There is much discussion of Sen. Barack Obama's speech to the General Synod of the United Church of Christ in Hartford, CT. In that speech, Obama made the assertion, that is both obvious and banal, yet heralded as heroic, that the Christian Right "hijacked" Jesus for partisan political ends. I fail to see why this obvious sentiment, having been repeated by many over the years, is somehow "news" except that we have a liberal politician and Presidential candidate saying it. Alas for others who are both Christian and of a progressive and liberal bent, I can only say that this is a less than heartening development.
The vocal and very public rise of the Christian Right has been documented ad nauseum, and I for one believe it is in eclipse, even while it continues to make much noise and have a death-grip upon Republican Party politics, especially in this Presidential Pre-Primary season. Part of the reason I believe that the Christian Right, for all the nuisance it can still cause, and all the noise it still makes, is now and will continue to fade as force to be reckoned with is the dawning realization that the blind support of one political party have failed to yield tangible results, with the possible exception of 44 states banning, either legislatively or constitutionally, same-sex marriage. We are no closer to Christian prayer being mandated in public schools, the removal of evolution from the science curriculum, the outright banning of abortion, or any other of the main themes of the Christian Right than we were thirty years ago. In fact, while the Republicans had a working majority in Congress, they failed to move forward (with one exception) on any of these issues (the exception was the recently upheld so-called "partial-birth abortion" ban). While this has heartened some, most conservative Christians are waking up to the simple fact that they have been used and manipulated by the Republican Party for the purposes of gaining and maintaining power, with no real desire to move forward on their agenda.
Now, Obama is doing for Progressive Christians what first John Connally, then Ronald Reagan, did for the Christian Right - saying things to them they have been saying to others for years, giving them the kind of legitimacy they must have lacked because a politician failed to say them. For me, I would have much preferred than Obama said little about this. I will assume he did so out of good intentions and a serious commitment to progressive Christian views. This does not mean, however, that his political views are in lock-step with those of progressive Christians.
More important is this - even were he elected President, the argument between politically conservative Christians and their liberal counterparts is one that cannot, indeed must not, be a part of public concern. This is an issue to be hashed out between and among Christians, and there is no reason to believe there could be an end to these debates. To me, it is rather troubling that a public figure of Obama's stature would choose to pick sides in a debate that has little to do with public affairs. It is all well and good that Obama takes solace from his faith, and finds his political positions rooted in aspects of his Christian faith. This only reduces Christian debates to partisan bickering, rather than serious question divorced from the various swings within the American electorate.
There are many progressive Christians who are heralding Obama's statement; there are even some non-Christians who are glad. I would much prefer Obama talk about substantive proposals for ending the Iraq occupation, reinstituting Executive submission to Congressional oversight, health care reform, and other issues than chide members of the Christian Church for disagreeing with him. It is unbecoming, and distracting from real issues. It also poses the threat that progressive Christians will be taken for the same ride the Christian Right has been on since the rise of the Moral Majority.
15 comments:
Right on! Truly progressive candidates should not go out on the campaign trail and promote their favorite form of religion, or say and do things that have the effect of using their alleged religious faith to garner votes.
The most interesting thing about Obama is to contrast the positions he took when he was running for the Illinois legislature to those he takes today. He has done a 180 on several of them, such as the Israel/Palestine question.
It appears that Obama is listening to the same gang of political consultants that caused Kerry and Gore to almost lose the popular vote. Maybe he borrowed them from Hillary.
Dude, what Obama said was the equivalent of going to a pipefitters convention and endorsing in-door plumbing.
Obama was in THEIR HOUSE (The UCC). Of COURSE he said something nice to enthuse them and affirm them. Had he not it would have been an insult.
Ya know, I think Southern Baptists are batty as all get-out. But it gets my hackles up when people outside looking in criticize their annual meetings and resolutions.
I mean, anyone should feel free to critize anything said in public. But it's silly to think that a convention center full of fundamentalists shouldn't say they things they say, and invite speakers that echo them. Same with lib Christians, IMHO.
One day when the rivers and streams flow down from the Big Rock Candy Mountain brimming with bubble-up stew, we will all live as brothers in a transcended reality.
Until then, I am absolutely FOR getting libs and moderates excited and energized and repoliticized to run these bastards out of office again. And again.
Politics is what we got to work with. Let's work with it.
Go, go Obama-banana-fana-fo-fama! :-)
ER, you are absolutely right. You don't normally see a contrarian invited to give a speech. I am not upset that Obama gave a speech to a liberal denomination telling them what they knew to be true. It is Obama's role as a public figure of some renown that gives me trouble. What can he possibly do about the hijacking of Christianity by the Right?
Lead its highjacking by the left-lib-emergent church. And I'm not sure I'm kidding. The Reformation wasn't peaceful.
More realistically: Help persuade lib Christianst to WITNESS. Thereby increasing their numbers, and their influence on the church and the state.
I mean, Obama's presence int he WH would be such an encouragement. Just like JFK legitamized Catholics in public life for a lot of people. Obama, already, is helping legitamize progressives by his mere candidacy. And he's bringing positive attention to mainline Christianity that it hasn't had in either of our lifetimes.
Yeah, and someday he'll actually say something. I'm reminded of a cartoon about him where two guys are standing in front of an Obama statue that looks like one of those primitive sculptures, and one says, "Ya know, I'm strangely attracted to him, but I don't know why."
I really don't have a problem with him speaking at the Synod. It's his denomination, too, ya know. Good for him. But if Geoff's report is true, than Obama's spewing crap. This whole "hijacked by the Christian right" nonsense is really just Christians fighting back against what was hijacked by the secular humanists. And who has the right to tell conservative Christians they can't speak out and try to affect policy? They're Americans, too, ain't they?
But let's look at some of the charges for a second:
I don't believe anyone's seeking a mandate for prayer in schools. Most conservative Christians I know would like to see an end to the discrimination against Christian activity, such as not allowing space for a Bible study or religion club as they would for any other after school activity. Students are often given short shrift for essays or stories with a Christian slant, and homosexual students have more rights to speak out about encouraging "tolerance" than do Christian students being tolerated for their opposing views.
There's been no real call for the removal of evolution education, only allowing for alternative theories.
Opposition to homosexuality and abortion are concerns for what's better for the country. I applaud what little progress has been made in those arenas by the Christian right, and pray for more.
It remains to be seen what the true slant of mainline Christianity is. I suspect it leans further right than either of you do, I'm sure. But I'll tell ya what: it ain't the UCC.
Obama is about as far left as one can be and still not be a Stalinist. His Illinois voting record is a horror. He is doing some true manipulating of his own by saying as little as possible in order to deflect any criticism. Here's a hint: anyone who tries to warn against those "who feel they have a monopoly on truth" needs to be shunned. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Why does this, or something like it, always come up?
"And who has the right to tell conservative Christians they can't speak out and try to affect policy?"
No one. I'm not saying that. I'm saying they're wrong, and dangerous.
"Obama is about as far left as one can be and still not be a Stalinist"
Wow.. talk about a narrow definition. From where I sit, Obama is pretty mainstream. Well, except that he's black. Anyway, mainstream candidates are pretty close to the center on most issues. But, to suggest that the rest of the Democratic field is Stalinist.. is well.. Stalinist. And, just how American is that?
Just flashing back to that guy from Lynchburg (what an awful name for a place), Jerry Falwell. Originally, he was against mixing politics with religion. But, it does seem the religious right has passed, not quite to the extent that Falwell has. The Dems seem to be regaining a foothold on topics like helping the poor. It turns out, there is more to being Christian than stopping abortion. That growing income gap is making even rich people sweat.
Marshall, methinks you doth protest too much. The truth is, mandating Christian prayer in public school has been on the public agenda of every Christian Right group from the early days of the Moral Majority until now. Teaching "alternative" means not teaching evolution, because there are no alternatives. Outlawing abortion and gay marriage do not make us a better country; they in fact make us a much worse country. The agenda of the Christian Right is detrimental to the entire history, the Constitution, and the very Spirit of America. Conservative Christians have every right, indeed a duty, to speak out and demand action on items of concern to them.
Liberals, both secular and religious, will push back.
The bigger issue with the Christian Right, for many both secular and religious is the inordinate power they wield compared to any actual numbers they may have. They were financed early on by big money people - the Coors family, the Hunt family ("Bunky" Hunt, the trucking magnate, was the richest man in America until Bill Gates replaced him) - and so they had a limitless supply of money to get their point across, pay off politicians, etc. They have this illusion of power and real influence that is belied by some facts - they have only altered our public discourse in limited ways; they have failed to achieve any meaningful change in our cultural life for the better, and some for the worse; as the first generation of leaders passes on (literally and figuratively), their concerns are no longer reflected in the broad range of concerns of evangelical Christians generally. In other words, the movement is changing and many of those changes are in a more liberal direction.
As for Obama being a Stalinist:
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!
That, and Parklife said it best.
"primitive sculptures"
what? I sure hope I'm misunderstanding this one.
Is he saying that Obamba looks "primitive"?
No, I didn't Parklife. Try re-reading what I said after first removing your pre-conceived notions from before your eyes.
I'm sorry Geoff,
I'm not aware of anyone who is seeking to force prayer in the schools. I know of no one personally who does, either. I doubt you'd find anyone who even believes it's possible. What I would believe is that there may be those who wish to allow prayer for those schools who wish to provide for it. But not a mandate. Big difference.
Teaching "alternative" means teaching something else "in addition" to evolution. Frankly, I don't think ID is ready for it, and I know no one will stand for Creationism, but thus far, the only real attempt I'm aware of was to simply acknowledge that there are alternative possibilities, and people soiled themselves over it.
I look forward to your explanation for how outlawing either abortion or gay marriage will make our country worse.
I don't see that the "agenda of the Christian right" would be all that harmful either. One of the major problems I see when this comes up is that there seems to be this feeling that conservative Christians want to force anything upon the nation. To the contrary, what I see is the desire to persuade people to come back to Christ in a manner that brings about desired changes naturally. Now I'm sure there are tiny pockets, and I mean really small, where a sparse few have spoken as you suggest. But they are as Fred Phelps and have few followers. Conservatives like D. James Kennedy have been painted as a "mandater", but I've never heard or read anything by him that supports that contention.
Libs can push back. That's cool. That's what it's all about, as long as by saying such you mean forming a persuasive argument to win the day. I see a lot of forcing and mandating going on by the left these days, so I'm amused when I hear about what evil men the Bush admin is.
As for Barak, I've seen his voting record as an Illinois senator and I'll put it this way:
Put a gun to my little girl's head and force me to choose between him and Hillary? I'd have to go with Hillary and you can't believe what a knot has formed in my stomach by just typing that.
"Why does this, or something like it, always come up?"
Because that's the impression that's always given. At least I know where YOU stand though, ER. Even though you're wrong.
Parklife,
I've re-read your statement of 10:11AM. Do you have trouble with reading comprhension? My stuff is nowhere near as heavy as Geoff's, yet you've totally gotten me wrong. I said OBAMA is as far left as you can get without being a Stalinist. I didn't say the whole party is Stalinist. They're just unfortunate socialists. But if you think he's mainstream, well then that explains a lot.
And should anyone have any such thoughts about me, race and gender mean nothing to me in selecting a condidate. Leaders as well as jerks come in all shapes and sizes. Watch the next Dem debate for a view of the jerks.
Re, "tiny pockets."
See Focus on the Everything but the Family. James Dobson is out to change the country from the top down, not the bottom up.
ER,
I'll review Dobson's mission and see if it meshes with your perception or mine. From interviews I've heard, I've never heard anything with which anyone should have a problem. But I'll defer until I've done due diligence.
Post a Comment