Thread: God and Politics, Together Again

Excellent article in the 5SEP10 New York Times. It's a lengthy article, but here is a snippet:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/05/we...olitics&st=cse

From God and Politics, Together Again
By SAM TANENHAUS
Published: September 4, 2010

To an early supporter like the writer Andrew Sullivan, Mr. Obama’s religious journey offered possible deliverance from decades of ideological strife. “He was brought up in a nonreligious home and converted to Christianity as an adult,” Mr. Sullivan observed in a celebrated essay in the December 2007 issue of The Atlantic. “But — critically — he is not born-again. His faith, at once real and measured, hot and cool — lives at the center of the American religious experience.”

In retrospect the idea seems not only mistaken, but perhaps misbegotten, for it was premised on a misreading of America’s ideological warfare, in particular the influence of evangelical religion on the tenor of American politics.

Mr. Obama’s religious views, real or imagined, have been a matter of controversy for some time. To cite the most obvious example, the major crisis of his presidential candidacy grew out of his close relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, a prominent adherent of liberation theology, with its sometimes militant preachments. It was the mounting criticism of Mr. Obama that prompted his historic address in Philadelphia, instantly known as “the race speech,” though in places it resembled a sermon.

“In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the world’s great religions demand — that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us,” Mr. Obama said. “Let us be our brother’s keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sister’s keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.”

As president, Mr. Obama has exhibited a more cerebral religious temper — the “measured” faith praised by Mr. Sullivan. But it too appears to have alienated, or at least confused, much of the electorate, not just Mr. Beck. According to poll results released in mid-August by the Pew Research Center, only a third of those interviewed were aware that Mr. Obama is a practicing Christian — a considerably smaller percentage than in 2008, when Mr. Obama was far less known to the general public — and today a higher percentage think he’s a Muslim than did during the presidential election.

What, exactly, is his brand of Christianity? If it is not hard to recognize, neither is it easily defined, to judge at least by his various discussions of the subject. There is, for instance, the “Call to Renewal” speechhe gave in Washington in 2006, in which he urged believers, whatever their faith, to question the morality of “a trillion dollars being taken out of social programs to go to a handful of folks who don’t need and weren’t even asking for it.”

This is not liberation theology, with its assertion that God favors the oppressed, but it does echo the Social Gospel, the movement that a century ago called for Christianity to “add its moral force to the social and economic forces making for a nobler organization of society” with churches actively ameliorating “the burden of poverty,” in the words of the movement’s leader, Walter Rauschenbusch.

And yet Mr. Obama is also an admirer of Reinhold Niebuhr, the theologian who rejected what he considered the naïve moralism of the Social Gospel. From Niebuhr, Mr. Obama has said, he got the message “that there’s serious evil in the world, and hardship and pain. And we should be humble and modest in our belief we can eliminate those things.”

The tension between these two religious ideas — one wedded to progress, the other mindful of the limits of worldly activism — reflects the broader tension in Mr. Obama’s liberalism, itself divided between an enthusiasm for bold policy initiatives and a pragmatic understanding that some things can’t be fixed or even much changed through politics.

There is nothing unusual in this balance. It is the same one that any number of presidents, Republican and Democrat alike, have tried to maintain, whether reformers on the left like Franklin D. Roosevelt, or on the right like Ronald Reagan.

They, too, were polarizing figures. But each outflanked the opposition by making broad appeals to the public, exactly what Mr. Obama has recently been unable to do.

This is a very interesting article. I'm getting a very strong feeling many/most of the liberals on this forum don't seem to understand they voted for a christian.

From your source.

....This is not liberation theology, with its assertion that God favors the oppressed, but it does echo the Social Gospel, the movement that a century ago called for Christianity to “add its moral force to the social and economic forces making for a nobler organization of society” with churches actively ameliorating “the burden of poverty,” in the words of the movement’s leader, Walter Rauschenbusch.....

If I'm not mistaken this is refering to the rather strong connection between the early progressive movement of teddy roosevelt and the churches. Shocker for today's progressives is the progressive movement until ww2 was pretty much a christian dominated movement.

From your source.

...It is rooted instead in the 1970s, a decade of economic distress parallel to today’s. Conflicts then had less to do with extremist threats to the social order — from, say, the Weather Underground on the left and the John Birch Society on the right — than with battles waged over social changes the government itself enacted, including court-mandated busing, affirmative action and legalized abortion. Many who believed they stood within the mainstream of politics and culture became convinced that their best interests and values were disrespected by the governing class....

This is pretty much what I've been telling you guys since I got here.

I don't think liberals, on this forum or elsewhere, discount Obama's Christianity, or discount Christianity's lead role in the development of the Progressive Era. But some conservatives seem to forget that government intervention in social problems came about because churches said they could not handle those problems alone. They pretend that, somehow, private charity can do an adequate job handing social ills--when their own churches denied this 100-some years ago.

I don't really give a damn what religion my president is. He can be a Neo-Pagan for all I care. I just want him to be a good leader, and do the job I elected him to do. No need to muddy it up with religious affiliation.

Originally Posted by Dutch

I'm getting a very strong feeling many/most of the liberals on this forum don't seem to understand they voted for a christian.

I have a strong feeling that the number of Obama supporters who didn't understand he was a Christian is pretty close to the number on the other side who thought he was Muslim.

Originally Posted by boontito

I have a strong feeling that the number of Obama supporters who didn't understand he was a Christian is pretty close to the number on the other side who thought he was Muslim.

LOL. Agreed. It's pretty well known he was a Christian since, as the article points out, his opponents made a huge deal about his being in Rev. Wright's congregation. Only a complete moron would think he's a Muslim and/or a Kenyan.

Mr. Obama’s religious views, real or imagined, have been a matter of controversy for some time. To cite the most obvious example, the major crisis of his presidential candidacy grew out of his close relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, a prominent adherent of liberation theology, with its sometimes militant preachments. It was the mounting criticism of Mr. Obama that prompted his historic address in Philadelphia, instantly known as “the race speech,” though in places it resembled a sermon.

As the article goes on to say,

As president, Mr. Obama has exhibited a more cerebral religious temper — the “measured” faith praised by Mr. Sullivan. But it too appears to have alienated, or at least confused, much of the electorate, not just Mr. Beck.....yet Mr. Obama is also an admirer of Reinhold Niebuhr, the theologian who rejected what he considered the naïve moralism of the Social Gospel. From Niebuhr, Mr. Obama has said, he got the message “that there’s serious evil in the world, and hardship and pain. And we should be humble and modest in our belief we can eliminate those things.”

The tension between these two religious ideas — one wedded to progress, the other mindful of the limits of worldly activism — reflects the broader tension in Mr. Obama’s liberalism, itself divided between an enthusiasm for bold policy initiatives and a pragmatic understanding that some things can’t be fixed or even much changed through politics.

I agree with this philosophy in a pragmatic application of Christian values in our public laws and governance.

I'm fine with a President being a Christian... it can even be a good trait, asset, or characteristic to have... I just don't want God being given a cabinet level appointment.

Originally Posted by ShawneeMoon

I voted for a man who happened to be a Christian. On the other hand if he had ran on the type of "God" platform that Huckabee and Palin seem to embrace I wouldn't have voted for him.

While I like Huckabee and believe he is sincere, a religious man who seeks the White House to change the laws toward theocracy is violating the intent of our Constitution. Palin, OTOH, seems to use religion as a stick to beat her flagging horse toward her own personal and very secular materialistic goals.