Obama: Orthodox Christians are hijackers

No, they don't hijack airplanes or blow up innocent civilians. Instead, they hijack "faith" and sow the ugly seeds of "divison." The New York Sun reports:

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama accused evangelical leaders yesterday of "hijacking" religion, prompting quick criticism from the Christian right.

The Illinois senator told the national conference of the United Church of Christ, meeting in Hartford, that right-wing evangelical leaders had exploited and politicized religious beliefs.

"Somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together and started being used to drive us apart. It got hijacked," he said.

"Part of it's because of the so-called leaders of the Christian right, who've been all too eager to exploit what divides us," Obama said.

The New York Times has as longer, similar story. FOXNews.com reports that the Democratic senator and presidential hopeful (who is modestly described as "The Answer" by his wife, Michelle) also said:

"At every opportunity, they've told evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage, school prayer and intelligent design," according to an advance copy of his speech.

"There was even a time when the Christian Coalition determined that its number one legislative priority was tax cuts for the rich," Obama said. "I don't know what Bible they're reading, but it doesn't jibe with my version."

I know that it really isn't fair or American to comb through political stump speeches and look for truth, logic, and reality, but I can't help myself. Especially since there appears to be a basic disagreement between Obama and Obama about this alleged act of "hijacking." It may seem a matter of mere chronology, but I think it is much more than that. Take these two sentences, which were apparently uttered in succession:

1). "Somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together and started being used to drive us apart. It got hijacked," he said. In other words, up until some unspecified time in the recent past (1968? 1972? 1992? 2004?) all of us—Americans, I gather—agreed on issues such as abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia, and such. We got along famously and we agreed on matters of faith. And then those right-wing, evangelical zealots came along and began to break up the big, nationwide lovefest by introducing offensive and radical ideas, such as saying that abortion is bad, homosexuality is not normal, euthanasia really isn't "death with dignity," and so forth.

2). "Part of it's because of the so-called leaders of the Christian right, who've been all too eager to exploit what divides us," Wait a second! Now he is saying that there actually already existed a division and disagreement over several important cultural and moral issues, and that those narrow-minded, puritanical theocrats began to exploit it for their nefarious purposes, namely, to get tax cuts.

Of course, Obama himself is above division, which he why he sides with the good, ol' fashioned beliefs of the Founding Fathers: pro-abortion, pro-"same-sex marriage," pro-euthanasia, pro-universal health care, and anti-any and every war. In addition, Obama thinks that "faith" should never be used to oppose any item on the Democratic agenda. After all, enlightened Christians who read the New International Obama Version of the Bible (still under revision, but due out any year now) recognize that Scripture is not only not against "abortion and gay marriage," it clearly condemns the unhealthy, fundamentalist interest in "school prayer and intelligent design."

Which is not to say that Obama is against religion; far from it. A Chicago Tribune piece that covered the same speech begins by stating: "They came to hear a prophet. Some believe they did. ..." and then reports:

Weaving biblical imagery with political promises, Obama, a member of Trinity United Church of Christ on Chicago's South Side, encouraged those in the audience to follow their consciences and fight for a better America.

"Doing the Lord's work is a thread that's run through our politics since the very beginning," Obama told church members. "And it puts the lie to the notion that the separation of church and state in America--a principle we all must uphold and that I have embraced as a constitutional lawyer and most importantly as a Christian--means faith should have no role in public life."

Thank goodness for constitional lawyers who uphold principles that aren't even found in the Constitution! Not to mention Christians who tout "matters of conscience" that include, the Tribune reports, "raising the minimum wage, adopting universal health care, stopping genocide in Darfur, Sudan, ending the Iraq war and embracing immigration reform."

Which is not to say that good people, including Catholics, cannot hold differing views on many of these issues. What I wonder is simply this: how many people really buy into this sort of rhetoric, which is transparently self-serving, confused, and condescending? Specifically, when Obama mocks those Christians who abhore abortion based on a traditional Judeo-Christian understanding of moral basics (that is, killing innocent people is wrong), does this really expand his appeal? I'd like to think it doesn't, but that is obviously the approach he's taking. And it seems to mesh, more or less, with the approach embraced by many "progressive" Catholics who are pro-abortion but would rather emphasize how committed they are to the poor, to women, to social justice, etc., as a June 24th U.S. News and World Report article, titled "Democrats set their sights on winning back Catholics," explains:

A Roman Catholic nun who leads a social justice advocacy group called Network, Simone Campbell rarely got a phone call from Capitol Hill before the 2006 election. Campbell, based in Washington, D.C., says she "wore her knuckles bare" fruitlessly knocking on lawmakers' doors, particularly those of Democrats who should have been natural allies on issues like raising the minimum wage and comprehensive immigration reform.

Then came last year's midterm elections. Campbell joined a new Catholic voter-turnout operation working to reverse the wilting Catholic support Democrats had seen in 2004. After her efforts helped elect Democratic Sens. Sherrod Brown in Ohio and Bob Casey Jr. in Pennsylvania, her phone began ringing. Campbell's group is now regularly invited to meetings with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. On a recent conference call about immigration with other religious activists, Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York announced at the last minute that she wanted to jump on. Campbell was asked to give the closing prayer at a big Democratic National Committee meeting last winter. "I stopped being a pariah," she says. "Now, I'm value added."

What are the beliefs of Sister Simone and Network? According to the Network site, "NETWORK is a progressive voice within the Catholic community that has been influencing Congress in favor of peace and justice for more than 30 years." The site also states that issues are analyzed according to "Principles of Catholic Social Teaching and the Gospel Message," as well as "A feminist/womanist/mujerista perspective that ... respects the diversity of women's experiences in moving from oppression to liberation..." In other words, Sister Simone gives lip service to Catholic teaching but is pro-abortion. Therefore it's no surprise that she has ties with another, better known "progressive" group, Call To Action. Meanwhile, the U.S. News and World Report article goes on to say:

The DNC's new Catholic outreach director, John Kelly, is an alumnus of the Pennsylvania and Ohio campaigns. He has already met with scores of Catholic leaders, devising "practical solutions" on hot-button issues like abortion. Those solutions include three Democratic proposals in Congress to reduce the number of abortions. One, cosponsored by Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro, seeks to help prevent unwanted pregnancies through education and contraception (which is opposed by the Catholic Church) and to provide counseling and economic assistance to low-income, pregnant women to dissuade them from having abortions. DeLauro says Catholics who support abortion rights must stand up against what she considers the church's attacks: "There are people who have used religion and the Eucharist as a political weapon, and we as Catholics have to speak out to define ourselves."Of course, DeLauro and other Catholic Democrats run the risk of seeming to be at loggerheads with their own church. Some in the church hierarchy insist that's the case because the church won't accept any position on abortion that falls short of criminalizing it.

"The primary issue for the Catholic bishops is the life issue," says one highly placed source in the church hierarchy. "Democrats don't have an openness on that issue, and that will always be the block." Some moderate and conservative Catholics, meanwhile, say the Democrats' Catholic outreach so far has focused almost exclusively on liberal social justice organizations. "I've not heard anything from the DNC," says Raymond Flynn, a conservative Catholic Democrat who was ambassador to the Vatican under President Clinton and now leads Catholic Citizenship, a major lay Catholic group.

However it might be padded, spun, and otherwise burnished with the soft cloth of political blathering, the approach accepted by many Democrats seems clear: they will insist that they are not only people of faith, but devout Christians with a deeper, better, more enlightened, more Biblical faith than their cold-hearted, religious right opponents. They will also claim they won't shove their privately-held, pious religious beliefs down other people's throats, but will make it evident to their core supporters that their ideological beliefs should be meekly accepted as a sign of intelligent and obsequious obedience to politically correct doctrine. And they will let pro-abortion Catholics know that they are not only correct in their "pro-choice" position, they are spiritually and morally superior for standing up to those narrow-minded, right-wing, hyper-conservative bishops who dare to criticize them.

In other words: Folks such as Obama are more religious and more spiritual than orthodox Christians, but would never foist their personal religious beliefs on others. However, when it comes to political convictions (which, oddly enough, often involve moral and ethical issues), well, that's a completely different story, probably because they take it for granted that politics is religion, while religion is made for politics. Therefore, politics should never be hijacked by religion, but should make certain that religion serves its proper role as a demure facilitator of political expediency.

Oops, it looks as though I've gone and exploited what divides us.

Comments

[Celestial SeraphiMan]

Let me ask a question. Didn't religious conservatives demand segregation? Didn't they claim that divine and natural law demanded racial purity? Wasn't segregation traditional?

Thank you for your time.

[Tom]

Some did, some didn't. Impossible to generalize.

[Celestial SeraphiMan]

I appreciate the response, Tom.

[John Herreid]

Let me ask a question, CSM: didn't you ask this question several times and get several answers already on numerous other posts?

[Gary Aknos]

Violation of church and state?

Check out full coverage of this at
http://www.ucctruths.com/

And send an email to Americans United for the Separation of Church and State ([email protected]) demanding that the UCC lose it's 501(3(c) tax exempt status because:

From the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State perspective, a political speaker at a religious event has one of two distinct roles: Either they are 1) speaking as a candidate for office or 2) speaking as a non-candidate. If Obama was speaking as a non-candidate (since he was supposedly invited over a year ago before he declared) then his reference to campaign pledges if elected to office clearly violates AU's standard for separation. If he was speaking as a candidate, AU's standards call for equal access by the other candidates for the same office... which didn't appear to happen. In either case, his speeches before the Iowa Conference and the General Synod were a violation of separation by AU's own standards.

From the UCC perspective, there should be no confusion as they publicly advocate for the same rules on separation as AU. Furthermore, UCC leaders and conference ministers understood Obama's status as a declared candidate for some time and, by virtue of their reporting on the Iowa speech a week earlier, also understood that Obama's address would be a campaign speech. The UCC clearly and knowingly violated AU's standard for separation.

[carlos]

Looks like Obama's version of Christianity never included Matthew 10: 34-36: Do not think that I have come to bring peace on earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's foes will be those of his own household. The Gospel necessarily brings division because it's message is so counter-cultural.

People such as Obama, Rick Warren, and Jim Wallis seem to want unity & peace in the culture at all costs. That is why they decry the culture wars as a bad thing. Instead of unity & peace, orthodox Christians seek to announce truth, no matter what it costs them in the end.

[joe]

>Didn't religious conservatives demand segregation?

Yes.

And they also led the abolitionist movement and the womens suffrage movement.

[Celestial SeraphiMan]

I had the impression that only liberals abolished slavery or granted the vote to women.

Oh, by the way, must we shatter unity and peace forever? Must we be always paranoid and angry? Must we always preach truth without love or mercy or human sympathy? Doesn't Christ offer unity and peace in the Him and the Church? What's wrong with offering unity and peace in Christ? Please be careful with your rhetoric and how you use Scripture.

Even if I did ask the questions before, I need to be absolutely certain that I reach at the truth instead of the opinions on one set of pundits.

[John Powers]

Here is a sad statement, "prompting quick criticism from the Christian right"...why is it up to the Christian Right to condemn political grandstanding aimed at Religion? Shouldn't the Left, Center, and Right be nose-to-nose against Obama for using a secular campaign to attack ANY Religious belief?

I wouldn't like it if Sam Brownback attacked the belief of the United Methodists, nor would I like it if Rudy Giulianni attacked the Mormon Religion. Politicians can take the first step in the separation of Church and State, by refraining from attacking the sacred beliefs of others.

One of the good things about Liberalism, in my opinion, is the generally healthy skepticism towards State Sponsored Religion. Obama has taken this to a new low, in using the power of the State to attack the Religious beliefs of those that disagree with him politically.

And for this, he wants to be President?

JBP

[don westervill]

Thanks Gary, I've never understood why Demo candidates get to speak in churches but Repub's are held up to high scrutiny if they do...your comment helped me understand the double standard at work.

[carlos]

Oh, by the way, must we shatter unity and peace forever?

In a word, yes! The gospel message brings out virtues in those who hear and live it but enmity in those who reject it. That is precisely the point of Matthew 10. Of course, one should preach with mercy. It's not the tone of the messenger that the liberals disagree with, though, it's the message itself! Liberals don't want to hear that many of their sacred cows (abortion, embryonic stem cell research, gay marriage) are contrary to the natural and moral law.

[Deacon Harold]

Back in 1989, Janet Jackson led a "Rhythm Nation" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhythm_Nation). Now, unless orthodox Christians who prefer Truth over politics make their voices heard in 2008, we will have an "Obama Nation" (http://www.obamanation.com/).