So my tax dollars will be going to organizations whose raison d’être is convincing people to believe in a certain religion. Those same organizations will be empowered to hire and fire people for their religious beliefs. His rationalization? “The challenges we face today … are simply too big for government to solve alone.”
From 2004, Obama has followed a subtle and sustained pattern of rhetoric that seeks to trade off the fealty of secularists in exchange for the pursuit of religious voters. From chastising “liberals” for not talking God enough in USA Today to informing Americans that in the blue states we worship an “awesome God”, to recently “endorsing” reactionary Christian leaders, Obama chases this bloc using the Karl Rove Roadmap.
It’s an odd choice, given that about one fourth of Americans are not religiously affiliated. Obama and his handlers clearly believe that we’ll take any umbrage, and that we’ll vote for a candidate who sees us as lesser American citizens.
I hope that Obama and his people reverse course. I hope at least that a strong, Constitutionally minded Senate and House will block this course. I don’t need another president who looks down at me because I’m a secularist. With this proposal, Obama has lost my vote.
Let’s not get carried away. I don’t like this idea either, but, as always, consider the alternative. McCain’s approach to that issue will be just as bad, if not worse, and his approach to stuff that is frankly more important would be disastrous.
“McCain’s approach to that issue will be just as bad, if not worse, and his approach to stuff that is frankly more important would be disastrous.”
<
p>First off, I’ve seen, read, and heard nothing from McCain about increasing the political privileges already accorded to theists in this country. Obama talks about it a great deal more.
<
p>Secondly, there aren’t too many issues “frankly more important” than civil rights. Granted, non-theists have been good little forelock-tuggers, quietly staying on the sidelines and out of sight of respectable people. Hence the teeth-gnashing over people such as Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, who refuse to silently take the beatings they deserve for not fearing God but rather have the impetuousness to talk back. But the fact that Obama doesn’t think that Bush is bigoted enough when it comes to religious differences is appalling. Any parallel on any other issue: orientation, gender, race, etc., would cause a firestorm. But not this one.
<
p>Each candidate is far, far from perfect. And you may be right that neither candidate is particularly interested in safeguarding civil liberties and the Constitution. The best prescription will probably be hearing McCain open his yap again and reinforcing that as bad as one is, the other is worse. I may end up hoping that Obama wins, but right now I can’t imagine standing with somebody who refuses to stand with me.
has been no tighter alliance than the religious right and the Ayn Rand atheists
<
p>As an atheist myself I am glad to see Obama work to capture religionists back.
to show up at the polls in CA, FL & AZ and vote for bigotry in the form of anti-equality marriage amendment. those are people who were so disgruntled that they may have stayed hom if mccain was their only choice. now here comes obama, hoping to bring them to the polls. now, i know that not all religious people are against equality for LGBT citizens. but let’s be honest – the majority of the type obama is courting is most certainly against my civil equality. he’s going to have to do a lot more than a whispered letter to an obscure lgbt dem club in california to make up for the anti-equality pro-obama voters he’s hoping to bring to the polls.
from the polls by either ignoring or antagonizing them. I think it is much more effective to get them on his side. As it is there have been another spate of emails going out claiming that he belongs to a Muslim sleeper cell and is part of a Muslim takeover of the US.
<
p>Changing the religionist narrative from obscure passages of Leviticus to the Sermon on the Mount as he says is the way to go.
so much as he is trying to get them not to be a motivated opposition.
actually responded to the points i raised.
<
p>btw, did the sermon on the mount contain exhortations about sacrificing your brother to become caesar? it’s been a while since i read the gospels – maybe i’ve forgotten the more politically convenient bits.
usually has for any lapsed Catholic atheist. When people nowadays reference the Sermon on the Mount I think they are usually talking about the Beatitudes
<
p>”Blessed is the man who is poor in spirit, that is, one who feels so-the humble one, because humbleness is the gate which leads to the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are the mourners, who long to enter the kingdom of God, but who face many difficulties, such as sin and other impediments which block the way to the kingdom of God. Our merciful God will comfort them.
Blessed are the meek, the people who are not disturbed by their own desires, but trust in the Lord (cf. Ps. 37:11, LXX). Their attitude will be rewarded with the inheritance of the earth, which means through their convictions and trust in God they will inherit the age to come.
Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness. They feel the impulse and desire to fulfill the Will of God by their worship of and obedience to God.
Blessed are the merciful not only for giving alms, but especially for giving of themselves in helping others, who in turn obtain mercy (cf. 6:14; 18:33).
Blessed are the pure in heart, the upright, the sincere, the honest in every thought and activity (Ps. 24:4). They will feel the abiding companionship of God.
Blessed are the peacemakers, between neighbors and between nations, who have a peaceful mind to resolve human discrepancies. They should be the treasurers of divine peace from above in order to provide this peace for others who shall be sons of God.
Blessed are those persecuted for righteousness’ sake. People who are armed with virtues of the previous beatitudes are well shielded to face persecutions for the establishment of divine principles of life. The kingdom of God is expanded to their hearts.
Blessed are ye (my Disciples) who resist evil and undergo persecutions by words and acts for My sake.
The blessedness of God is the source of men’s rejoicing and gladness not only in themselves but also for the reward in heaven, as it happened to the persecuted prophets (cf 23:20; Lk 11:33-38).”
<
p>
and a civil rights attorney. HE KNOWS BETTER. Just as he does with his separate-but-equal states rights marriage is a one-man-one-woman religious thing kind of crap. He is asking us to willingly give up our civil rights and liberties. Don’t forget FISA also. It is thoroughly unacceptable in a democratic candidate for president.
you don’t know who i vote for. that is the only point you need to contemplate.
And would have preferred Biden to who I got, for that matter.
Atrios is saying that that’s not what he said.
<
p>For whatever it’s worth.
You could give Pat Robertson $1 million to provide books to poor schoolkids in the South, but that would free up $1 million for him to print more homophobic and prejudiced materials.
That argument might work on most Americans, who’ve never been in a town meeting or worked on a government budget, but New Englanders should be smarter than that. How many times have we voted to take out $X from budget line 4.06 in meeting, only to have it miraculously reappear because it was replaced with money from budget line 4.07?
And I don’t disagree with you.
<
p>But your example assumes that the poor schoolkids in the South are going to get their books either way. I’m not sure that this is true in every case.
the cost of those books are too steep, so to speak.
… on Salon on this:
<
p>
<
p>but then I read this from Glenn Greenwald:
<
p>
<
p>I very much trust GG’s opinion. I hope he’s wrong, but I doubt it
and still qualify for federal funds. I guess we just need more atheist nonprofits.
… gotta love that old tried and true moral philosophy tool: The-shoe-on-the-other-foot-test.
wouldn’t qualify for the program. try registering as a conscientious objector without being attached to mainline religion but claiming atheist morality, and you’ll quickly learn that atheism is not respected by our federal government.
<
p>nice try, though.
… Atheists can’t register as conscientious objectors? Is the bullshit meme that you can’t have genuine moral concerns without belief in a religion actually enshrined in law somewhere!!!???
However, the objector must prove by documentation that his belief in anti-violence is longstanding. This presents an evidentiary problem for the athiest, who can’t show, for example, that he was raised as a Quaker.
<
p>Post-Vietnam, I’d imagine that objector status is much, much, much harder to achieve for all parties because the one seeking it volunteered to join the military, rather than being conscripted in. I expect that the all-volunteer force leaves us with a pretty small sample size of atheists seeking objector status post-Vietnam, which would make it hard to draw conlcusions. Nevertheless, although all purported objectors have a steeper hill to climb, the atheist is again confronted with the documentation problem.
Most males must register with the selective service when they turn 18, in the event the draft is reinstituted. This is the time you would register as a conscientious objector. While it is true that with an all volunteer force the CO question seems quaint, it isn’t if you remember that the registry is ongoing. Bush has shown us not to assume that the unthinkable will never happen.
<
p>But we’ve wandered somehow into military stuff. My point was that I don’t believe that an atheist org would be eligible to participate in the federal faith-based
give-awayinitiative. At least not without a supreme court fight first. If I’m wrong, I’m happy to be corrected, but will require proof of an atheist org already receiving funds to believe it (think of me as being from Missouri).It strikes me that atheism is the polar opposite of religion in that both rely on faith in something that is not provable by science, and don’t leave an opening to be convinced otherwise. They just have different default settings.
<
p>But nevertheless, depending on how the statute/program regs are written, there might be a fight to reach the funds.
<
p>The whole notion of the program, though, is that there is an existing infrastructure in place to provide certain services in certain places, and why not use it rather than spend endless cash to create a parallell government beauracracy? If there was an atheist organization that had the infrastructure to provide those services, I see no reason why they shouldn’t qualify.
<
p>I don’t think that simply forming a paper organization and then applying for funds is, or should be, enough.
for introducing a controversial observation on the far right margin. Now, we’re going to have the weak atheism/strong atheism debate in long, tiny columns.
… I made a concerted effort to bite my tongue. Don’t ruin it. 😉
You’re misunderstanding atheists. There are those who believe in no god, and then (and these, I believe, are the non-faith based ones) those who do not believe in a god. As I like to thing of it, I am not an athe-ist, I am an a-theist.
that’s a fair distinction.
So the Obama program would (i) maintain government support of social programs administered by religious organizations, so long as (ii) the religious organization did not use religion as a hiring factor when staffing the program so funded, but (iii) the religious organization could still use religion as a hiring factor in areas or programs other than those that receive government funding.
<
p>This seems pretty innocuous to me, and is potentially a big step toward reclaiming some religious voters for the Democrats.
<
p>Which of the above provisions is objectionable? (i), (ii), or (iii)?
is this one
<
p>I object to that.
I gather by this response, and the responses elsewhere, that the objectionable thing is that religious organizations receive support for their social services.
<
p>And, furthermore, the objectionable thing about these service providers is that they are, after all, religious.
<
p>Not sure that funding AFSC or Catholic Charities amounts to establishing a religion, but it has been interesting to see where the vituperation comes from.
The vision of Catholic Charities, as stated on their website is:
<
p>
<
p>I object to my tax dollars supporting the “vision” laid out in the entire first sentence. I also object to the “to this end” part of the second sentence. I agree with “eliminating oppression,” just don’t think educating people about “the presence of God in our midst” is helpful in realizing that goal.
<
p>The American Friends Service Committee, as you probably know since you used their acronym, is to the far-left of religious charities. They are truly anti-war in almost all circumstances, are relatively non-evangelical, have an equivocal position on abortion and even support same-sex civil unions. Yet, this is from the short “values” statement on their website:
<
p>
<
p>Again, I object to my tax dollars going to an organization whose work is “guided” by a “spiritual framework” that the organization thinks is “empowered by the Spirit.”
a difference of opinion on what “establishing” or “entangling” if your a Lemon fan, means.
I support a strict but simple test. If the government spends money in support of a religious organization, that’s “establishing”, or ought to be.
… Glenn Greenwald, which I feel is also pretty cogent:
<
p>
sums up what has bothered me this past week.
I thought the plan was to rally liberal voters who were disaffected or not yet registered–not to sell a Chicago Democrat as a conservative to Republican voters.
Winning the presidency by rallying voters from the wings is, in essence, the Rove strategy. That the strategy’s polarity would be reversed by a liberal Democrat does nothing, in my opinion, to improve its reputation.
<
p>This strategy gets the winner to one vote greater than necessary to win, and produces a divisive preseidency with a divided populace.
<
p>No, thanks. I have already seen that movie, and I don’t like how it ends.
<
p>Seems to me that Obama is moving in for the kill, here. He knows that no matter how much you and subutai get pissed about this or that, come November he can count on you to vote for him rather than for the 100 year guy. So now he can move into McCain’s turf and fight there.
there is an alternative to voting for him or for McCain: not voting at all. The more he plays mini me, the more likely I am to ignore the presidential box on the ballot and concentrate solely on down-ticket races.
For staying the course in Iraq for the next 100 years…
<
p>I guess I am sure that there is some risk in leaking some base after a pivot for the general election. I still find that preferable to an adminsitration that appeals to, and is therefore acountable to, such a small slice of voters.
<
p>I’m pleased that the guy seems to think he is going to be President of the whole country, and not just the progressives therein.
i’m not going to play his game of chicken. either he respects the constitution, or he doesn’t. if he doesn’t, he’s no better than mccain and he doesn’t get my vote.
jesus h christ we’re back to the naderite Gush/Bore argument of 2000. Awesome.
what other civil rights and founding principles do you think obama is entitled to forfeit?
Even if Obama and McCain are roughly equal (which I don’t buy), I don’t see how you risk re-empowering the entire GOP/movement conservatism establishment — in Defense, in Justice, in State, in Education, EVERYWHERE — not to mention giving the Supreme Court a far-right majority for the next 50 years.
that obama will appoint progressive, or even status quo judges. what makes you think that? is it his support of the death penalty, his caving on FISA, or his willful disregard of the 14th amendment for LGBT citizens? why should i have faith in obama, when he uses gop frames regarding my civil rights, and courts the religious right so vigorously? if obama is taking a firm stand on anything other than getting elected at all costs, please let me in on the secret.
You shouldn’t have faith in any elected official. My faith is reserved for … never mind. But I can be reasonably certain that President Obama will look a lot more like Bill Clinton than George Bush. Slippery, disloyal, anti-equality, anti-welfare, pro-death-penalty, a thousand times better than Bush or McCain, Bill Clinton. The guy who made Robert Reich his labor secretary and put Ruth Ginsburg on the Supreme Court.
please lay out your path to reason for me, because i surely don’t see it. what i read in obama’s words are other paths, leading in other directions. like further erosion of constitutional rights. you haven’t mentioned how you can in good conscience overlook all of obama’s words and deeds that take us farther and farther from protecting our constitutional rights.
Same way I can “overlook” Bill Clinton killing a mentally disabled kid in Arkansas, and killing a bunch of innocent Sudanese, all for politics. B/c Bush did, and McCain will do, so much worse.
<
p>This isn’t an exact science, I’m not talking about logical certainty. Things like this Clinton analogy instead.
that’s fine, if you want to go on intuition, faith, hope, seeing no better alternative, whatever. but don’t call it “reason” if you can’t back it up with reasoning.
…applied to human beings and their institutions. Neither intuition nor deductive certainty; rather, inference, analogy, probability, the fuzzier methods we have to rely on for most of our difficult decisions.
<
p>Obama voted against Roberts and Alito, defying much-heralded bipartisan deals. He has a history of progressive actions and positions, coupled with a strong streak of political caution/cowardice, and a handful of commitments usually associated with the right. That’s probably the kind of president he will be.
Do you really think that Obama replaces them with Thomas/Alito types?
I found this interesting letter recently sent to the Alice B. Toklas Democratic Club of San Francisco via massmarrier. Obama says:
<
p>
<
p>What do you think about it? This is the strongest statement I’ve seen from Obama on LGBT rights.
… of his past rhetoric is that this is perhaps stronger in emphasis, but entirely consistent (with nothing new) with his previous statements. My guess is that he is trying to maintain his ‘middle’ position while trying to make friends on the issue.
<
p>I can only hope that his commitment to mere emphasis will wane in favor of more equitable action.
…the feeling where he’s trying to appeal as broadly that he can. It is worth noting that his previous statements on California was that it’s a decision for the state to make where as now he has taken a definite position of opposing the anti-SSM amendment.
…would be same sex marriage. Obama is opposed. It’s time for him to put his money where his mouth is, so to speak.
he had a letter read to an obscure club says it all. he wants to string along the gay vote, but won’t say so in public because he doesn’t want to take a firm stand for equal protection of the laws. that pesky 14th amendment – it does dog a politician who wants to call himself constitutional scholar and civil rights attorney. poor dear.
I agree that full equality under the law = marriage. I don’t buy the “separate but equal” argument of civil unions.
<
p>Just to play devil’s advocate, though, must full equality mean marriage? Or is there a way to gain full equality under the law without calling each and every equally legal partnership marriage? My suspicion is no, but I’d figure I’d through the question out as a thought expiriment.
The intensity of the emotion over the use of the word derives from its deeper connotations. In my own tradition, this deeper meaning is captured by the sacramental nature of marriage.
<
p>That is ground in which the state has no business. There is nothing sacramental about inhertence, property, or tax status. It is unfortunate that these legal niceties have become bound up in a word that has such broader connotations. Better to drop the word outright from the government lexicon. Call them all “civil unions.”
<
p>Or, failing that “mawwage.” Because mawwage is what bwings us togethew.
and i’ll stop worrying about it. let me know when you’ve leveled that playing field, and i’ll quiet down about it. oh, and and be sure “amrriage” is stricken from every constitution and statute in the nation, not to mention international treaties, and replaced with “civil union”.
<
p>chances of success are nil, but i wish you well on your quixotic journey!
Which is why I support SSM.
<
p>I simply do not agree that the 14th Amendment requires it.
… its near impossible. But it should really be noted that it is completely sound in reasoning.
without the term, there is no equality. look, i’ve got a domestic partnership here in WA. in all honestly, it’s worth shit. no one recognizes it. no one knows what, legally, it amounts to. this is a problem even for people with civil unions that supposedly equal marriage in all but name. people and businesses disrespect them constantly. it took my partner a year to get her company to accept a WA state registered domestic partnership as proof of domestic partnership for HR purposes! and we still have to prove the relationship annually. marrieds don’t. sux to be not married.
<
p>to anyone who claims that “marriage in all but name” is equal, i say: get divorced and re-hitched as a DP or CU, then tell me how equal you feel and are treated. oh wait – you won’t be able to do this because CUs and DPs are so equal that heterosexuals aren’t allowed to get them.
… “name” is striped of its legal context (everyone gets CUs), anyone who partners can call themselves married and nobody can dispute it on anything other than personal grounds. That’s the end legal goal, is it not? Impossible goal, but sound nonetheless.
It’s “equal” or “not equal.” Could it be any simpler? For any other minority group, this would be a no-brainer. Just more evidence that at least one form of bigotry is still quite ok.
One of Obama’s advantages coming into the general election is the enthusiasm gap between the Dem and GOP bases towards their candidates. Perhaps Senator Obama can afford to dampen some of that enthusiasm in exchange for votes from the center –some of whom are frightened as much by that very enthusiasm as by any so-called left-wing positions.
<
p>But really, there’s a difference between artfully moving to the center and accepting right-wing narratives to appeal to center.
<
p>Let me put it this way. It does harm to the larger progressive movement when Democrats say “See those guys on the left? I’m not like them. They’re crazy.” at the same time Republicans say “See those guys on the right? I need their money and their support.” That puts the bounds of acceptable discourse between the center-left and the far-right and the middle ground is automatically on the conservative side of the playing field.
<
p>Of course, it would do the larger progressive movement even more harm if McCain wins, and moving the playing field is hard. I had hoped that Obama would be the candidate that could do this, and I had hoped even harder that he would not run a Gore/Kerry style DC-consultant campaign for the general. We’ll see.
In my view, at least, the far left wing of the Democratic Party has been discredited and rendered politically impotent for some time. This is true because all far-anything positions are wrong, and because Republicans have sucessfully linked much that is merely left-of-center to the far left. They were able to do that (i) because by the 1970s, people were absolutely fed up with the bloated, failed federal government, and therefore (ii) Republicans held the middle.
<
p>Since 2000, Republicans have ceded the middle. This is an unprecedented opportunity for Democrats, to (i) recapture the middle, and then (ii) villify all that is right of center as being linked to the crazy right wing. If your party is unwilling to make overtures to the middle, however, this opportunity will be lost; they remain a marginal party.
<
p>The Wes Clark thing aside, which seems to me to be an Obama mistake, it seems to me that Obama is showing signs of being a far more successful politician than I exepcted him to be.
… since 92. See below.
And I wish there was more of (ii) in place of vilifying MoveOn.org so people won’t think you’re a ‘dirty fucking hippie’.
Not that moveon couldn’t stand for a bit of villification, but that’s just me.
<
p>I’m not sure that opening up a little daylight counts as villification.
<
p>Is General Clark a moveon favorite?
I think it is a fair criticism, as that ad was well beyond the pale.
<
p>That might just be because I loathe moveon, simply because it is another partisan political outfit that cannot accept that some people that disagree with them might do so in goof faith.
<
p>I guess I can see why you find it bothersome. But from over here, the “enough already with Vietnam and the firking 60s” thing resonates, man.
<
p>A few weeks ago, stong Obama supporters argued that there was no way in hell that former Hillary supporters would defect en masse to McCain, or stay home. I do believe that he is calculating that the same is true of liberal Obama supporters in a bid to ice this thing early.
Though I suppose that many who disagree with moveon might do so in goof faith.
… do you think MoveOn advocates their position similarly in good faith?
I think that moveon believes it must act in response to what it perceives as gross abuses of tactics on the right (such as the original thing we were supposed to move on from), and therefore feels that it can be both free of scruples and clear of conscience. Fire with fire, etc.
<
p>That leads them to adopt tactics that fall short of good faith, IMO. “Betray-us” was pretty damn slimy in my opinion. So have been some of their youtube style ads against Bush (esp. the Nazi ones). I tend to think their efforts are hamhanded and counterproductive.
<
p>I agree that they diligently pursue their goals in the manner that they deem appropriate.
to fight a criminal presidency and outlaw policies. I couldn’t disagree more with your assessment of moveon’s tactics. We’re still in Iraq, CMD.
They’re like the Nazis? Our military leadership is guilty of levying war against the United States?
<
p>Yeah, that’s very helpful stuff there.
<
p>The smear against Petreaus is unforgivable in my opinion. The only difference between them and the Swift Boaters is that the Swift Boaters were successful.
You’re shedding too many tears over the hurt feelings of a general that you should be shedding for our dead soldiers. Petraus, Cheney, and Bush will live in relative ease and luxury for the rest of their lives, perhaps laughing quietly from time to time at how much they got away with, while thousands of young americans got the privilege of living in hellish conditions, witnessing terrible things, doing some horrible things, and dying agonizing deaths for absolutely nothing. Fuck Petraus.
As contempt for an organization that can’t even make a valid point without sounding like hysterical, hyperbolizing, liars.
… “valid point”. I can’t say the same of the Swift Boaters. (see above)
To make this point, they accused the Commander of American forces in Iraq, who is the first one to do anything right there, of treason.
<
p>When questioned on this, moveon responded that the ad was effective because it genrated controversy– not because it was true.
<
p>That means that they were 100% intersted in smearing an individual for politicla ends. Americans are l;ike Nazis, because well, apparently Abu Ghraib was a death camp. Zero difference from Swift Boat.
<
p>But it was just an “opinion.” BS. You’re a child rapist, just my opinion. It was a despicable slander, and nothing less.
<
p>Worse, it was an ineffective despicable slander. These odious nitwits high-fived after the NY Times ad for getting media coverage, without noticing that the whole thing was a political own goal.
… but being a child rapist is something that can be verified. The Swift Boaters regularly threw stuff out there that were proven lies.
Ugh. Not, we oppose the war. But, you, General, are deliberately killing American soldiers for some private ulterior motive.
<
p>Ugh. Moveon is just as odious, in my opinion.
… the Petraeus ad. Couldn’t find the word treason anywhere in there.
“Betray-Us”? Please.
<
p>I guess its OK if your a Democrat.
… you’d have a point. But it doesn’t and you don’t. You simply want to ascribe an allegation to them that they didn’t make. This is very similar to the Clark situation: people want to hear that he ‘dishonored his service’ when all he did was say his POW time isn’t a qualification for POTUS. Treason, after all, can carry the death penalty. You don’t really think that MoveOn was advocating that kind of gravity, do you? They didn’t accuse him of being the third Rosenberg.
… you’re still free to object on the grounds of taste (as many do).
I think they saw an opportunity to conduct a smear or character assasiniation, and took it, because, well, that’s what you do when you are So Good And Pure That Only Your Ends Matter, and Not Your Means.
… the sophistication front. I was just making the point that I find the Swift Boaters fundamentally different in that they are willing to lie, not just smear.
… without people like you to tell us what we mean.
… which truth you subscribed to. So what is the meaning of cherry-picking?
… matters of taste (name calling and such) I do think matters of veracity matter. As such I find a qualitative difference (by orders of magnitude) to the Swift Boaters. AFAIK MoveOn didn’t lie, they expressed an opinion (however tastefully or not).
by winning, not capitulating. People want to vote for a strong candidate, Bush/Kerry/Gore taught us that much. Oh, and talking about redrawing the lines: we had the chance to turn entire generations into lifelong Democrats in this race; Obama’s doing his best to kill that dream, too.
<
p>is it violates the very premise of why he was telling people to vote for him in the same process. People were voting for a transformative candidate, one who brought such energy that we were going to fix all of Bush’s mistakes, elect a whole bunch of Democrats through coattails… and now he’s decided to nix all that? He was doing quite well, on the road toward a massive victory. He decided he needed to pull a 180 on that strategy?
<
p>I’m more inclined to think we’re seeing something closer to the real Obama than a ‘moving to the center’ Obama.
… has been the GOP winning mantra since 92 and way predates Rove. It shouldn’t work because our system is supposed to drive people toward the middle. The GOP figured out how to break that system and it has allowed them to maintain and enable far right policy stances yet keep their election viability high. This has been so successful that they even managed to fool the media into thinking that the country has moved right.
<
p>More here.
1992: The incumbent is not loved by the base, because he raised taxes and because he was uncomfortbale with the praise jesus set. Hence the Pat Buchanan insurrection, culminating in the culture warrior Houston convention, that scared moderates off the Clinton or Perot.
<
p>1996: I don’t know what Dole’s strategy was. By bringing on Kemp, maybe he was going for a reprise of 1980 and supply side tax cuts. But the base had become far more oriented toward evangelical churches, and weren’t all that excited.
<
p>2000: Seemingly centrist candidate, but steady, obvious messages sent to the base evangelical voters through radio, Fox news. These messages almost entirely missed or ignored by MSM, which covered the candidate as a moderate like his father. The base came out in droves, and the candidate won by the barest of margins–one vote on the USSC. Had the disputed election been sent to the HoR as it should have, the candidate would have won there.
<
p>2004: The unremarked-upon channels to base voters are still in operation, and still unremarked upon by the MSM. Plus, gay marriage!
<
p>The Republican strategy has been to move to the right since the demise of the Rockefeller Republicans that had decided to accept the New Deal. Rove is the one who devised the means of winning the white house relying almost entirely upon the base, and did so successfully, twice.
… presidential elections. I’m referring to the entire GOP.
<
p>The system is supposed to punish pols who take unpopular stances. That hasn’t happen to the GOP since that time, so it was very successful.
I don’t think it is all that simple.
<
p>Indeed, the (i) polls show support for policy X, (ii) our guy supports X; (iii) victory! formula has been a dud for Democrats because it fails to accomodate the way people vote, which is for people, not policies. That only works in parliamentary systems.
<
p>In any event, Rove is indeed principally responsible for the election of a Republican in two presidential elections, and not so much for the Congressional majorities of 1994-2006. But Obama is not running for Congress, is he?
<
p>1994 was much more a product of the then minority leader, Gingrich, and his ability to capitalize on frustation with (i) a tired, corrupt, ossified Democratic Congress (Rosty! The post office!), and (ii) a Clinton adminitsration that turned out, at first, to be much more liberal than advertised, and therefore was sinking fast in the polls. (First issue out of the gate? Gays in the Army! Then a huge revamp of the health care system that involved a lot of taxes and less choice for those who pay those taxes.)
<
p>I also think that 1994 was aided by gerrymandering to create minority-majority districts. This almost always resulted in changing three competitive districts into one very liberal district and two very conservative districts, and favored Republicans overall.
really shouldn’t be overlooked. That was all DeLay. Gerrymandering was also certainly another important tactic. The truth is they used several tactics all in service of being able to pass unpopular policy points. Seriously… check out the book.
K Street was a huge factor in 2006; the opposite pendelum swing from 1994.
<
p>Gerrymandering in the manner I am referring to predates the excesses of the last decade. It is, I think, a LIBERAL phenomenon that backfired. At some point, it was determined to be unfair and discriminatory that, in certain Southern states, a large “minority” population (actually a local majority) would be divided into three or four or more districts, such that they remained a minority in each. Thereafter, these communities were consolidated into new districts that could elect a minority rep to Congress- a good thing!
<
p>But this resulted in a net gain for Republicans- they gained big traction in the other districts, which became way, way more conservative than they were previously.
… if you are serious about hating the way parties kowtow to their extremes, you should check out the book. I think you’d find it very illuminating and familiar.
It is now on the wishlist.
<
p>Seaside reading for a presidential election year.
Where ya headed (out of curiosity)?
And report back 😉
This is why it took me so long to get behind Obama to begin with. I don’t feel repudiated. I feel vindicated, but in a slimy Pyrrhic sort of way.
<
p>But, IMHO, he’s still oodles better than McCain — and he could be significantly better than Bill Clinton.
Well, as I understand it from this thread, Obama’s position is that religious groups that receive federal funds cannot discriminate in hiring with regard to their federally-funded programs, though the can discriminate in hiring with regard to their other programs.
<
p>This seems pretty reasonable to me. If you disagree with this, doesn’t the logic of your position suggest that religious groups that discriminate in hiring (surely all or nearly all of them, at least with regard to clergy positions) should not, for instance, be entitled to federal income tax exemption (since, as has been noted, money is fungible, and a dollar saved on taxes can be spent for all kinds of nefarious purposes)? And isn’t that a pretty radical position to take?
<
p>TedF
This is exactly what gets us pegged as anti-religion in the most religiously active country in the West. We need to focus on the greater good of what charitable organizations are trying to do. The Catholic Church won’t ordain women, yet Catholic Charities is highly respected and competent. The Salvation Army won’t hire gay people, but does such a great service, especially around Christmas. The Boy Scouts of America won’t accept boys who are openly athiest or homosexual, but this proud Eagle believes we’d be a much better society if every teenage boy joined. Sure, I wish these organizations would drop their discriminatory policies, but we need to keep our focus on whether they can competently service “the least of these” My objection to the Bush policy was that it seemed to heavily favor organizations with a certain theological bent. I don’t mind allowing faith-based organizations to apply for grants on the same bases as non-faith organizations, but there should be no discrimination as to what kind of faith. Obama is absolutely right about liberals needing to talk about God and my favorite quote of his is, “We worship an Awesome God in the blue states!” To not do this is to further define Christianity as the monopoly of the right and this progressive Christian won’t stand for it!
you do see the problem in that for we atheists and people who believe in separation of church and state?
are willing to request federal subsidy for atheist faith-based work. For instance, a Rational Recovery focused detox could get a fed subsidy as could a Secular Humanist food bank.
<
p>I have heard lots of semantic argument about 1. atheism as simply being considered the absence of religion/faith vs 2. A committed “Atheism” being a faith in and of itself, religiously opposed to the idea of religion or god.
<
p>
Talking about one’s faith is a great part of defining who one is and that is a question most, if not all, voters want answered. Hearing someone talk about his faith should be no more offensive to you than someone talking about a different faith from my own be offensive to me. Nor would it be offensive to me to hear an athiest candidate discuss his lack of belief in a supreme being. There is no religious test legally for office, but if we become the athiest party we are guaranteed to lose every time. The same amendment to the Constitution which implies separation of church and state also gives everyone, including political candidates, freedom of speech, which certainly includes freedom to discuss one’s faith. Just like you failed to see the difference in a previous discussion between someone who is pro-gay rights, but won’t cross the last hurdle of marriage, and truly hateful bigots, you now can’t seem to distinguish between someone who is comfortable discussing faith and a theocrat.
when presidents and candidates brand the country as a christian nation, they by definition marginalize americans who aren’t christian (there are a lot of us, and we’re not all democrats – not by a long shot). this has nothing to do with a rejection of religion. it is about rejecting a christian-centric redefinition of the very nature of “american” coming from presidential candidates.
…in my original comment I put the phrase “Christian nation” in quotes and branded it nonsense. I have yet to hear Obama call this country a Christian nation. The truth however is that we are overwhelmingly a nation of Christians, to the tune of I believe about 75-80%. I agree with your complaint in this comment; I just don’t think it applies to Barack Obama.
whenever I hear Presidential candidates talking god, I want to barf.
I guess it is a good thing for you that there is a candidate that is clearly uncomfortbale talking about such things.
<
p>While the “test” may be illegal, that fact that an “atheist party” is “guaranteed to lose every time” is, in practice, evidence of a test.
<
p>There is a test, an informal one, that amounts to atheist candidates need not apply.
<
p>
Atheists have no constitutional right to win elections. They can’t be barred from trying, though.
No one has a constitutional right to win an election. No one has made such an assertion, so I’m not sure why you felt the need to point that out.
<
p>I, rather indirectly, made the observation that an excellent candidate would be precluded from running for higher office in this nation based solely on the stigmatizing quality of being an avowed atheist.
<
p>Thanks for missing–rather purposely, I suspect–my point.
An unconstitutional test would bar the candidate from running, but says zero about his or her electibility.
<
p>Your “What test?” comment seemed to suggest that, because an atheist would likely not be electable, that this is a “test.”
<
p>Not so. I merely objected to the fuzzification of what the Constitution actually requires.
I’m suggesting that there is, in fact, a test in practical terms, irrespective of any stated prohibition on an actual test in the Constitution.
<
p>We, as a society, have established “tests,” irrespective of a candidate’s possible merits, based on sorting criteria that would likely qualify as a test.
<
p>I am not at all fuzzy on what the Constitution precludes. I am, however, claiming that Constitutional prohibitions aside, society has found a way to apply a “test” to candidates for national office that would rule out, in advance, a qualified candidate from having any chance at getting elected, and that if that candidate were to erase or deny or fail to disclose the disqualifying stigma, s/he would likely stand a good chance of getting elected.
in reply to someone mentioning the Contitution was a non sequitor?
being deliberately obtuse? i’m asking in all sincerity and concern. lightiris did a great job in pointing out the contradiction in Christopher’s post.
<
p>but perhaps traditional wisdom about atheists really does need reexamination. watching obama trying so hard to prove his christianity (something it is impossible to do, belief being invisible), i realize that if an atheist and a muslim were on the ballot, the atheist is more likely to win. how sad to raise one level higher in public estimation only because another group was shoved beneath us. sigh. such a world we live in.
I think you all are the ones being deliberately obtuse.
<
p>1. The Constitution provides that there shall be no religious test for national office.
<
p>2. As a practical matter, persons of certain religious affilaitaions need not apply, because they have no chance of actually being elected. Among these: atheists, Moslems, Mormons, televangelists, Hasidim.
<
p>3. So, we are supposed to juxtapose the reality of (2) against the purported ideal of (1) and pull a long face while earnestly contemplating the terrible deficiency of our national character.
<
p>But (1) and (2) have nothing whatsover to do with one another. Zero. Unrelated. Not even cousins.
<
p>Indeed, to the extent that (2) is any sort of misfortune, all over this thread there are voters setting a “test” that they will not vote for a candidate unless that candidate is outwardly irreligious. That is their right; more power to them. In the aggregate, these kind of decisions mean that a winning candidate must appeal to more voters than the other guy. BFD.
… test. It’s a societal test. It is a test nonetheless, at least in effect. It follows that we are, of course, free to bemoan such a test.
… and advocating policy are two different things. Talk all you want, but the law can’t express preference. People are free to prefer what they wish.
“We” worship an awesome God in the blue states?
<
p>Running the numbers, there’s some 40 million individuals who worship more than one god, or no gods at all in the Blue states. Do we not count?
Which is by no means the same as saying we ALL do. Obama’s point was that the red states don’t have a monopoly on faith. Though there are variences as to denomination throughout the country, Christianity (along with Judaism and Islam, which of course worship the same God) is pretty well distributed. See here for maps. If you add up all forms in any given blue county I believe you will come up with an overwhelming majority.
The phrasing in Obama’s speech, and the people to whom it is meant to appeal (remember, “awesome God” comes from a traditional Christian hymn), is targeted at the Christian God. Furthermore, I have no idea how you can think that Muslims, Jews, and Christians worship the same God. Just because there is only one doesn’t make it nearly the same.
<
p>Hey, trampling on the Constitution may well be smart politics for Obama, whether it’s separation of Church and state, or supporting FISA. Doesn’t make it anywhere near right.
Well, I don’t know about Muslims, but Jews and Christians believe they worship the same God. For the Jewish view, see Dabru Emet, a statement of the National Jewish Scholars Project (but see David Berger’s paper for a critique and a discussion of the status of Christianity as a form of avodah zarah, or “strange worship”).
<
p>The Christian view, as I understand it, is much more straightforward and easy to understand, as Christianity grew out of Judaism. For the Catholic view, see the section of this document called Evangelization and the Jewish People.
<
p>And “awesome God” may appear in a Christian hymn, but it’s also a phrase from the first of the eighteen blessings that are at the center of the Jewish daily liturgy.
<
p>TedF
I have to disagree that “Christianity grew out of Judaism”. It did start out as a Jewish sect, but it really became Christianity (and spread beyond its small region) when it was syncretized with Mithraism. I’d say it grew out of Judaism the same way that Bahai’ism grew out of Islam. Obviously, the two religions have a lot in common, but one of the most common Christian prayers is to “God the Father”.
Not disagreeing with you that they’re different religions that believe different things and understand the nature of God differently (and all of this, of course, is tangential to this thread), but you haven’t responded to the sources I’ve linked. I do think your previous comment was theologically incorrect, at least for many Christians and Jews.
<
p>TedF
Apparantly not only do you not believe on God, but you haven’t learned much about Him either (and yes, there’s a difference). The Christian Bible includes both an Old and New Testament, the Old being the scripture of Judaism. It was the Jewish God who promised to send His Son, which became the basis for Christianity. Jesus Himself was, of course, a Jew, and it was that God which he called Father. As for the Muslims, the stories of the Koran all deal with Allah, who is identified as the God of Abraham, the same Patriarch with whom Yahweh made His covenant. The Koran contains many of the same stories as the Old Testament and Muslims consider Jesus a prophet, but not divine.
<
p>BTW, in the next line Barack Obama said, “We coach Little League in the blue states…”. Nobody in my family has ever been involved in the Little League, but I’m not complaining that that line did not include me. Merely mentioning God is protected by the other part of the First Amendment and funding faith-based efforts on equal footing with non-faith efforts neither establishes religion nor prohibits the free exercise thereof.
I understand theology plenty well, thanks. But as with so, so many other things, there’s a difference between what people say and do. Sure, in the fine tradition of religious appropriation, Christians and Muslims claim to worship each other’s god. However, both also have a tradition of prioritizing new revelations and the expense of the old…to the point where many Christian clerics talk about reading the Old Testament “spiritually” — as an allegory. Thus, the God of the Old Testament is reduced to a moral parallel at the expense of the God/Jesus of the New Testament. These traditions are reading different texts from the same book. If one of us sings “Justify my Love” à la Madonna, and the other sings “Justify my Love” following Marilyn Manson, it’s the same music and lyrics…is it really the same song?
<
p>About your second point, if people who played Little League had been on the receiving end of distortion and persecution throughout history, I’d understand if they were a little sensitive. If in retrospect such remarks were the beginning of a series of decisions that targeted Little Leaguers and started giving succor to a powerful anti-baseball lobby, I’m sure they’d be more than a little upset.
I don’t think it is remotely controversial that Jews, Christians, and Moslems worship the same God. Yes, different rythm, but the song remains the same (sing it, Robert). At their core, these religions (like most others) share a common ethos. They differ in details, which are magnified by the tyranny of small differences.
<
p>To the extnt that most/all religions share a common ethos at their core, I am not sure that God does not reveal Himself to different people in different ways, such that the distinctions among the world’s great religions are cultural, more than theological.
<
p>Acknowledging that much of the detail of my own faith might be cultural is not necessarily a reason to jettison my own tradition, which is mellenia old, nor is it reason to acknowledge that it is not “true.” Indeed, to know, at a liturgy, that you are experiencing something that has been going on for 2000 years is particularly moving. It is however, a reason not to sweat overmuch the small differences. Of course, when religion is abused, as it often is, the small differences tend to become larger.
<
p>Thus, I don’t think that the “awesome God” excludes any group that believes in a supreme being. And the “we” who revere that awesome God is the same kind of “we” used when a couple says “We’re having a baby.”– used because the more accurate passive voice is, rhetorically speaking, crappy.
<
p>It is a shame that so many are so disturbed by this proposal. I find it– and that it does not seem to be an overt flip from some previous position– to be a very positive development.
After all, any impulse that has inspired Mother Teresa, Gandhi and King can’t be all bad. I just don’t want my work (=money) being put toward its dissemination. I really don’t care about others’ religious feelings…I just don’t the government more involved than it already is.
I think that was Obama’s point by emphasizing that red states don’t have a monopoly on religion or Little League (and, for that matter, blue states don’t have the monopoly on gay friends and privacy concerns, which as you’ll recall were the rhetorical flip sides in that particular speech). It is also the point I am trying to make about religion. It is unfortunate that many act as though their way is the only right way. Christians and Muslims especially have a history of seeing who can yell “INFIDEL!” at the other side the loudest. As a Christian I have a prefered way of worship and theology (mostly just a result of the way I was raised), but I assure you I would never judge someone else’s view, as I find that attitude arrogant. I reject any theology that says only Christians (and especially only a certain kind of Christian) will be saved. I can understand if a later religion claims its theology is “new and improved”, but that doesn’t have to mean previous versions are bad.
<
p>Krugman thinks Obama can either be another Bill Clinton or a Ronald Reagan of the Left. He’s always suspected Obama of being a moderate in progressive clothing.
<
p>Some have argued that Obama’s community organizing taught him to take help where he could get it, politics be damned. Don’t know if it’s true.
<
p>Bottom-line: we may choose a campaign, but we elect a candidate.
<
p>Bottomest line: we live in Massachusetts. We could vote for Ralph Nader or Bob Barr, and it wouldn’t affect the outcome.
<
p>Mark
anyone who thinks this is a great idea doesn’t deserve to be president. period.
<
p>and I do think that Obama is saying whatever he can to get elected- this is not New Politics. But these concessions accumulate and will eventually eliminate any chance of a progressive presidency.
Who was definitely a centrist candidate, not a liberal. What hypocrite Krugman is for now accusing Obama of being centrist!
<
p>As for the issue of religion, I am now an agnostic but was brought up a Quaker. The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) does superb work around the world, does not proselytize or discriminate in hiring, and is a force for peace and justice.
<
p>In other words, the AFSC takes seriously the teachings of Jesus, unlike the so called “Christian” right who seem oblivious to the fact that nothing could be more diametrically opposed to these teachings than the policies of the Bush Administration which McCain, after numerous flip-flops, intends to continue.
<
p>I have no problem with taxpayer money going to assist groups like AFSC, which would diligently ensure that these funds do not go to religion.
I think they evalgelize by example, as was intended, rather than by proselytization, which is offensive.
I’m honestly curious about that, because I think you need to read it again. Obviously, Krugman thought Hillary was better on the issues. Maybe that violates the left-center-right dichotomy you’ve been trained to think during the past few months, but there are a great many other people who separately came to the same conclusion as Krugman (including myself) that Hillary was absolutely, positively, without doubt to the left of him on the important domestic issues.
I’m not sure I remember him saying that
“Mr. Obama looks even more centrist now than he did before wrapping up the nomination.”
<
p>This from someone who supported Hillary. The Clinton administration was so centrist that I voted for someone else (not Bob Dole) in the 2006 election. With welfare “reform,” his enthusiastic support of the death penalty, his support for more random drug testing, his caving on gays in the military, and his signing of the Defense of Marriage Act, he was no liberal.
<
p>I never saw any evidence to support the idea (believed by some), that Hillary would be more liberal than Bill.
<
p>Having said all this, I should emphasize that had Hillary won the nomination I would absolutely have supported her, against any of the Republican candidates.
“Mr. Obama looks even more centrist now than he did before wrapping up the nomination.”
<
p>I’d imagine that would have been true for any candidate. That’s what you do — secure the base and glide over to the center.
<
p>What I didn’t foresee was Obama sprinting from the left, stumbling over the center, and pratfalling into the right wing.
just because he was critical of one candidate in a two-way race doesn’t neccesarily imply that he supports the other.
for the last couple of years – though sometimes his pro-Hillary anti-Obama rhetoric got nauseating.
<
p>He made it abundantly and repeatedly clear that he was for Hillary.
<
p>I read him mainly for his insight into the state of our nation and the economy (he is an economist). Too bad that insight did not extend to his choice of candidate.
Obama was more centrist than everyone thought.
<
p>What he liked about Hillary was her health care plan, which was closer to Edwards, whom he (I think) liked best.
<
p>No hypocrisy there.
<
p>Mark
is that he has fallen into the basic trap of “moving to the center,” which will be used by the GOP to claim he has no principles, and doesn’t know what he believes.
<
p>Obviously, he’s better than McCain, but when he cedes all this ground to the Right Wing, he’s not transformational, he’s incremental–and if Democrats were going to elect an incremental President, I think Hillary Clinton would have done a better job at racking up incremental changes.
I pretty much agree with you about the specific issue of faith-based initiatives but I am also glad that Obama is not ceding the large number of Americans who do believe in religion to the right.
<
p>When the media speaks about faith-based Americans they generally are speaking about abortion and gay marriage as the most important issues. I like Obama’s efforts to win religious voters back.
<
p>”If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans,” Obama said.
<
p>http://blog.christianitytoday….
<
p>On the specific issue of fed subsidies for faith-based programs – I am not a supporter. It certainly has been a topic of controversy since the beginning of the good old USA.
<
p>http://www.au.org/site/DocServ…
Coming on the heels of throwing Clark under a bus and lurching towards the cornmeal mush of the center on FISA, I’m rapidly reaching the limits of my tolerance.
<
p>My major concerns with Obama have historically been 1) too conciliatory and 2) too much god talk. Both of my fears have been realized in vivid terms over the past week. I’m just freakin’ appalled.
87 comments and I haven’t posted once!
saving the best for last. 😀
on a thread like this? That’s really high-brow, Ryan. You should be happy Catholics aren’t like we used to be back in the 1400’s or like some Muslims are today, or you might wake up dead in some alley for that.
MRS. A.: Well, you did say ‘Jehovah’.
CROWD: Ah! Ooooh!…
[CROWD stones MRS. A.]
OFFICIAL: Stop! Stop, will you?! Stop that! Stop it! Now, look! No one is to stone anyone until I blow this whistle! Do you understand?! Even, and I want to make this absolutely clear, even if they do say ‘Jehovah’.
CROWD: Ooooooh!…
[CROWD stones OFFICIAL]
WOMAN #1:Good shot!
[clap clap clap]
Okay, so basically Obama is doing this to take a slice out of the religionistas in this country – the 18% of the country who are social conservatives. Did anyone remind him that 82% of the country aren’t religious conservatives?
<
p>I really don’t get what’s wrong with the campaign. They ran such a smart primary, I can’t fathom why they keep fucking up all at once now. It’s as if they decided to make up for all the mistakes they could have made in the past 6 months over the past fortnight. Good job, guys!
<
p>Seriously, though, this election is not going to be won by appealing to religious conservatives in this country. That dog ain’t hunting. And, if he does, what good will that do the rest of us if he actually does win? He’s going to have to do a lot of work to keep that coalition together, which means constantly capitulating to them over the next 4 years.
<
p>Patrick had a much better way of dealing with social conservatives: speak in terms that they’ll respect you, even if they won’t vote for you. That way, as a best case scenario, many of them will just choose not to vote. They’re not going to see Obama as an ally, they’ve been trained over decades to support Republicans. The best we could have hoped for is to keep them home. Giving them reason to come out is only going to help the Republican Party.
who are ok with, and even support the notion of, religious organizations receiving government funds to support their charitable works. I think that’s Obama’s larger point; he’s not looking to necessarily take away the religious right vote from the republicans but he’s instead courting/talking to those many voters whose faith is an incredibly important part of their daily lives. Talking about religion and, more to the point of this post, supporting federal funding of religious charities is not a grab at religious conservatives or the religious right but is an honest attempt to bring back some voters of faith who have strayed from the democratic fold. I gotta say, I see no harm no foul here.
He’s not going after “social conservatives.” They ain’t voting for him. At best, he can hope they stay home.
<
p>He’s going for religious Americans that aren’t necessarily culture warriors. (Not everyone who goes to church watches the 700 Club. ) Which might make “religious voter” mean something other than gaybashing and anti-abortion.
<
p>It could mean, voters who care about poverty and social justice as well.
<
p>Which would be nice, and would remove much venom from American politics.
He had me when he clinched the majority of delegates to the DNC. I wasn’t enthusiastic, true, but I spent the next coupla weeks talking about sucking it up and supporting him because he was the best choice, yada yada yada. From day one my biggest problem was his theistic impulses…which were to a greater extent than I’d imagined.
…for 4 weeks and the first excuse he give you, you ran.
Engage in cognitive dissonance to your heart’s content. Doesn’t change the facts.
…you always had these concerns and knew more than anuone where Barack stood on the issue. Yet you claimed to have “supported” him for a short while before he yet again disappointed you. My point is that you never seriuosly supported him. You were just waiting for him to restate a long held view that he holds (that there is a role for religion in American politics–the shock of it) and at that point stage this protest. Very predictable.
Guess it depends on how serious “serious” is. I spent most of a DTC event buttonholing Clintonite friends of mine telling them to suck it up and back him as early as May. Signed up for his e-mail list. I was willing to swallow Obama views, and suck it up myself. I did that with Hillary when Richardson dropped out, remember. Was I waving his banner, cheerleading everything he said,trembling at all the speeches? No. Not really my style. But I did look the other way on FISA, NCLB-plus, etc. I certainly had resigned myself to voting for him. However, I was surprised Senator Obama would go this far. I figured he’d would continue his religious talk, continue chiding Democrats who didn’t do the same, but I didn’t think he’d beef up Bush’s main program designed to appeal to Evangelicals.
<
p>I’ve just tired of the trick whereby any serious concerns with a candidate — particularly an Axelrod project — is dismissed with “well, then you never really liked him anyway.”
I have to say I’m surprised at the hostility to this here. After all, this is pretty innocuous stuff. Not prayer in school, not even the commandments at the courthouse. Not even as controversial as parochial school vouchers.
<
p>And people react like he is become Rick Santorum.
<
p>And significant hostility not even because of the specific proposal, but because he mentions religion. (He needs to do this to make sure that people know that he isn’t a Muslim, but that seems to make it even more objectionable).
<
p>This seems to suggest that, at least on BMG, liberals are in fact hostile to religion and religious people. It remains to be seen if this can be generalized beyond BMG.
there is a difference between being hostile to religion and being a watchdog over the separation of church and state.
<
p>as for “pretty innocuous stuff”, well, obviously you are incorrect. lots of people do not see the erosion of the church/state separation to be innocuous. tax dollars going to religious institutions, which are in themselves tax exempt, is huge and remains as disturbing as the day bush created his pay-off scheme for religioinist gop voters.
Well, I tend to think that this concern with the separataion of church and state has more to do with people making up their own rule for the First Amendment, and then “enforcing” them. Not unlike the Pledge of Allegiance litigant in California.
<
p>This thread reminds me of the “Ick, he’s a mormon, gross” threads about Romney. Coupled with the long-standing complaints about Obama (and Clinton) even mentioning God, I think it is fair evidence of hostility at least on BMG.
<
p>In any event, I don’t think BMG is even slightly representative of Democrats, nationally, or even in Massachusetts, so it will be interesting to see how this plays out in the near term.
the rather specific issues people have with the blurring of church/state lines into one that you find conveniently silly and/or hostile so that you can apply your broad-brush of disdain to those who object.
<
p>Moreover, while you may find what people here are saying equivalent to, “Ick, he’s a mormon, gross,” I would argue your characterization is unfair and unnecessarily insulting. No one here is behaving or speaking like a 4th grader at recess. No one here is disrespecting particular religious faiths or the people who hold those faiths. I can see where it would be in your rhetorical interest, though, to suggest these things anyway.
<
p>You may be fine with your tax dollars going to religious institutions and organizations, but many rational and productive citizens are not. Bush’s own faith-based initiative guy, David Kuo, resigned from the post in disgust because it became clear to him that the agenda was to both reward Bush’s religious right buddies and to finance the sociopolitical agenda of a particular brand of evangelical Christianity rather than to make an already difficult premise work fairly and responsibly.
<
p>Maybe David Kuo thinks Mormons are icky, too?
Maybe David Kuo would be willing to return to the post next January, though, and implement the idea properly.
<
p>If we abolished every idea or program that was abused by the Bush administration, the government would be pretty small indeed. This strikes me a pure shortsightedness: as when Bush eviscerated AmeriCorps not because it was bad or objectionable, but only because it was a Clinton program, and they f–king hated– HATED!– that guy.
<
p>And it seems pretty clear that it isn’t the specifics of the propgram that has everyone so upset as it is that Obama is reaching out, to those people. Just taking about it makes people want to barf. Etc. Never mind that those people actually share some common ground with liberal Democrats on some issues, even if bitterly opposed on others.
<
p>Never mind those things though, being bitterly opposed is much more important. Why can’t he call them a disgrace to the the nation– and superstitious bigots– in the eyes of the world, or something, instead?
<
p>As far as the Romnet threads go, I thought, and think, that they reflect very, very badly on so-called progressives and progressivism, and so stated at the time, at which Romney really looked like the front runner. He’s a Mormon, they wear funny underwear, he’ll take orders from the elders, they’re frauds, the entire religion is a scam, they believe in things that are bizzare, anyone who would place himself in such company is psychologically unfit to lead– all touted as reasons that Romney should not be President. As I stated at the time, there were plenty of reasons Romney should not be President, but the use of Mormonism as a handy weapon when he seemed strong, was pretty low indeed.
it’s a discussion on the appropriate separation of church and state. You may invoke all these stories about Romney’s religion as if they are some sort of official barometer of liberal religious intolerance, but no one will take you seriously. Mitt Romney and everything about him has been reduced to nothing more than a joke around here, something to poke fun at. Such is the nature of blog participation. Blogs are not a reflection or indication of the way the general population thinks. We mock him largely for rhetorical giggles. So what.
<
p>As for Kuo, well, based on his book, he’s pretty well done with the whole idea. In a perfect world, maybe.
<
p>Religion in this nation is a fetish, and to some extent, our founding fathers were prescient in their understanding. (Gee, what a surprise.) The absence of Christianity and God in our Constitution is noteworthy. They, apparently, had it together in ways society continually fails to both understand and appreciate.
<
p>You apparently like the idea of faith-based initiatives, and we can infer that your affection for the idea is consistent with your own faith-based values. You have a dog in this fight, you see, as do I. Fortunately, in my view, the Constitution has made it fairly clear that your dog should rightfully lose. Using comments on this blog or distorting the tone and tenor of entire exchanges, however, to support your version of the Constitution just seems silly.
is merely this.
<
p>During the last 30 years, many/most liberals, have thoroughly surrendered religious voters to Republicans. What was once a pillar of the New Deal coalition was deliberately abandoned.
<
p>In the wake of this abandonment, the religious voter came to be identified with evangelicals and social conservative culture warriors, although these represent only a tiny minority of religious voters. So this minority managed to drag, in no small measure because of the extensiveness of religious networks on the ground, the lion’s share of religious voters into the the GOP. There, they have formed the backbone of the party, sustaining Congressional majorities from 1994-2006, and winning 7 of the last 9 presidential elections.
<
p>In my view, the evangelical influence in the GOP have not been good for the country.
<
p>So, in 2008, here comes a guy that can credibly reach out to religious voters, who aren’t as conservative as the evangelicals, and who have been very isolated from the Democratic party for decades. If he can reach out and keep any decent number of these voters, he ends that isolation, and maybe breaks the political power of the evangelical wing of the GOP.
<
p>For this, he is vilified. And re-read the thread. Not all for proposing a program that is purportedly unconstitutional (under a “progressive reading” of the 1st Amendment) but for reaching out, period. That is a shame.
<
p>So my dog is this: I don’t care for whatever new constitutional right progressives are dreaming up. I am skeptical of single payer health care. I’m not confident that a hasty withdrawl from Iraq is even remotely wise. I’m not entirely convinced that progressive proposals to cure climate change aren’t worse than the disease.
<
p>I would like to see the Santorum wing of the Republican party broken. I understand that this will not happen when the secular, atheist liberals stand triumphant over the corpse of the religious body politic, but when religious voters regain the political diversity that they had for most of the first two centuries of the Republic.
<
p>
with anything you’re written here, except the bit about “atheist liberals stand triumphant” is really inaccurate and over the top. Triumphant over what, exactly? All of the public opinion we sway? That’s just silly. If we’re (?) triumphant in anything it’s forcing the courts, who are not atheist liberals by and large, to apply the Constitution to its decisions and lo and behold, some times (if not often) we’re right. And who gets mad at these things? Christians and others who can’t be bothered to actually spend any time understanding what their Constitution demands. They want accommodations to their own sensibilities because they want them. Sorry, that’s not how the system works.
<
p>As for the body politic, not a rational person on the earth can claim that “atheist liberals” have had inordinate influence over the Democratic Party. That is the facile suggestion of those who simply want to mix a little ol’ time religion with their voting. Democratic party politics has generally held that a strong wall is a good thing on Constitutional grounds, not anti-religious grounds, and that’s an important distinction.
<
p>Now, if the goal is to attract a brand of Christian voter to the Democratic party, that is going to be hard based solely on this principle. The right has been very successful in framing abortion, prayer, guns, and gay rights as issues of religious importance, and the voter who tends conservative on these issues may naturally drift there. The only way to get that voter back is to appeal to their economic interests, and a faith-based initiative is not going to do that.
<
p>In short, sorta, the faith-based initiative is not going to accomplish the goal of attracting evangelical voters to the party. The only way to attract these voters is for the Democratic party to fundamentally change its foundational principles and that sort of pandering will not be a strengthening move. Indeed, it will be the Republicanizing of the Democratic party, a death knell. Studies show that new Democrats have enrolled this year in record numbers. We don’t need to compromise our principles to increase our numbers.
… that this GOP grab for religious voters didn’t really work in terms of wishing them to vote based on an appeal to their religious beliefs. Rather, economic issues still played the same preference in their voting patters.
<
p>From his paper What’s the Matter with What’s the Matter with Kansas? :
<
p>From the first page:
From further in:
And later:
<
p>I think that the GOP managed to sway ideas about what was in the economic interest of people. The idea that cutting taxes and eliminating regulation, and downsizing government is always and under all circumstances an axiomatic economic good was produced as a meme that allowed people the comfort to vote GOP on economic grounds, despite GOP policies being counterproductive to much economic self interest in reality. I suspect that this successful transformation of the perception of their economic policies from being ‘good for the economic elite’ to ‘good for everyone’, eased the cognitive dissonance among large segments of religious voters. Without this meme, if Bartels’ trends in the data were to hold, many religious voters would break from the GOP, not on religious grounds but economic ones. It would seem that, ironically, breaking the economic memes of the GOP might be the key to enticing religious voters. Indeed, despite the momentum on the liberal front concerning gay rights and not much motion from the left away from abortion rights, the GOP is nonetheless losing ground (no specific cite, but probably among the religious voters as well), probably on the basis of self-evident failure of their non-religious platforms. So a case can be made that, contrary to perception, religion isn’t the glue that holds the GOP coalition together.
For Obama’s sake, let’s hope that the religious come out in droves for him (good luck with that), and overcome the fact that policies like these are taking the enthusiasm out of people who brought him where he is. He popped my balloon.
<
p>Also, let’s hope that they contribute some money, because I won’t. I did it twice so far, but I can’t in good faith do it again (pun intended).
<
p>Let’s also hope that they may knock on some doors in NH where the election will be close, because I won’t. I did briefly contemplate doing it, but I would have to deeply care about a candidate to do so.
<
p>Considering the alternative, I still may vote for him. If I have time and feel like it come election day. Or I may not. And frankly, right now, I could give a #### if he becomes president.
This thread indicates to me just how far out of the mainstream the “progressives” are. Truly, the reaction here is as if he suggested that he wants Rick Santorum to replace J.P. Stevens on the Supreme Court or reinstitute capital punishment for abortion seekers, instead of reaching out to a h-u-g-e swath of voters that actually agree with liberals on certain poverty/social services issues, even while disagreeing with them vehemently on various culture war issues.
<
p>In other words, he is trying to break the Republican coalition that produced the Santorums of the world, rather than letting rise again in 2010.
<
p>If the hand-wringing angst among the progressives receives any kind of coverage in the MSM, it really helps his effort to appear post-partisan by making it clear that he is not bound to the liberal advocates of endless, pointless, bitter partisanship.
<
p>Also, it takes all the air out of McCain’s recent line that Obama is only bipartisan when Republicans are willling to take political heat to break with their party.
Let’s look at the facts:
<
p>More than 90% of American adults believe in the existence of “God”
<
p>Nearly two-thirds of American adults believe that God is a person with whom people can have a relationship.
<
p>Large majorities believe in life after death (74%) and believe that the Bible is the word of God (63%).
<
p>These statistics are from the well-respected and large Pew research survey available here: http://religions.pewforum.org/…
<
p>If our country were perfect, I could live with this massive amount of delusion. But it’s not. It needs a lot of help from people, politicians and government.
<
p>The delusions that there is a God (a personal God at that!), that there is life after death and that the Bible is the “word of God” are all very damaging to our public discourse. The fact that so many people believe those things is a major reason why we continue to have a huge amount of social injustice absurd criminal justice policies, and widespread intolerance. If our government were more secular, things would improve.
<
p>Having this argument may be almost pointless and seemingly endless but I continue to think that whether to have a secular or religious government is probably the most important argument a country can engage in. I’m willing to continue to discuss it for at least as long as the Michael Savages of the world.
<
p>Note, though, I agree with you that I don’t think it is wise or good political strategy for Obama to join me in that nearly pointless fight. I just continue to hope that my life time will see a day when a person can run for President without having had their views shaped by the Reverend Wrights and Pastor Hagees of the world.
<
p>
I object to your disrespect toward faith, though I’m glad you acknowledged the statistics about belief. The existence or non-existence of God is matter of what we Protestants call “faith alone”. You cannot prove or disprove His existence and you shouldn’t talk as if you can. Personally, I believe God exists in the hearts of believers, so if I say God exists, then for me He does. If you say that God does not exist, then for you He doesn’t. Both of these beliefs can simultaneously be true for each of us respectively. This is absolutely not objective and neither side should act as if they can prove their case via the scientific method. If you want official athiesm in government there’s always China. I believe the US government is and should be officially agnostic, though I have no problem with vaguely theistic statements like “In God We Trust” as long as they remain general and don’t endorse a particular theology.
Actually, you slightly but importantly mischarecterize the doctrine of sola fide (“faith alone”) here.
<
p>The doctrine is not really about the existence of God itself but about forgiveness of sin. “Faith alone” is the belief that personal faith in the existence of God (and/or Jesus) is enough (absent and seperate from any “good works” on Earth) to be forgiven and to make it in to heaven.
<
p>To me, this particular theology is even more dangerous to our political discourse and society than one that focuses instead on “good works”. As an atheist, I believe I in “good works” because I support the Golden Rule as a good general guideline that will make life better for me and everyone else. At least those who believe in a “last judegment” are more likely to join me in this quest.
<
p>You “faith alone” folks ought to (and in many case do) just sit back, concentrate on your central delusion and hope for the best in the after-life. Not the best approach to building a civil society, in my opinion.
…I was ready to rate this a 5, except you insist on referring to belief as “delusion”. I agree that faith alone is generally about forgiveness and grace and maybe I should not have made that particular reference. The point is not to try to use the methods of enlightened rationalism to prove or disprove the existence of God, but rather simply rely on faith.
Loves ’em — just fakin’ it for the rubes
<
p>From dictionary.com
<
p>Noun Informal.
an unsophisticated person from a rural area; hick.
<
p>The constant degrading of those who may “believe” is another example of the disgusting elitism of many (not all) progressives. I make no comment here about what I believe or do not believe. You are all so inclusive, right?
and maybe say some religious-type things again in 2012. Maybe he’ll even bust out the old “It is harder for the rich man to get into heaven than for the camel to get through the eye of the needle.” (Matthew 19:24) Then, after he wins again, he’ll be the best president you’ve ever seen.
Knock on wood.
When I heard about this proposal my first thought was “Who is this guy?” I’m not sure I understand who Senator Obama is, or what he will do if elected.
Partnering with Communities of Faith
<
p>Obama will create a President’s Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships
<
p>As Barack Obama has said many times, he believes that change comes not from the top-down, but from the bottom-up, and few are closer to the people than our churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques. And many of the challenges we face today-from saving our planet to ending poverty-are simply too big for government to solve alone. We need all hands on deck.
<
p>That’s why Obama will help draw on the strength of these groups through the creation of a new President’s Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. The new name will reflect a new commitment. This Council will not just be another name on the White House organization chart – it will be a critical part of Obama’s administration.
<
p>Obama does not believe that faith-based groups are an alternative to government or secular nonprofits, or that they’re better at lifting people but what he does believe is that we all have to work together to meet the challenges of the 21st Century. Obama’s Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships will help empower grassroots faith-based and community groups to help meet these challenges.
<
p>The partnership will not endanger the separation of church and state-but will harness the energy of these critical groups
<
p>The new partnership will not endanger the separation of church and state, so long as a few basic principles are followed. First, if an organization gets a federal grant, it will not be permitted to use that grant money to proselytize to the people it serves, and the group will be forbidden to discriminate against them on the basis of their religion.
<
p>Groups will also be forbidden to discriminate against them on the basis of their religion. And groups will be required to comply with federal anti-discrimination laws in their hiring practices-including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
<
p>Second, federal dollars that go to faith-based organizations can only support secular programs. And Obama will ensure that taxpayer dollars only go to those programs that actually work.
<
p>Innovative new programs: training larger organizations to support smaller ones, and expanding summer learning programs to serve one million students
<
p>Barack Obama will work with the hundreds of religious and community groups that understand the process to train the thousands of groups that don’t. The Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships will “train the trainers” by giving larger faith-based partners like Catholic Charities and Lutheran Services-and secular nonprofits like Public/Private Ventures-the support they need to help other groups build and run effective programs.
<
p>And the Council will target key challenges like closing the achievement gap. Obama will expand nonprofit summer learning programs to serve one million students by developing partnerships with faith-based and community groups. This partnership won’t just help children learn-it will help keep them off the streets during the summer so they don’t turn to crime.
<
p>Q&A Concerning This Morning’s AP Story
<
p>Q: Does Senator Obama believe that religious groups should be able to discriminate in their hiring practices? The AP suggested this morning that he be open to this.
<
p>Not for government-funded programs that that receive taxpayer dollars. Senator Obama’s position on this is clear: If a faith-based group receives a federal contract or grant to provide a service, they should not be discriminating with taxpayer dollars. Period.
<
p>He firmly believes in the principle of non-discrimination in our hiring laws – principles that have been on the books for over four decades. Taxpayer dollars should not be used to support hiring discrimination and religious organizations that receive federal dollars cannot discriminate with respect to hiring for government-funded social service programs – just like any other federal contractor.
<
p>.
<
p>It’s important to remember that many faith-based organizations already hire diverse staffs, including many who don’t share their religious beliefs. Head Start is a good example of this.
<
p>Numerous studies demonstrate that the vast majority of religious nonprofits performing these services do not hire only people who share their particular religious views. And Senator Obama saw this in his own experience as a community organizer, when his work was funded in part by the Catholic Church – even though he was not a Catholic.
<
p>Whatever uncertainty there is about employment rights here reflects Bush administration executive orders, which Senator Obama would promptly reverse.
<
p>Obama says he doesn’t support discrimination in hiring or firing – what about on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity?
<
p>Let’s be clear: Obama’s position on religious hiring rights is a return to the state of the law before the Bush Administration took office and muddied the waters with various executive orders. There are of course difficult questions that will have to be worked out, but his position on the basic principle is clear.
<
p>At a minimum, Senator Obama believes that race-, sex- and pregnancy-based discrimination in federal funded programs are and should be prohibited. Moreover, federal funding recipients – including faith-based organizations – should have to comply with existing federal, state and local laws, including laws prohibiting discrimination based on religion, sexual orientation, or gender identity. To the extent that existing federal, state and local laws prohibit such discrimination in particular government-funded programs, the President Council’s will help faith-based organizations comply with those laws.
<
p>Sexual orientation and gender identity are currently not protected categories under existing federal antidiscrimination law – and the Senator and others are working hard in Congress to ensure that we pass the Employment Non-discrimination Act (ENDA), so that employment discrimination on those bases is not permitted. He will continue to fight for ENDA’s passage as president.
I consider myself an eh-theist: I haven’t made up my mind yet and don’t feel the need to do so any time soon. That being said, I do feel the need to comment on a few points…
<
p>1. Non-profit institutions (both secular and otherwise), provide critical services, especially for underserved populations throughout America. It is lunacy for our Government not to partner with them to best serve those who need assistance.
<
p>2. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” – Partnering with religious institutions is not the same thing as a government-endorsed religion. Displaying nativity scenes on public grounds, ten commandments in the courtroom: those are examples of the Government specifically endorsing a religion. This is a case of government partnering with an organization to deliver services in the most effective way possible.
<
p>3. That being said, this is an area that needs to be closely watched.
– There need to be set standards for non-profit partnership that are uniformly applied (so that no preference is given to any specific religion or organization).
– There need to be rules (that seem to be part of Obama’s proposal), ensuring that the government funds are used only for their intended purpose and not to further the religious cause of the organization.
<
p>This will require oversight and scrutiny, but it’s not inherently a bad thing.
Points one and three are well taken…I differ with your interpretation in point number two. I do believe that spending tax dollars in support of faith based organizations that provide critical services (see number one) is a breach of the first Amendment. The line was crossed by the Worst President Ever (WPE)- Bush Administration. The WPE simultaneously gutted social services, education, law enforcement, community development block grants and other critical services while appealing to the faith based sentiments of the majority of Americans….just another sleight of hand that needs to be de-constructed with partnerships reformed to serve the citizenry and comply with the Constitution.
We might do better to list the things that Bush has done that are constitutional, rather than unconstitutional, in order to save time.
<
p>Bush has engaged in unconstitutional expansion of the Presidential war waging powers. Does this mean that the waging of war, any war, is unconstitutional? Well, that depends.
<
p>So it is with this initiative.
In Bush’s actions, I never saw anything to reassure me that partnering with religious institutions was about services as opposed to being about religion. So far, based on what Obama has said, he seems to understand that there would need to be safeguards in place to ensure that institutions are chosen based on their ability to provide services, not their religious affiliation.
<
p>This is an area that, in the wrong hands, has the potential to cross the line that needs to exist between government and religion. But as I said above, it’s also not something we should dismiss out-of-hand, because there is a lot of opportunity to do good that shouldn’t go to waste.
I’m not the only one he’s lost with this nonsense.
They’ve got thousands of semi-anonymous posts but they make me solve a math problem and endure some kind of a five-day waiting period in order to post something? A little annoying, and anti-free speech (although I understand some degree of troll control is necessary). Does everybody have to have a “homepage” these days?