Barack Obama apparently does not feel that government should solve all the social and economic problems in the U.S. Today he stated that he wishes to expand President Bush’s faith-based initiative programs, and even went as far as to say that he supports the decisions of faith-based organizations to hire according faith. More from MSNBC.
CNN reports that Obama is working hard to energize the Christian vote, working among groups, pastors, and churches that have hitherto been neglected (perhaps taken for granted?) by John McCain.
In apologetics circles, one often hears that a fundamentalist’s worst nightmare is a Catholic with a Bible. Analogically, a Democrat with religion is no doubt the worst nightmare of the so-called “Religious Right.”
Although this is interesting:
Obama does not support requiring religious tests for recipients of aid nor using federal money to proselytize, according to a campaign fact sheet. He also only supports letting religious institutions hire and fire based on faith in the non-taxypayer funded portions of their activities, said a senior adviser to the campaign, who spoke on condition of anonymity to more freely describe the new policy.
I once heard the philosophy of the Democratic party articulated by the Vice President of Democrats for Life: “We Democrats, we lick our thumbs and raise them into the political wind to see which way it blows…this is our strength, we are the party of the people – we serve the people” – something to this effect.
What I see in the Democratic party is a bunch of unprincipled people-pleasers – people who say they will supply whatever it is you say you need. You need health care? Vote Democrat. You need a converter box for your analog TV? Vote Democrat. You want a free college education? Vote Democrat. You need cheaper gas? Vote Democrat. You need more jobs? Vote Democrat. You want to feel good? Vote Democrat – we support the kids, the old, the young, and whatever ‘choices’ you may want to make. Most importantly – we Democrats support your feelings, the feelings you have about what is wrong with the world. The Democrats are the party of feelings, the party of tolerance, and the party that worships the idol progress.
And so because these principles – really the single principle that there are no principles – are so sewn into the fabric of the Democratic party, I don’t fear a Democrat with religion. Generally, religious people see through this scheme. Religious people want leaders who will stand on principles and support principled living more generally.
If the Democrats want religious voters, they should start acting on principles; they should not cater to the passions of the majority. I’d love a principled Democratic party, but I don’t think we’ll see one until the party is reconstituted.
What I see in the Democratic party is a bunch of unprincipled people-pleasers – people who say they will supply whatever it is you say you need. You need health care? Vote Democrat. You need a converter box for your analog TV? Vote Democrat. You want a free college education? Vote Democrat. You need cheaper gas? Vote Democrat. You need more jobs? Vote Democrat.
Unprincipled? How is addressing the concerns of a people (e.g. health care, jobs, college education) “unprincipled people-pleasers”?Perhaps Democrats are trying to fill a void that the Republican party is not filling. If those who are running for office don’t address the concerns of the people they’re going to serve (i.e. health care, jobs, college, etc.) then what are they supposed to address?
Hmm. I have to run, but my 5 second answer is this:
The government exists for the common good – to promote virtue, secure social order, and administer justice.
I prefer the ancient wisdom about government as opposed to the modern idea that the purpose of government is to act as Robin Hood would – stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. I retreat from the idea that the only purpose of government is to redistribute material things.
The government exists for the common good
I agree. Somehow we arrive at different ways in which the government can aid in achieving it.
And yet Obama is pro-abort, pro-death penalty, pro-euthanasia. It’s gonna take a lot of rhetoric to get the rest of us past that fact.
The government exists for the common good – to promote virtue, secure social order, and administer justice.
I prefer the ancient wisdom about government as opposed to the modern idea that the purpose of government is to act as Robin Hood would – stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. I retreat from the idea that the only purpose of government is to redistribute material things.
The hard Right’s “Taxes = Theft” makes about as much sense to me as the hard-Left “Property = Theft” – in that I can probably summon circumstances where either one would be true; we are nowhere near either one of those circumstances now.
Reasonable taxation, which funds programs to help poor people, small businesses and provide health insurance, will make this a better country and serve the common good. No theft involved.
He is merely being all things to all men.
And, it seems he is not alone regarding government’s failure to help its voting dependents.
“Untold trillions have been spent since the ’60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the . . . . into the mainstream ” P. Buchanon
The US still has as many poor people!
Binyamin Applebaum in the Boston Globe:
“[A] Globe review found that thousands of apartments across Chicago that had been built with local, state, and federal subsidies – including several hundred in Obama’s former district – deteriorated so completely that they were no longer habitable.
“Grove Parc and several other prominent failures were developed and managed by Obama’s close friends and political supporters. Those people profited from the subsidies even as many of Obama’s constituents suffered. Tenants lost their homes; surrounding neighborhoods were blighted.”
But, hey $900 billion more to well-healed liberal do-gooders will do it!
Grim proving ground for Obama’s housing policy Boston Globe June 27, 2008. (Just to provide a reference to T. Shaw’s citation, if anybody’s interested in reading).
T. Shaw,
Is it really your argument that money spent on things like food stamps, medical care for the poor, and education is wasted? What about the people who were hungry and could eat because of food stamps? Or the people who needed medical care and got it because of Medicaid? Or homeless people who got shelter? Or people whose education was paid for or partly paid for by Pell Grants?
How about money spent on giving tax deductions for mortgage interest? Oh, that is OK I guess because it helps out good, solid, hard-working middle class folks …. the majority of whom most likely are a “whiter shade of pale.” Can’t be helping out those welfare mothers, Cadillac Queens, etc., can we?
The question is of quality. A Catholic with a Bible is hardly scary is she’s no good with it. Likewise, Democrats touting religion (for political reasons) should be put to the same test. How would they turn out? Well, the Catholic has a potential for sucess, a Democrat, sadly, does not. Why? Well the Catholic is using the her canon, so to speak, and holds a rich tradition of exegisis and more. The Democrat is just as religiously bankrupt as the Republican, and the Fundamentalist, she is working from a place that has no space for religion only for securing the blessings of media controlled hegemony and monopolistic dueling between right and left. In the end, stick with being Catholic, and don’t get to starry-eyed with the Dems, the Repubs, or, even (controversially, to be sure) America (excluding all other American countries, of course). There really is no good analogy to be made.
Another problem is his refusal to defend marriage:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/01/BA8J11I4S1.DTL&tsp=1
Analogically, a Democrat with religion is no doubt the worst nightmare of the so-called “Religious Right.””
Well whatever the Religous right is (am I in the religious right?) I doubt a religious democrat is seen as unknown
“Today he stated that he wishes to expand President Bush’s faith-based initiative programs, and even went as far as to say that he supports the decisions of faith-based organizations to hire according faith. ”
Good I am glad he is saying that and I welcome it
“and churches that have hitherto been neglected (perhaps taken for granted?) by John McCain”
I am not sure that McCain is ignoring the Churches. Let us recall that the McCain campaign is under much more severe limitation financial wise than Obama. Inthis 24 hour news cycle it is sen that we must do it now but an outlay of funds to go after the religious voters willbe coming.
THere does need to be more religious advocates out theere for McCain. Especially the Catholic voice that is slow leaving the gate as far as I am concerned. Again I am not sure how much of this is the fact that perahsp they annot get on TV or it is not organized yet
Speaking of Obama and Religion. Here is is latest Advocacy ad on his behalf that now running
Here’s the ad:
Narrator: “You know it’s an election year when certain people start grabbing headlines by attacking the faith of Presidential candidates. With all these stones being cast at Senator Obama, it can be hard to know what to believe. But in Luke, Jesus taught us that we must listen to what a man says because “out of the overflow of his heart, his mouth speaks.” So here are words from Senator Obama’s heart:
Obama: “I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in people’s lives” “kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side, I felt that I heard God’s spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth.”
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/a_proobama_spot_on_christian_r.php
Hmmm . . . let’s see now. He’s pro-gun, he’s pro-death penalty for sex offenders, he says “all options are on the table” (read, nuclear incineration) for dealing with a country that poses no threat to the U.S., and he wants to funnel even more tax dollars to religious organizations than did his “theocratic” predecessor. He’s either utterly unprincipled or . . . welcome to Bush’s third term, folks. Any liberal, Catholic or otherwise, who votes for this chameleon is either a hypocrite or a damn fool.
“I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth.”
Then I heard Him say, abort the unwanted, the infirm and the diseased. And I followed my Master’s call.
I did not say that taxes were equivalent to theft – they obviously aren’t the same thing.
I was making the simple point – that the government does indeed take from one class of people to give to another. Many people think that is the only purpose of government. I think this is an impoverished understanding.
Any liberal, Catholic or otherwise, who votes for this chameleon is either a hypocrite or a damn fool.
Anyone who votes Republican is either a Satan worshipper or too stupid to breathe on his own.
BTW, if you think he’s a chameleon, you haven’t done any research. But that’s what I expect from a conservative: baseless allegations and the principles of a demon.
Obama has advocated the role of religion in the public square for some time. He delivered a big speech on the matter back in 2006.
“Obama has advocated the role of religion in the public square for some time. He delivered a big speech on the matter back in 2006.”
It goes back longer than that. Remember, Obama got his start in social activism working for a Catholic funded faith based organization.
“that the government does indeed take from one class of people to give to another. Many people think that is the only purpose of government.”
Who are these people? I don’t know any.
Hope Change Faith Ethics
“Obama had no prior relationship with the lender, was taking out a $1.32 million loan below market rates, without paying the customary fees. So what? . . . Barack Obama did precisely what every other politician does, and nothing more. The only reason this story merits any attention is that Obama’s campaign has created a mythology around him that casts him as a reformer.”
Yeah, “Barack Obama: More of the Same” wouldn’t have been much of a slogan.
Is this the ‘faith’ you’re talking about?
Barack Obama on his pastor, Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright:
“As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions – the good and the bad – of the community that he has served diligently for so many years. I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community.” – Speech, March 18, 2008
Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, Barak Obama’s pastor, on Dr. James Cone:
“I do not in any way disagree with Dr. Cone, nor do I diminish the inimitable and incomparable contributions that he has made …” – Speech to the National Press Club, April 28, 2008.
Dr. James Cone, father of Black Liberation Theology, on the meaning of the term:
“Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill Gods who do not belong to the black community … Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love.” – “A Black Theology of Liberation.”
That sounds unlike Christianity. I’d rather he come out of his muslim closet than believe any of that.
I apologize in advance.
An email from Ireland…a point to ponder despite your political affiliation:
‘We, in Ireland, can’t figure out why people are even bothering to hold an election in the United States.
On one side, you have a pants wearing lawyer, married to a lawyer who can’t keep his pants on, who just lost a long and heated primary against a lawyer who goes to the wrong church, who is married to yet another lawyer, who doesn’t even like the country her husband wants to run.
Now…On the other side, you have a nice old war hero whose name starts with the appropriate Mc terminology married to a good looking younger woman who owns a beer distributorship.
What in the Lord’s name are you lads thinking?
HOPE CHANGE FAITH ETHICS ABORTION
T. Shaw,
So Obama is bad because he said good things about Wright, who is bad because he said good things about Cone, who is bad because of the quote you reproduce? I spent about 10 minutes searching the Internet for information about what Cone believes, and when he makes statements like, “If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer . . . .” he is using black/white to mean oppressed/oppressor.
http://www.nathanielturner.com/dialogueonblacktheology.htm
Without equating Cone and Jesus, I would nevertheless point out that if you take isolated statements of Jesus, you might very well question his “Christianity.” For example, “”If any one comes to me without hating his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.”
Some additional analysis of the proposed program here
http://proecclesia.blogspot.com/2008/07/rare-kudos-to-obama-moment.html
Looks like you would have to leave your faith at the door if you took the federal money.
to Mike: “A Satan worshiper who can’t breathe on his own ?” Wow. Calm down, fella. Actually, I’m neither a Republican nor a conservative, just a Catholic (and a registered Democrat). Forgive me for being unimpressed by a candidate whom many on the Left have already canonized despite what appears to be his all too willingness to, uh, “adapt” his principles to meet his current political needs. And yes, part of the Left’s indictment of Bush as a neanderthal and theocrat has always been his “faith-based initiatives” program. To hear Obama pushing the very same idea with nary a whimper of protest from the Bush-haters strikes me as hypocritical.
Forgive me also if I find it unacceptable for politicians to talk about “all options” being available to bully other people who don’t threaten us. I find the mass killing of civilians by nuclear or other means to be morally unacceptable under any circumstances. I won’t vote for people who think it otherwise, Democrat or Republican. We’re not required to vote for either one, you know.
David is right about Cone and black theology.
Cool. 10 minutes of searching on Google makes you an expert.
Cool. 10 minutes of searching on Google makes you an expert.
No. But sympathetic reading of texts generally allows one to summarize the author accurately. I wonder how many seconds it took for T. Shaw to find the quote cited above? He certainly didn’t spend any time exploring its context. David at least spent enough time to note the way in which Cone is using the terms “black” and “white,” which is 100% correct. Anyone who tries to understand Cone without taking that basic point into consideration, like T. Shaw, is bound to misunderstand him.
As someone who is studying liberation theology, I am probably in a position to suggest that David’s reading of Cone is more accurate than T. Shaw’s.
I’d rather he come out of his muslim closet than believe any of that.
And even if Obama IS a Muslim, WHO CARES?
“Obama had no prior relationship with the lender, was taking out a $1.32 million loan below market rates, without paying the customary fees. So what? .”
I make less money than the Obama’s but more than the average American. Like the Obama’s, (and unlike the McCain’s) I never leave a cent on my credit cards. I also have the good financial sense with my mortgage not to have paid the customary “points” but elected the zero points interest rate (an option available to most borrowers). And, while I am probably not as good of a credit risk as the Obama’s, I also obtained a mortgage with the same discount they got.
Not only have the congressional Republicans abandoned any sense of fiscal responsibility in government, they no longer have an understanding of the benefits of good credit.