For the past two days, the left (including Bill Press and Keith Olbermann) has had its shorts in a knot about Barack Obama inviting Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration. I'm a proud liberal/progressive/Democrat and I disagree with Warren about gay marriage, abortion, and the existence of God, but I think my fellow liberals are wrong about this.
For too many years, fundamentalist evangelic leaders have used religion to advance conservative, Republican political goals that are contrary to real Christian principles (tax cuts for the rich, unnecessary wars, deprivation of civil rights, intolerance of members of other religions and atheists, and refusing to talk with those with whom we disagree). Democrats have abandoned this large voting block because they thought they couldn't compete for evangelical votes.
But not all evangelicals are fundamentalists or believe in the right-wing interpretation of the Bible. Many members of evangelical churches will acknowledge (as Rick Warren does) that morality is about more than just abortion and gay rights. Obama was able to get critical votes from young evangelicals. By speaking in language they can relate to and appealing to their principles, Democrats can overcome the control of the evangelical churches by the right-wing political preachers.
This doesn't mean watering down our positions. Obama hasn't budged on abortion or gay rights. He's made it clear that he disagrees with Warren on those issues and others. Those who have narrowed their focus to abortion and gay rights won't be convinced, but others will see the big picture. Warren's willingness to bless Obama's presidency sends a strong message to evangelicals that Obama is a moral leader worthy of their consideration. Instead of viewing all Democrats as their enemies, moderate evangelicals will listen to what Obama has to say, and they'll like a lot of it. And some of them will realize they were wrong about abortion and gay rights.
Let's not be as intolerant as Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh. We don't cast out Democrats who are anti-choice, anti-gun control, or who disagree with other positions we stand for. By building bridges, Obama can expand the base of people who support his programs and reduce the strength of the forces working to defeat those initiatives.
I haven't posted here before; my main blog is www.samefacts.com . And I've made it a policy not to joggle the elbows of the folks who ran the most skilful campaign in American political history. My usual attitude when they do something I don't like is to assume they know something I don't.
But the choice of Rick Warren to give the invocation at the Inauguration is a terrible, terrible idea. He's offensive to anyone who cares about sexual and reproductive freedom, and he's made the claim that the Bible justifies agressive war against whoever gets designated as "evil." Many of the people whose dearest values Warren holds in contempt, and whose freedoms he wants to deny, worked their hearts out for the campaign, while Warren was (at best) neutral.
Yes, it's important to reach out to white evangelicals. But there must be someone else.
Who Are The Obamagelicals?
by Steven Waldman
Nationally, 25% of white evangelicals voted for Obama. In certain key states, the numbers were higher. He saw a 14% increase in support from white evangelicals in Colorado, 8% in Indiana, 8% in North Carolina and 4% in Ohio.
Most important, he won 32% of young evangelicals (up from 16% for McCain).
Who are these Obamagelicals - and how do they compare with the larger group of evangelicals who voted for John McCain?
Beliefnet recently surveyed its readership about who they voted for and why. 1,135 people who described themselves as "evangelical or Born Again" filled out the survey. (Full survey here)
Let's start with the similarities between Obama's evangelicals and McCain's.........
ENTIRE ARTICLE - http://blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2008/11/who-are-the-obamagelicals.html
Yesterday evening, James Dobson’s Focus on the Family Action sent out a fundraising e-mail lamenting the victory of Barack Obama. (Dobson had personally endorsed the McCain-Palin ticket.) The author of the e-mail, Focus on the Family Action senior vice president Tom Minnery, told his readers not to despair, saying that the right wing would overcome this situation just as Britons overcame Hitler’s bombing in World War II.......
ENTIRE POST- http://thinkprogress.org/2008/11/07/obama-nazi-dobson/
I just saw Sen. Dole’s smear ad against Kay Hagan, the democratic Senate candidate running against her in North Carolina. Sen. Dole’s add suggests that Hagan is a “godless” person. Hagan’s rebuttal ad states emphatically that she is a practicing Christian and a former Sunday school teacher – facts she claims Liz Dole knows. She also calls out Sen. Dole for “bearing false witness” against a fellow believer (this sin, was in Moses’ Top 10, along with murder and adultery).
The relationship between religious faith and politics is a crucial conversation that has intensified dramatically over the last several years. Well-meaning people on both sides of the aisle have been made radioactive by what I consider some pretty sinister and sleazy politics -- the kind that has activated the politics of sleeping evangelicals by convincing them that what is missing from American politics is their standing up for their ideologies. Unfortunately, they have only gotten the Karl Rove part of the memo -- abortion, gay rights, "godlessness" (whatever that means in this context). The conversation has gotten totally out of balance, and there is no dialogue. Only the tossing of grenades and some hand-to-hand combat, in the form of ideological rhetoric.
http://transpolitical.blogspot.com/2008/09/abstinence-only-for-non-conservative.html
reprint from TransPolitical blog 9/7/08
On the permission of another.” — Justify My Love, Madonna
The chattering hubbub has somewhat died down on Bristol Palin’s pregnancy out of wedlock. Ironically, it appears that both Republican and Democrats’ campaigns were happy to see this subside. As a blogger, I didn’t really have any issue with Bristol Palin as it’s unfortunate, but still a natural occurrence. I actually felt sorry for both her and her unwitting husband-to-be.
What was saddest was seeing how the oh-so-sanctimonious-and-now-embarrassed Republican National Committee operatives did everything they could to obfuscate. They paraded her out (gotta have those family values), but had baby Trig attached to her as if umbilically, complete with baby blanket plastered strategically over her body to hide the baby-bulge. It wasn’t really overt of a bulge, but the RNC and McCain campaign’s paranoia was such that even the slightest breath of pregnancy out of wedlock was enough to induce palpitations.
Rumors were flying on the blogs recently about Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin’s five-month old son actually belonged to her unmarried teenaged daughter. To quell the rumors that her son, Trig was indeed hers, she made public the announcement that her 17-year old daughter Bristol was indeed pregnant.
However, her quote and the response of the Republican pundits and evangelical supporters expose a glaring dual standard.
“Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents," Sarah and her husband Todd Palin were quoted in the released statement. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080901/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_daughter)
Note the use of “proud of Bristol’s decision to have her baby”? That phrase begs the question: was there ever a decision? If so, why? Gov. Sarah Palin is proud to proclaim her right to life and elimination of choice. If there’s no choice, what is there to decide in the Palin family?
This is an excerpt from the opening of an alternet.org article found under the title human rights...There is a video embedded in the story. It's a very interesting take on the church that she has been a member of for many years.
When John McCain announced his intention to make a freshman -- and female -- Alaska Governor the next vice president on the eve of the Republican convention, the liberal media conspiracy went predictably haywire. The litany of revelations about Sarah Palin only grows as time goes on. And though it has been overshadowed by teenage pregnancies and doctored photographs, one question has got the lattes shaking in a great many progressive hands: is Sarah Palin a creationist?
The Los Angeles Times called her that outright. Newsweek, theBoston Globe, and the New York Times were more cautious, reporting that Palin supports teaching creationism alongside evolution in public schools. But even this isn't quite right. While, in a 2006 gubernatorial debate , she may have declared herself "a proponent of teaching both," she backed down somewhat in a subsequent interview: "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum." All she's asking, it seems, is that students not be suspended for asking a question about God.
Palin went on to say that her father was a science teacher and taught her about "his theories of evolution." When pushed for her own conclusions, she admitted only, "I believe we have a creator." Sorting through her equivocations, creationist organizations like Answers in Genesis and the Discovery Institute are still reluctant to declare her one of their own.
In contrast, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have made their positions on evolution clear, even while reaching out to religious voters. Clinton is "shocked" by creationism advocates. "One of our gifts from God," she adds, "is the ability to reason." For Obama, "it's a mistake to try to cloud the teaching of science with theories that frankly don't hold up to scientific inquiry."
I recommend you go to one of these two sites: (The links edit was not working this afternoon.)
http://www.alternet.org/rights/97939/weird_theology_in_wasilla%3A_a_look_inside_sarah_palin%27s_pentecostal_church/
and to see about the makers of the video about extreme religion and who they are, go to this site:
http://www.talk2action.org/user/Bruce%20Wilson Bruce E. Wilson is the person who posted the video exposing the extreme
views of the church Sarah Palin is a part of and others like that.
Palin says she supports Israel, yet attends a church where the intolerant rhetoric of the Palestinian conflict being a direct result of Jews not accepting Jesus is preached and supported. Almost everyone in American politics supports Israel nearly to the point of cliché. The real question is do the politicians support the Jews; who we are, what we stand for, and in the present rather than as a catalyst for the future? The Evangelic support of Israel is eschatological rather than authentic. It is like supporting the mutton industry because you believe the lion will lay down with the lamb.
In a speech he gave on June 28, 2006 at the Call to Renewal's Building a Covenant for a New America conference, Barack Obama made the following observations about faith in the public square:
"There are some liberals who dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word "Christian" describes one's political opponents, not people of faith . . . Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation - context matters. It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase "under God." I didn't. Having voluntary student prayer groups use school property to meet should not be a threat, any more than its use by the High School Republicans should threaten Democrats."
I am a former Republican, turned Democrat and a solid Obama supporter. I am also a divorced, middle aged woman, the mother of a beautiful daughter and since I work in a male-dominated field, women's issues are very important to me. My mother and her husband are firmly Republican, evangelical Christians, Limbaugh cultists, and rabidly pro-life. Needless to say, family visits can be difficult. (Understatement, that.)
Last weekend at our family Labor Day dinner, I decided to try a different tactic and asked them first how they liked Palin (loved her, big time, koolaid, anyone?) and then asked them, hypothetically, if McCain/Palin were elected and if they were able to overturn Roe v. Wade, what would happen next in our society? Women go back to back-alley abortions? Who takes care of the children? Who supports the young, single mothers?
They had no answers. They hadn't thought that far. All that mattered was telling me over and over all the lies about the evils of Obama. Every time I brought the topic back around to my original questions, they just stared and then were off on another tangent spouting more "facts" about Obama and "The Liberals" that were wrong at best, racist and outright lies at worst.
Friends, this is what were up against. People who blindly follow whatever their pastors or Rush Limbaugh says, but haven't a clue what imposing their beliefs on everyone means in the real world.
It is up to us to make sure McCain/Palin are not elected. Obama and Biden can only give us the tools we need to work with. It is our job to use them effectively. It is our time, our mission and our responsiblility; for ourselves, our children, and for future generations.
Obama/Biden '08
It does not matter what a Republican Presidential candidate says to the genera public during the campaign for once elected he will be true to the Republican base. To achieve the financial objectives of the rich, he will willingly sacrifice the rights of women, of workers and the poor.
So if you really do support the principles for which the Democratic Party stands, you cannot in good conscience violate these principles by voting for the former prisoner of war even if he reminds you of your grandfather.
McCain cheated at church forum
We've already seen from the transcripts that McCain must have had some questions in advance, as he answered multipart questions before those questions where even asked. Pastor Rick Warren assured everyone that McCain was in a "cone of silence" during the Obama part of the interview and so could not have heard the questions. As it turns out, and this is corroborated by several witnesses, McCain was NOT in any "cone of silence." For most of Obama's interview, he was not even in the building -- he was in a motorcade on the way to the event. The forum was carried live on CNN and MSNBC and on many radio stations. Not to mention he was surrounded by many aides and Blackberries and other devices were no doubt present. Rick Warren seemed "surprised" to learn that McCain was not in the building. McCain cheated. He is definitely Bush's man.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Snipped in part from Lordrag Hussein's Blog ... http://blogs.delphiforums.com/lordrag/start
Personal Note: ...and I doubt seriously that Rick Warren was in any way "surprised" by this -- they more than likely had been planning this ploy all along. Warren is a lying cheat just like the rest of his evangelical counterparts who tend to want to corner Democrats and spend Sundays in the pulpit making their poorer-than-thou congregants think that Republicans and right-wing conservatives are the be-all and end-all to life's dilemmas.
Talk about your God-complex...Rick Warren is the Oprah of the judeo-christian world and I trust what he does and says about as much as I trust Oprah's word and endorsements.
Consider hosting a watch Party, a great tool for recruiting other volunteers and sharing our message with friends and family.
To Host a Watch Party Click here.
As Senator Obama reaches out to Evangelical Christians, Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family goes on the attack and accuses Sen. Obama of "distorting the Bible."
Not a good idea Dr. Dobson.
In a survey of 35,000 adults conducted last year by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, 57 percent of evangelical church attenders said they believe many religions can lead to eternal life, 70 percent of Americans with a religious affiliation shared that view, and 68 percent said there is more than one true way to interpret the teachings of their own religion. Read on...
I don't know if anyone else has read Obama's book, The Audacity of Hope, in which he discusses the fact that abortion will always be a difficult constitutional issue and that legalizing or prohibiting abortion won't change the fact that abortions happen and that Democrats frequently gloss over the important moral issues related to abortion.
Obama's debate with Alan Keyes during the US Senate campaign in 2004 is discussed at length in Chapter 6 of The Audacity of Hope, which is titled, "Faith".
Obama's position on abortion rights is a Constitutional issue, not a religious issue (for me, it's religious - life begins at conception and therefore abortion is murder).
Obama talks about the example of Abraham Lincoln, a realist whose practicality "would distress us today". His willingness to "test different bargains with the South in order to maintain the Union without war" would strike us as disturbing - almost as if Lincoln was willing to tolerate treating blacks as second-class citizens.
"I'm reminded that deliberation and the constitutional order may sometimes be the luxury of the powerful, and that it has sometimes been the cranks, the zealots, the prophets, the agitators, and the unreasonable - in other words, the absolutists - that have fought for a new order. Knowing this, I can't summarily dismiss those possessed of a similar certainty today - the antiabortion activist who pickets my town hall meeting, or the animal rights activist who raids a laboratory - no matter how deeply I disagree with their views." - p. 97 (paperback version)
Obama's concerns are about the Constitution, not about whether he personally believes life begins at conception. It's a separation of church and state issue.
