it is whether or not religion is put into public policy that is contentious. And, in my observation, all of the Democratic candidates, including those who have already left the contest, are in favor of keeping the barrier between church and state solid.

    Lest we forget, Martin Luther King Jr. was a religious leader. Yet the message he conveyed, applied across all barriers. If one (or, hopefully, all) of our candidates take a page out of his book, and use the inspiration of religion to implement secular policies that lift up our nation as a whole, it’s a lot better for our country than what the GOP does, which is to advocate for explicitly religious policies designed to make scapegoats of certain groups (e.g. Muslims, gays, single mothers, you name it,) which, in turn, makes for easy scare tactics at election time.

  • Zeitgeist,

    A public profession of faith is, in fact, necessary when a whisper campaign, which anecdotally seems to have had some impact, is painting you as a closet terrorist/muslim anti-christ.

    Plus, while I am far from an observing Christian, Obama’s argument about reshaping the political landscape is worth serious consideration and not, I think, simply accepting the Republican frame. If anything, Obama seems the most capable of shifting that framework….

  • I’m sympathetic to his need to combat the racist whisper campaign, and as an agnostic who also believes in christian precepts, I’m not hostile to Obama (or Edwards or Clinton) as a believer. But Obama set off my religiose meter during that famous convention speech when he said “we worship an awesome God in the Blue states…..”. Um… not all of us. And that was long before anyone thought of spreading “he’s a secret muslim” rumors. I believe “awesome God” is a lyric from a fundy hymn?…and I ‘ve just had enough of that kind of coded, dog-whistle religiosity from Bush, I don’t need it from my own side.

    Maybe I’m paranoid, but I hear him doing this in a lot of areas, not just religion (Social Security, Reagan, “bipartisanship”. Maybe he’s a masterfully skillful politician and I should just trust him. But frankly, nothing in his brief Senate record inpsires me to take that leap of faith (you should excuse the expression).

  • Not that many will notice, but Fred Thompson appears to have dropped out. Now, back to his regularly scheduled nap.

  • geez… maybe it is the recovering baptist in me… but that brochure looks a bit like the church and state getting married. and if you google answer the call… look what you get http://www.answeringthecall.org http://www.answerthecall.net i understand why obama is doing what he’s doing… but for the love of god (pun intended)… couldn’t he do it without looking like he’s getting ready to prosleytize for jesus?

  • What a crock. People who are that fanactical will still believe Barack is “secretly” a Muslim, (Dad’s a Muslim so Obama is Muslim whether he wants to be or not) see what I mean. Obama was clearly pandering…He said he was a Christian and then starts mentioning accepting Jesus and how we should value the religious right’s opinion. How can you maintain the separation of church-state when you are pandering to a particular religion to get their vote.
    So does this mean he’s anti-mormon, jew and catholic. What about the Virgin Mary etc.?

    Obama went overboard…way overboard…a committed Christian translates to more war, more torture, less freedom from religion. How shameful is it to be pandering to the likes of Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. Obama must be aware that there is a small war going on with these fanatics over insisting that this is a Christian nation based on (their idea of) “Christian” principles (when they are actually moral principles) and have been trying to overtake the judiciary to over throw the constitution’s principles and replace it with Biblical principles…a theocracy, dominionism, creationism. WTF Obama?

    The idea was to rid the country of the belief that he is a Muslim (which shouldn’t matter) and to let them know he is a christian…NOT a “committed Christian” with pictures of him preaching in church and getting advice from Jesus, and his willingness to drag religion into politics and how all of this will be misconstrued and used to spread the theocratic message. That’s going overboard and yes Obama did have a lot of Choice….”I’m one of you guys”. He could have accomplished his aim without going to this extreme.
    It seems CB that Obama can do no wrong in your eyes…it seems.

  • I was told by another teacher the other day that Obama needs to do better in addressing his “Muslim background” the other day. I almost pulled my hair out and started yelling. She saw it and was a little startled. When I explained the situation, she was glad I had, but she said he still had to address it publicly because not everyone knows that message. Given that, I can sympathize with the message.

    Also, Democrats have sucked at addressing people of faith. That isn’t a Republican talking point; it is the truth. I love how anything Republicans say can be thrown out the window because it is in their advantage to say it. Obviously, the answer is to stick our head in the sand and dismiss any points that might be valid based on their origin. If only we had a bubble to hide in…

  • If you’ve ever met anyone, as I have, who believed all of the lies pertaining to his education and religion, you would realize that it is a necessity for his campaign to respond. It’s disturbing how effective an email forward can be.

    The bad thing about responding is that it is too easy to take it too far in the wrong direction, which some clearly think Obama has done. I agree with Anne and beep52 that it is over the top and may seem like protesting too much. It certainly raises my hackles.

    This is something I would put into the mistake column, but with an asterisk indicating that it was necessary but poorly executed.

    Not that many will notice, but Fred Thompson appears to have dropped out. Now, back to his regularly scheduled nap. -beep 52

    In fairness to Fred, I believe his mother is ill. Time to spend more time with the family.

  • …a committed Christian translates to more war, more torture, less freedom from religion…

    And along comes bjobotts to make my point for me.

  • I am so not comfortable about using religion as a point of persuasion. If you’re going to ignor “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord, thy God, in vain,” then the rest is hypocrisy. That said, I would not quite put this in the same category with trying to compromise with Pat Robertson, Dobson, and the rest of those phony money grabbers. But this is not a good thing.

  • Yep, beep—he’s gone.

    From the Fred0o.com website:

    “Today I have withdrawn my candidacy for President of the United States. I hope that my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort. Jeri and I will always be grateful for the encouragement and friendship of so many wonderful people.”

  • The comment section is aflame over this at Glenn Greenwald’s blog.

    As much as I despise all of the christianizing, it really IS just standard practice in the South for candidates from both parties to prominently display their christianity. I know it may be shocking to the rest of the country (as it should be) but here it is just background noise.

  • The idea was to rid the country of the belief that he is a Muslim (which shouldn’t matter) -bjobotts

    Well, it shouldn’t matter, but I’m assuming you live in the same America that I do, where such Seinfeldian denials won’t fly. We are, after all, in a country that seems hell bent on warring with every Arabic nation (except Saudi Arabia, they cool). They’re all turrists, didn’t ya know?

    Frankly, you can color me surprised he managed to overcome the hurdle of having a funny sounding last name.

    People who are that fanactical will still believe Barack is “secretly” a Muslim -bjobotts

    I disagree slightly on this point. Not everyone who thinks this is a fanatic. A lot of people heard stuff on the news or from their acquaintances. These people can be set straight.

  • #7 RacerX said

    I do think he has a good point that will resonate with many people of faith, that Jesus supposedly said we were supposed to care for the poor, a point that should be hammered home on Republicans at every opportunity, because their voters know they suck at it. And again, he can make that point stick because he’s religious and has served poor communities.

    RacerX, I completely agree with you. And I think most people posting here just don’t get it. There are lots of complaints about “separation of church and state”, or “Republican talking point” or “American theocracy”. The invocation of Jesus, and linking His message to caring for the poor is absolutely crucial to reach out to religious conservatives. It’s street cred in the evangelical ‘hood, if you will (ha…probably offended a few people there).

    Again, referring specifically to the religious language does two things:
    1) By citing the Bible as his motivation, that is a “pure” motive (in the eyes of evangelicals) as opposed to Hillary Clinton, who is perceived (by evangelicals) to chase the latest opinion polls.
    2) He has agreed in public to be held to this standard — the standard of treating the poor with dignity and compassion. So his message vs. the Republican candidates — have they ever been accused of treating the poor with dignity or compassion

    So there is a lot of merit in pointing out to evangelicals that taking care of the poor is a religious issue — for them. To another group of voters, you might frame it as a responsibility issue, or a compassion issue. That’s not pandering, or being all things to all people…that is simply speaking to people in their language, on their terms. Whether you agree with the evangelical worldview or not, as a politician, you need to understand it. There are certainly plenty of evangelical voters who would respond to that message. Jesus didn’t go around telling people they were going to Hell…He went around preaching, and helping people.

    With all the specialized debates we’ve had so far, maybe the Dems should try their hand at an “Evangelical Issues” debate? 🙂

  • I’m sorry – in this day and age, the only proof of a political leader’s religious faith is his willingness to bring it into the public square, into your government, into your bedroom. The pretty brochure will not be enough – and Obama will be forced to explain how he can be a “real” Christian and still support a woman’s right to choose, how he can keep the teaching of intelligent design out of the schools, how he can not agree that this is a Christian nation, how he could even think about giving equal rights to those horrid homosexuals. And once the discussion gets to that point, he’s in a box he cannot get out of. Does he say, “well, I’m not THAT kind of Christian,” or does he start giving a little here and a little there – like he has on a number of other issues – in hopes that he can satisfy them.

    No, I know that’s not the group he’s trying to reach, but if he thinks they won’t be screeching the loudest, and countering with the most determination, he hasn’t assessed the landscape as he should have.

    I detest this obsequious mewling pandering; this is not a contest to elect the bestest Christian EVER, and I would appreciate it if people could stop finding excuses for making it an integral part of a public election. The only people for whom religion is a deal-breaker are those who will never be satisfied or swayed by glossy brochures, and wouldn’t consider voting for a Democrat if the nominee were Jesus Christ himself.

  • I have no problem with Democrats reminding the Prosperity Gospelists etc of the tenets of the Sermon on the Mount. I have no problem with candidates making the perfectly factual statement about their particular faith. I have no problem with Democrats expressing tolerance for faith and insisting there is room in the party for the faithful.

    I do have a problem with a brochure that could at a glance be mistaken for a Huckabee piece. I do have a problem with expressly campaigning on one’s faith. It is a matter of magnitude, of prominence; of subtle versus blatent, of faith being part of one’s whole versus campaigning on faith (although I would argue much of Obama’s campaign is based on faith 🙂 )

    And on an unrelated note, as I said above, I have a problem with Obama on this and other issues accepting the Republican frame first (in this case that being a good publicly-professed Christian is important in politics) and then pushing back. I think it is a tactical error.

  • #14 bjobotts said:

    Obama went overboard…way overboard…a committed Christian translates to more war, more torture, less freedom from religion.

    With all due respect…are you insane? First of all, Obama’s point is that being a Christian DOES NOT equate to war, torture, or religious persecution. And it is this kind of rhetoric that convinces evangelicals that the Democrats DON’T WANT THEIR STINKIN’ VOTES.

    Check your calendar…this is not 1099 and we are not fighting the crusades. “Christian” does not equal “warmonger”. If you want an ulterior motive for Iraq, it is oil, not Jesus-ifying Iraqis. So why don’t you drop off your stereotypes at a Republican campaign HQ, and repeat after me “Jesus didn’t say ‘Go forth and make disciples — or kill them.'” In fact, invoking a little bit of Jesus in relation to the Iraq war might just get evangelicals to reconsider their support for it.

    Finally, with regard to debunking the Muslim myth — since a significant portion of this country values an endorsement by their favorite daytime talk show host, or NASCAR driver more than anything else, you should accept that silly perceptions DO matter in this country. They matter a lot because of the huge number of uniformed voters. So if Obama has to go over the top to put that notion to bed…so be it. That is hardly the genesis of an American Theocracy.

  • This kind of thing leads down a slippery and treacherous slope, one that most can not successfully navigate.

  • @ 24: I detest this obsequious mewling pandering

    Laugh.

    Hillary Clinton has certainly never been guilty of that, right>?

    I think Obama is right to pursue this angle, both because of the Obama-is-Muslim disinformation campaign and because the GOP has been given license to define “the good Christian” for too long. Christ (any alleged divinity aside) was a populist and a radical, and allowing fatheads such as Robertson, Dobson, DeLay, and Bush to frame the Christian-as-public-servant is simply wrong.

  • Do you know what Obama should do to show he’s serious about winning? Fire the political consultant leeches that advised him to talk about Reagan in glowing terms and whoever overdid it on this “Christian” brochure. I would gain some respect for Obama if he fired these guys who keep reaching for those Republican “frames.”

  • Separation of Church and State is a slippery slope once it’s crossed.

    Does anyone believe in the Constitution and the founding principals? Or is it who can get their version of theocracy in place first?

  • The Obama campaign gets literally HUNDREDS of questions daily asking about the Muslim-madrassa e-mails. While they respond to them all, Obama was right to adress this nonsense publically. The simplest way to do that is to say out loud that you’re a Christian.

  • Anne @ 24 “Obama will be forced to explain how he can be a “real” Christian and still support a woman’s right to choose”, etc.

    It probably won’t help to remind people that none of the commandments actually start, “thou shalt make sure thy neighbor…”

  • Well, as Glenn Greenwald points out, the Muslim rumors have been out there for a year – why no brochure until now?

    I understand that he wants to make it known that he is a Christian, but the over-the-top brochure just buys into the GOP framing that if one is a Democrat or a liberal, one could not possibly be a person of faith – despite the obvious fact that things like ending poverty and helping those who cannot help themselves are significantly more in line with faith than anything the GOP has come up with.

    He’s trying to play this on their turf, and we know that never works. I don’t want to hear about Clinton’s or Edwards’ religion, either.

  • Molly – have you seen the brochure? It’s really over-the-top if all you’re trying to do is correct the record.

    And, if we have learned nothing from John Kerry and the swift-boaters, there was no amount of truth or proof or anything that was going to convince those who wanted to believe the garbage that was being said about him – and Obama is not going to satisfy those types with any brochure.

    But…if this is the “reaching out to people of faith” strategy, it pretty much leaves out anyone who isn’t a Christian, doesn’t it? I can’t picture this being all that persuasive to Jews and those who don’t identify with a particular religion.

  • Yes, Obama needs to combat the whisper campaign about him being a Muslim. And yes, IMO his brochure was way over the top.

  • Maybe I’m just a gullible sap, but I don’t sense anything of the cynic in Obama, the same as I didn’t sense it in Dean, and still don’t. A president who is going to truly attempt to unite the country as he or she promises will have to try finding common ground with all the interest groups, including the evangelicals, lobbyists, womens groups, racial minorities, business and isolationist interests. He or she will have to try reaching an understanding with each, while making it clear they are not going to run the country according to their own agenda – perhaps the first major failue of the Bush “uniter” drive. I’ll leave it to your appraisal which of the above groups he let run the country.

    I don’t know anything about Obama’s churchgoing history, except that he doesn’t attend a madrassa – but I’ll bet there are a lot of people digging into it right now. If he didn’t just start attending church, say, last month; I’d say his appeal is fair play. No candidate can afford to alienate anyone at this stage, and no candidate SEEKING REELECTION can afford not to give each of these groups something during his/her first term. Not letting any one of them run the show will be a delicate balancing act, but a real leader will be able to accomplish it if he/she can win cooperation.

  • Do you know what Obama should do to show he’s serious about winning? Fire the political consultant leeches that advised him to talk about Reagan in glowing terms… -sknm

    http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/14312.html#comment-370133

    I guess the consultant leeches figured Reagan was fair game since he is, along with Bush Sr., on Hillary’s list of favorite Presidents. Gee the way she’s talked about him the last few days, you’d have thought he killed her puppy, though.

    I feel sorry for this Jesus fellow. Now that Obama has sent out this flyer, who knows what kind of vicious rhetoric Hillary has in store for this Mr. Christ. 🙂

  • I feel sorry for this Jesus fellow. Now that Obama has sent out this flyer, who knows what kind of vicious rhetoric Hillary has in store for this Mr. Christ.

    Naw, she was raised a good Methodist. Having been down that road myself, its pretty hard to get a Northern Methodist worked up enough about religion to be vicious or much of anything else about it. Just get us in and out on Sunday in 59 minutes or less. 🙂

  • As an editor at a large blog site, I see the anti-Obama email slander repeated multiple times an hour – it is a vicious and consistent campaign to cloud the minds of ill-informed voters. It is the big lie technique, wraught net-wide.

    A bubbling cauldron of the fog from the ‘smear-it’ world.

  • Eh, I think the voters will be able to figure out very easily whether a candidate is using Mr. Of Nazareth (he’s not “Christ” to me– the word “Christ” means “Messiah,” and, as an apatheistic Jew, I’m still waiting) as a political football. In previous years, Democratic candidates have attempted to inject a few faith-related sentences, all the while seeming very uncomfortable while doing so. My take on Obama– and, looking at the speech he gave at Dr. King’s church this past Sunday, it’d be hard to miss this– is that he is comfortable relating to a religious audience, to the point at which he can conceivably sell them on a Democratic agenda. In past years, while Republicans have marketed to the emotions of the public, Democrats have rattled off lists of policy proposals in a stiff manner. The way many people interpret that, whether consciously or subconsciously, is to feel that the Republicans understand them as people, while the Democrats are detached. Thus, the American public has voted against its own best interests. Barack Obama is someone who can speak to people’s emotions. The fact that he knows how to speak to churchgoers– and the fact that his own track record in community organizing displays his commitment to upholding ideals that could be described as Christian without implementing any explicit religiosity– should be viewed as a boon to our cause. Instead, the standard blue-state reaction seems to be, “Eww! Gross! He’s talking about religion! That’s for Republicans! We don’t want a Jesus-freak on our side!” That perspective, frankly, misses the point. Furthermore, it is that type of thinking that will forever prevent the red states in “flyover country” from ever turning blue.

  • I’m late to the game here and so on but was going to comment on
    post number 11, where Jim said:

    “we worship an awesome God in the Blue states…..”. Um… not all of us. And that was long before anyone thought of spreading “he’s a secret muslim” rumors. I believe “awesome God” is a lyric from a fundy hymn?…and I ‘ve just had enough of that kind of coded, dog-whistle religiosity from Bush, I don’t need it from my own side.

    Yeah it’s a song, and how God is named in serveral places in the Bible in some translations says the Wikipedia. Anyway, could speed read your post , so thanks for that, but you kind of equate

    first hit on google for ‘ bush debate Dred Scott ‘
    I watched the debate last night and could not understand why Bush brought up Dred Scott.

    first hit on google for ‘ “we worship an awesome God in the Blue states” Obama ‘
    well, the transcript

    That’s not Dog whistle, nor Code either I assume.

  • Wrong conjunction.

    Excessive AND understandable.

    Hopefully it will be met with “Okay, okay! You’re NOT Muslim! Can you go back to when you were concerned about issues now?

  • As others have commented, this is what obama needs to do. Fundamentally he needs to reach out, he needs to have people that are hardcore liberal as well as far right evengelical. Having people in both groups gives his “one America” more lagitimacy.

  • Many moderate evangelicals already like Obama because they know that when he asks an audience to help “bring in the kingdom” he isn’t talking about the kingdom of Freedonia in an old Marx Brothers movie. Now that Jim Wallis is out with a new book, I’m sure we will hear even more about how the Democrats need to address the faith issue. The problem is that if simply acknowledging what faith you have is insufficient, then the next temptation is to talk about how faith can be a part of federal policy–the faith based inititative for example. Then we have a big problem.

  • #14: a committed Christian translates to more war, more torture, less freedom from religion>>>

    Wrong, wrong, wrong. bjbotts, now you’re parroting the fundie version of Christianity, which somehow gets war, torture and intolerance out of Jesus’ message of love, tolerance and peace. Most of the mainline Protestant denominations have spoken out against the war in Iraq (against war in general except as a last resort), against torture. None have proposed imposing their faith onto anyone, or that the US should be a theocracy.

    Look, most Dems/Progressives, etc. have similar goals: worker rights & fair pay, health care for all, care for those less fortunate, the old, the young, good stewardship of the environment, a good energy policy, corporate and government responsibility and ethics, etc. DOES IT REALLY MATTER HOW WE EACH GOT TO THOSE PRIORITIES? For some it happens to be a calling of our faith. You got a problem with that? Why?

    I’m just as apt to cringe as you (really, I am) when anyone starts singing the “Praise Jesus Hallelujahs”, but Obama had to address this because of all of the lies that are out there. He’s sincere, he’s speaks from his heart, he walks the talk.

    Unlike many R politicians who are “Christian” but don’t attend services or, FAR WORSE, create or support policy that is anti-Christian.

  • I do not want to hear protestations of “faith’ from ANY candidate. Nothing could be further from ANY meaningful, executive competence. Someone who tells you their faith should influence your vote is asking you to vote on how many magic beans they say they have in their pockets.

  • On January 22nd, 2008 at 7:26 pm, Woodfloor said:
    As others have commented, this is what obama needs to do. Fundamentally he needs to reach out, he needs to have people that are hardcore liberal as well as far right evengelical.

    I know it’s probably just me, but i gotta say i have more in common philosophically with a sea urchin than with a theocratic, dominionist, reconstructionist “Christian.”

  • @ann 24
    enjoy your posts, I heard a guy say, there is exactly one admitted athiest in the US Congress. So there must be a spread of viewpoints in there. Or they’re a number in the closet.

  • David W., @4:
    I don’t have a problem with any candidate talking about their religious beliefs. But if Obama starts praising Bush’s faith-based initiatives, that’s another story.

    Interestingly enough, here’s Obama, in an interview on beliefnet, today:

    You wrote in “The Audacity of Hope” about the role that faith and faith-based programs could play in confronting social ills. Isn’t your view on that similar to George W. Bush’s?

    No, I don’t think so, because I am much more concerned with maintaining the line between church and state. And I believe that, for the most part, we can facilitate the excellent work that’s done by faith-based institutions when it comes to substance abuse treatment or prison ministries…. I think much of this work can be done in a way that doesn’t conflict with church and state. I think George Bush is less concerned about that.

    My general criteria is that if a congregation or a church or synagogue or a mosque or a temple wants to provide social services and use government funds, then they should be able to structure it in a way that all people are able to access those services and that we’re not seeing government dollars used to proselytize.

    That, by the way, is a view based not just on my concern about the state or the apparatus of the state being captured by a particular religious faith, but it’s also because I want the church protected from the state. And I don’t think that we promote the incredible richness of our religious life and our religious institutions when the government starts getting too deeply entangled in their business. That’s part of the reason why you don’t have as rich a set of religious institutions and faith life in Europe. Part of that has to do with the fact that, traditionally, it was an extension of the state. And so there is less experimentation, less vitality, less responsiveness to the yearnings of people. It became a rigid institution that no longer served people’s needs. Religious freedom in this country, I think, is precisely what makes religion so vital.

    So there you go.

  • And I believe that, for the most part, we can facilitate the excellent work that’s done by faith-based institutions when it comes to substance abuse treatment or prison ministries

    Of course the federal district court for the southern district of Iowa, upheld by the 8th Circuit, recently struck down the interaction between the state prison and Chuck Colson’s Prison Fellowship program. So maybe its not so easy as Barack thinks to both “facilitate” prison ministries and honor the separation of church and state.

  • Maybe, or maybe it simply wasn’t being done in a constitutionally acceptable manner. I don’t know enough about the case, perhaps you can fill in more details, but it’s a fallacious argument to suggest that because one programs was struck down, all programs of all structures will be unconstitutional.

  • hmmm…a quick google finds that according to Chuck Colson’s website, Prison Fellowship is a nonprofit volunteer reliant ministry focused on the mission of transformation through the grace and power of Jesus Christ.

    Now, zeitgest, re-read that quote:

    My general criteria is that if a congregation or a church or synagogue or a mosque or a temple wants to provide social services and use government funds, then they should be able to structure it in a way that all people are able to access those services and that we’re not seeing government dollars used to proselytize.

    Not sure how exactly Colson’s decision applies. The opposite is true; that seems to be, by its own description, exactly the type of initiative Obama is describing as unacceptable.

    So…maybe try again?

  • #50 zeitgeist wrote:

    Of course the federal district court for the southern district of Iowa, upheld by the 8th Circuit, recently struck down the interaction between the state prison and Chuck Colson’s Prison Fellowship program. So maybe its not so easy as Barack thinks to both “facilitate” prison ministries and honor the separation of church and state.

    The legal problem with this program in Iowa was that it actually accepted state money, and had a permanent location in the prison, so it was essentially receiving taxpayer support. This is in contrast to many other prison ministries, like the one at my church, where volunteers go to visit prisoners in jail, bring them cookies, and, yes, evangelize. But NO state money is involved. Simply giving Christian groups access to prisoners is not illegal, in my understanding, because Muslim groups, Jewish groups, Hindu groups, and whoever else are allowed to visit prisoners too. Attendance is not mandatory.

  • If American citizens are so uninformed about Obama’s religion do we really stand any chance on issues that are slightly more complex?

    WAR is PEACE and all that.

  • What’s the problem with a politician being religious? As long as they also respect the seperation of church and state it’s fine.

    Of course, I can’t talk. I’m English and as we all know our head of state is also the head of our church. Works well for us though.

  • zeitgest – you are correct. It’s about the financial support used to proselytize. I don’t believe many would object to religious services being available. However, the taxpayer should not be paying for the religious service, nor should anyone be forced to attend these services. A slightly more subtle coercion is the special privileges one receives for attending a religious service.

  • What happened to separation of church and state … one of the basic pillars of our founding fathers … one of the basic principals which separates us from the theocracies which are providing the intolerance that’s threatening peace in the world. Using faith and religion in a political race is just a way of preaching platitudes, while ignoring reasonable responses to real issues … a favorite red herring used by Barrack Obama … and, it sounds like a cheap attempt at pandering to religious Americans in order to get their votes in November.

  • Comments are closed.