The Rapture Party
The way things have been shaping up, over the last couple of weeks, it looks like we no longer have a Republican party, or a Democratic party, we now have a Rapture party. And, the way things are going, instead of pledging allegiance facing a flag, we may soon be pledging allegiance to a cross.
In the past week, both presidential candidates McCain and Obama have had high profile photo ops, and pow-wows, with evangelist Billy Graham, and his son, Franklin. McCain has even prayer, with Frankin, "for God's will to be done in this upcoming election." And, while the senator from Arizona envisons America as a "Christian nation," the senator from Illinois is quick to point out that faith, for him, is a "personal commitment to Christ."
Yes, and both the Republican and Democratic presidential contenders are enraptured by the thought of the Second Coming, and both have ideas for an Apocalypse on the installment plan. After all, for some, the war in Iraq wasn't just about acquisition of oil, but about establishing, through military means, the Lord's dominion on earth, and breaking down any pesky little irritations like constitutional amendments, the First Amendment, that insist legislators "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
But, luckily for McCain and Obama, sodomy laws don't apply to what they're now doing to the First Amendment. And, while the senator from Illinois touts what he considers the Second Amendment right to bear arms, we don't hear a peep from him about any constitutional guarantees of separation between church and state. Indeed, while both Bush and McCain are proponents of privatizing social security and health care, Obama now supports privatizing anti-poverty efforts by turning them over to clergy, and religious organizations, thereby seculariing clergy and endowing government with religious powers.
On a trip to Zanesville, Ohio, yesterday, the Illinois senator said that the country's current challenges "are simply too big for government to solve alone," and that, if elected president, he plans to enhance Bush's faith-based initiative by steering taxpayer federal bucks, formerly used on social service agencies, to religious groups, and renaming the president's program the "Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships."
Obama pledges to expand the budget for social services by another half a billion a year which would go to an education fund for poor youngsters.
Apart from looking to religious organizations for funding, Obama's plan will also allow them to hire and fire based on faith, but only when there is no taxpayer money involved.
The idea of looking to the local church, or YMCA, to provide food, shelter, and sustenance to the indigent instead of to the government is ludicrous, and insolent, when one compares the Pentagon budget to that of one's church. What's more, a budget of $500 million a year for one million indigent inner city youngsters is a drop in the bucket when compared with the obscenity of an estimated $3 trillion spent on the war in Iraq, and many millions more approved for future military exploits.
Frankly, any proposal to let religious charities be earmarked for federal funding only if they use religious observance as a criterion for endowment is strongly reminiscent of the programs that use abstinence-only requirements in order to secure HIV/AIDS funding. This is not only reactionary, but dangerous thinking.
The president and Obama agree that faith-based organizations have a much larger role to play in serving those most needy among us, but Bush backs permitting all religious organizations to make employment decisions based on religious belief whereas Obama would only faith-based employment as long as there are no tax dollars going to the charity in question. Moreover, Obama and McCain agree on the importance of Christian faith -- McCain calling this a "Christian nation," and Obama talking about the role his Christian faith played in his work as a community organizer to "fulfill God's will," and do "the Lord's work." (AP)
Thomas Jefferson would be rolling over in his grave were he to hear this nonsense from either of the contenders for the presidency for, as you recall, it was Jefferson who wrote "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest of ignorance of which their civil as well as their religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes." Indeed, and avail they will.
With this talk of doing the Lord's work, his recent professions of pulp patriotism, his defense of McCain's military service, and references to Ronald Reagan, not to mention response to Supreme Court rulings overturning the death penalty and the D.C. handgun ban, as well as his endorsement of the latest FISA legislation that includes retroactive immunity for telecoms that engaged in electronic surveillance, thereby becoming agents of the National Security Agency, Senator Obama reminds us of another senator, Bill McKay, in the 1972 box office hit, The Candidate. McKay, played by Robert Redford, was a liberal lawyer with no political ambition who was chosen, and primed, to run for an important Senate seat against a popular Republican. Many saw parallels between the character of McKay, and that of John F. Kennedy. The movie's tagline was: "Nothing matters more than winning. Not even what you believe in."
Well, there are more than a few parallels between Bill McKay and Barack Obama not only insofar as McKay's opponent was portrayed as old, and haggard, but inasmuch as, the closer he got to election day, the more McKay's support for abortion rights, and gun control started to wane. Funny thing, the more pliable, and maleable he was to party elders, the more success McKay had in the polls. McKay wins the Senate seat, of course, but he is a shill, and a shell of his former self.
It might be instructive for those, including Sen. Obama, who have yet to see The Candidate, to rent the DVD. Or, as McKay says, at the end of the movie, come January, we may well hear Obama echo the words "Marvin...what do we do now?"
Follow Jayne Lyn Stahl on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jaynelynstahl
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
And just how does one determine if federal dollars aren't being used to proselytize?
"And just how does one determine if federal dollars aren't being used to proselytize?"
The money is almost exclusively being used to proselytize. In God's politics words like 'proselytize' and 'torture' and 'discrimination' mean whatever the speaker wants them to men.
"Indeed, while both Bush and McCain are proponents of privatizing social security and health care, Obama now supports privatizing anti-poverty efforts by turning them over to clergy, and religious organizations, thereby seculariing clergy and endowing government with religious powers."
That is an inaccurate generalization. Obama said he would continue working with religious groups. You neglect to mention that Obama also said that religious groups would not be able to use federal money to hire people based on their religion or proselytize.
I am also annoyed by the over representation of Christianity in today's politics. However, I wouldn't write an article using illegitimate arguments to make my point.
According to their doctrine of faith, evangelicals MUST proselytize. It is not a choice. Do we exclude them from receiving federal funds? Of course not - we'll "monitor" it.
Meanwhile, someone hands a hungry person infected with HIV a bowl of soup and a pamphlet that says he is a sinner and will go to hell if he doesn't believe in their mythical creature; and just maybe, if he believes strongly enough, this mythical creature will cure him of his HIV infection. What's the harm? I think that is a good use of our tax dollars, don't you?
As a evangelical Christian, I have been against "faith-based initiatives" (and GWB himself for that matter) since their inception by the Bush administration, and do not favor Obama's plan either. The reason isn't so much that our nation will become a theocracy. I think there is little danger of that.
The problem is that these things cut both ways. Faith groups should be equally concerned about government intrusion into their programs, churches and organizations. Truly, the two entities - church and state - are very different in a number of ways, not the least of which is the natural exclusivity of specific faiths and the inclusivity of government which is for all the people, by all the people. Working separately, a free government such as ours and active religious groups enhance and strengthen each other, and fill in the spaces the other misses. But mixed and intertwined, the role of each becomes diluted.
I understand that Obama's community organizing background gives him insight into the value of both government and religious groups. I hope, however, that he will realize that the two should not be combined and that they are most effective working side by side.
How will we know when the Rapture has occurred? When all these jerks disappear.
AMEN to that!!!
In my home of New Orleans, my mother works for Catholic Charities. The most "religious" this comparatively liberal and compassionate organization EVER gets while helping New Orleanians out of poverty and into mobility is asking applicants if they require referrals for mental health, substance abuse help, or spiritual counsel during the interview process. That's IT. NO proselytizing nor preaching, much less (as some have hilariously suggested here) requiring a declaration of faith or a Christ-y loyalty oath.
I'm an atheist and as antagonistic toward organized religion as they come, but like it or not we face a set of circumstances within which we must work if we actually expect this country to improve anytime soon. Working with this existing infrastructure that has trust and cache in the community (as opposed to the damn government) is more tangible and possible in my view than sitting on our asses and hoping that somehow the entire system will rebuild itself spontaneously. More than anything the shift of many evangelicals encouraging us to protect the Earth has only shown me the desire of most of these people to do right, and that they like all of us can develop more nuanced views of what is right as time goes on. Though evangelicals have ideas and faith I will fundamentally never understand or agree with, we also share many ideas and an inner compassion. It would be truly f*$#ing stupid to neglect and mock the latter for the sake of the former.
I am an agnostic/fallen away Catholic but my experiences with Catholic Charities has been very positive. A lot of this had to do with the compassion of the nuns, not the Catholic hierarchy. Jewish and most mainstream Protestant groups put compassion first.. My experience with and knowledge of evangelicals is very different. My brother is a born-again so I have some personal knowledge. They really prosetylize. It was they who insisted on abstinence programs only for prevention of AIDS.
As an ardent Obama supporter and monthly contributor, I seriously need him to cut this shyt out. He needs to quit trying to court those voters who absolutely won't vote for him. He needs to stick to his message and if those really disaffected Reps and Independents really want change, they'll come on over.
I know that he's a Christian, but courting the Religious Right is darn ridiculous! They'd rather vote for no one instead of voting for him.
I expect getting them to vote for no one is the goal Sparty.
For the record, the allusion to McKay, in "The Candidate," was intended as a caveat to Obama. Not only am I a supporter of Barack Obama, but I have been aware of him for years now, indeed before many who have left comments to this post probably have ever heard his name.
This isn't about Obama---this is larger than any one political candidate that's the point. If power corrupts, then the promise of power corrupts even further. It is more important for Barack Obama to distance himself from the Bush regime now than ever before, and not with words, but actions. The phrase "Faith-based Initiatives" reeks of religious discrimination and, in and of itself, threatens the constitutional separation between church and state. Is there no room for those who are agnostic, atheists, or in the ecclesiastical "other" column in this democracy?
The curtain is falling on hypocrisy, and the standard bearers of power are quickly disintegrating. It's time to go home, Dorothy, the yellow brick road is fading!
The framers would be ashamed, and embarrassed, by what's being done to their Republic, one that the fought hard to win over from those who were declared, not implied, monarchs.
First of all, to all the arm-chair Constitutionalists who have come out of the woodwork on this site since Obama's faith-based initiative proposal: the phrase "separation of Church and State" does not come from the Constitution but from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1808. The establishment clause of the First Amendment only makes explicit that the state cannot establish a state religion and cannot prohibit the free exercise of any religion. While there may be questions on the Constitutionality of faith-based initiatives the question has still not been decided and remains in the hands of the legislative branch and the judicial. Interestingly enough no challenge to Bush's faith-based initiatives has even made it to the Supreme Court. Not to mention, the Office that Obama is proposing would make these funds available to any social service non-profit INCLUDING religious ones (which were previously banned). I think excluding religious organizations is just as dubious on Constitutional grounds. That could be discriminatory. It is illegal in America to discriminate based on religion. Thus, the government is discriminating their use of funds to social service non-profits based upon religion. Now, you can argue with me all you want and that's fine. But don't automatically pronounce that it is unconstitutional. And if you are going to make that claim at least show that you have the brain capable of making the argument.
OhioDem,
Ohiodem,
I'm an Obama supporter, just having a discussion about the best way for government to cooperate with churches toward socially desirable ends such as ending poverty without infringing on Constitutional principles. I'm thinking that the best way to do this is to make the government program that Obama establishes one that creates an alliance between government and church organizations on anti-poverty projects. The government funds disbursed would go to people within the department hired by the government on the basis of their competence to do anti-poverty work and not on the basis of their religion. They would meet with representatives from churches of all faiths to plan and execute projects. Churches would supply whatever funds, churchmembers and church employees they could and the government would supply the rest from their side. Do you think this would work?
I'm pretty sure that is exactly what he said. Also, the programs would have benchmarks to prove they are working rather than just throwing money at a problem.. I don't see anything wrong with this. These community organizations are the ones that we need to depend upon to help the poor and indigent. They know their neighborhoods and can operate much more effectively than a big govt machine...
Second of all, your assertion the constitutionality of federally-funded faith-based initiatives remains in the hands of the legislative and the judicial branches is, well,
WRONG!!!!!
For all you arm-chair internet scholars, read HEIN, then investigate the consequences in PEDREIRA and HINRICHS, and tell me that Roberts and Alito aren't just the slyest judicial activists who have buffered the ability of taxpayers who have been fired and compelled to endure public prayer to bring legitimate complaints against state-funded religious activities.
The question to discuss is whether the expansion of Bush's executive funding of faith-based initiatives is immune to judicial oversight because of HEIN.
"Engel v. Vitale
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK
No. 468 Argued: April 3, 1962 --- Decided: June 25, 1962
Because of the prohibition of the First Amendment against the enactment of any law "respecting an establishment of religion," which is made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, state officials may not compose an official state prayer and require that it be recited in the public schools of the State at the beginning of each school day -- even if the prayer is denominationally neutral and pupils who wish to do so may remain silent or be excused from the room while the prayer is being recited. Pp. 422-436."
So, we have to be sure that these churches are not carrying out any type of prayer before they hand out the soup and bread. We'll have to be sure to monitor that. Handing out pamphlets with prayers included might also be a problem.
Could this article be any more disingenuous than it is? Could it be any more divisive?
Context and what Obama actually said did not seem to matter here!
Obama is a firm believer in the separation of church and state, though you would never no that by how you chose to write this article. He has not suggested that any government programs would be downloaded to churches or others! You made that up. Rapture? Did you hear Obama designate it as appealing to Christians only? No.
Obama has simply suggested that help from community organizations, young people and yes, even churches could make a massive task, easier and should be supported by the government with some restrictions. Is that different than what he is offering to do for young people with helping to pay for their tuition in return for community service? Is reaching out to churches & people of all faith now forbidden because of Bushes entanglements & bizarre faith based restrictions? Are all churches or people of faith going to be judged by a few extremes? Do people not recognize bigotry when it is applied to people of faith?
I'm an ardent heathen but I do not view churches or people of faith with contempt. I understand that organizations of every faith can & often do play major roles in social issues like poverty & now environmental stewardship.
I also understand that the Democratic party has failed miserably at reaching out to people of faith and that has
asking religious organizations to keep their faith-oriented activities separate from their secular-co
note: christianity does not promote environmental stewardshi
Hey, Charlie - I'm a long-time Obama supporter as well as an ardent heathen like yourself, and I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but I think the article has some points worth considering. Although highly talented, Obama is young, untried and untested. We do not know how his integrity will stand up under intense political pressure, and we should maintain a critical and watchful attitude. I forsee problems with handing federal money over to church-based organization. I cannot envision what the "restrictions" would be, or how they would be enforced, and I agree with the article that it is hard to see how to avoid infringing on the First Amendment. On the other hand it must be true that if the churches and the government have a common goal, such as helping the poor and disadvantaged, "the least among us", then surely they ought to be able to co-operate toward this end. Therefore I would keep Obama's suggestion for a "Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships" as a liason department between government anti-poverty efforts and those being conducted by churches, but I would not give tax money to churches. It is already bad enough that churches themselves are not taxed and that phony ministers fleecing their flocks of billions are laughing all the way to the bank.
When religious organizations disperse public tax money at their discretion, they are acting as government agencies.
What happens when their religious beliefs are in conflict with public law? Do they deny payments or services for birth control, morning after pills, abortion, etc.?
"What happens when their religious beliefs are in conflict with public law? Do they deny payments or services for birth control, morning after pills, abortion, etc.?"
Yes of course. Catholic hospitals receiving government funding regularly deny those services and several others.
No. They stop getting funding the next year if they break the law - which in this case would be that you not use the organization receiving funding for evangelizing. Everyone needs to step back and actually read the proposal.
I'm a "true blue" Obama supporter, and I don't really see these "positions" as a move to the center. What am I missing? I guess FISA is the big deal, and I agree with his vote (so maybe I'm not a "true blue" liberal). I would have voted "yes" too (and I'm an ACLU member and would vote to impeach Cheney). Would we really want Bush & Co to continue w/o any FISA oversight (that would have been the by-product if the bill hadn't passed)? And Obama defended McCain's service? Horrors!
Obama was a community organizer who worked with churches in Chicago. I think he saw the churches doing a lot of good. So what's the problem? I believe in separation of church and state, but it doesn't mean that they can't work together for the benefit of a community. I'm from New Orleans so let's use Katrina as an example. FEMA (the government) was pretty worthless. I think the people of New Orleans were pretty happy that there were some religious organizations there to help. Since there appear to be rules / regulations to prevent hiring on the basis of religion as well as proselytizing / indoctrination, his position regarding religious charities is fine by me.
These are not moves to the center. The faith based initiative in particular is a move to the extreme right.
zactly... obama clearly lacks the ability to imagine how we as a people can organize ourselves in ways without resorting to faith... why can't we just believe in each other and leave our gods out of it?
Not when well over half your population is "Christian" ...
DazedandConfused,
THIS Last.Liber
I WILL SUPPORT Obama in this Election "REGARDLESS"!! He his just the Best Candidate Right Now!!
Would we really want B'ush & Co to continue w/o any FISA oversight (that would have been the by-product if the bill hadn't passed)?
----------
So what exactly do you think is going to happen in the next 6 months if we don't pass FISA now? O'bama would be better served to leave this alone now and take it up when he is President. Then he can craft a bill that he truly supports rather than voting on a flawed bill like this one is.
I still don't get it. What's the rush O'bama.
give me a break! Clinton also belongs to a secretive upper class fundamentalist type religious "prayer group" in Washington. Is the difference that in her case it is for political purposes?
I disagree that these groups can be forbidden from proselytizing the people they are trying to help--it's just in their nature to try to "bring them to Jesus." So I see this as a fundamental problem in allowing this to continue.
But having said that, even tho I am an atheist, I firmly believe that we would be much better off if everyone lived their life according to the basic tenets of most of the major religions of the world. "love thy neighbor as thyself" for instance, or "love those that hate you, be kind to those that persecute you". We could use a lot more people adhering to those principles in the world.
Jayne,
As you can see, when it comes to mentioning religion and government, it opens a can worms. It is why I believe in an absolute separation of church and state. I am so afraid that these overtures to combine religion and state under the guise of social programs will eventually erode and then destroy that wall of separation. It is why I at first supported John Edwards and later Hillary Clinton and not Barack Obama. I say this, believing anyone of these three is light years ahead of John McCain.
OBHG,
Phil
Obama has always said that morality should guide politics. Let's not get so hung up on who is helping the needy but support their efforts.
Recession == needs beyond measure
Recession == hunger beyond aid
Recession == employment lines beyond the horizon
Mature, rational, moral solutions == every able body going above and beyond
tHANK YOU - GREAT POST!
To keep up the religious analogies;
Obama is just another politician, not "The Second Coming"
He will pander to any group to get their vote, and sell his ass to the highest bidder.
But he's better than McCain so I'll vote for him.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
