The Lutheran Zephyr

Faith, Politics, and Obama

I could write a missive about this issue, but I won't (I'm too busy preparing for my Approval for Ordination interview, which will take place on Friday).  But during one of my breaks from interview preparation I stumbled upon this disturbing piece of literature from the Obama campaign (hat tip to Blog from the Capital for the link):

Oh, boy do I get worried when politicians use their faith to promote their politics - whether from the Republicans or the Democrats, this kind of comingling of faith and politics bothers me.  I care not that Obama is a "Committed Christian" and more that he could be a good President.  And last I checked, being a "committed Christian" is not in the job description for the Presidency of the United States.

Much more to say on this issue, but I've got to run.

** UPDATE **

The Trail, The Washington Post's political blog, examined this flyer in Obama Emphasizes Faith in Kentucky a few hours after my post.  Check it out, and add The Trail to your feedreader.

Why I Don't Like The National Day of Prayer

My blogging friend Eric, who blogs over at The Heart of a Pastor, disagreed with - took offense at? - my characterization of the National Day of Prayer as "an ill-advised blend of patriotism and religion" and an event "merging patriotism with the practice of faith" in last Thursday's post, National Day of Prayer, or Ascension Day?   He writes, "having a day when people across denominational lines can gather together to pray is a good thing . . . The NDOP is a time to pray...plain and simple."

I do not disagree that having a day when people across denominational lines can gather together to pray is a good thing.  Yet one of the reasons I do not like the National Day of Prayer is the political dynamic that takes place, particularly at celebrations of the National Day of Prayer in state capitals and in Washington.  It often becomes a pious photo-op for politicians, a chance for political and religious leaders alike to claim some faith-based agenda for our nation, and to speak of the "Judeo-Christian heritage" of our nation. 

[Question: how often do Jewish leaders speak of the "Judeo-Christian heritage"?  "Judeo-Christian heritage" seems like a phrase that Christians use to sound inclusive while really attempting to claim a religious, moral, and historical priority in the retelling of the American Story.  But I digress . . .]

As I mentioned in a past post (see #5), I support setting aside special times to pray for our nation.  Prayer is good.  Pious political posturing?  Not so good.  (Don't ask me - ask Jesus).  Perhaps my friend Eric and others who participated in National Day of Prayer events did so with faith, integrity, and humility.  Perhaps such events took place without the political posturing of elected officials.  I certainly hope so.  But plenty of such events are tainted by politics and blurred by a civic piety that unites God and country in an unholy alliance.

Beyond the political posturing that takes place, the whole ethos surrounding the National Day of Prayer is troublesome to me.  Check out their website.  It has a banner that changes graphics, one of which reads:

Prayer!  America's strength and shield.  The Lord is my strength and shield; my heart trusts in Him, and I am helped.  Psalm 28:7"

I disagree with the fundamental premise of this statement.  Prayer is the strength and shield of people of faith.  The strength of our nation lies in its Constitution, its laws, and its (socially, culturally, politically, and religiously diverse) people.  We are not a country based on a prayer or a shared religion, ethnicity, culture, or common heritage (in contrast to many "old world" countries which are/were much more monolithic).  We are a country where freedom and laws, not bloodlines and heritage, define our common purpose and identity.  When we try to inject explicitly Christian lingo into our national identity, we misrepresent what this country is about (and we risk diluting our Christian faith, as well).

This National Day of Prayer (1952), along with the National Prayer Breakfast (1953) and the insertion of "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance (1954), are all products of a political era in which America was locked in a Cold War with the "godless" communism of the Soviet Union.  As we defined ourselves over and against the Soviets, we wrapped ourselves in a civic-minded piety in which God was on "our side" against a "godless" enemy.  I described the problem with this kind of piety in a previous post, Christian Prayers in Government Chambers: Music to the Devil's Ears:

And so from the lips of government power brokers this God of Country is proclaimed, a God that loves freedom and democracy - and market economies? - and which loyally stands at the side of our government. It is a God that nary challenges the Powers-That-Be, much unlike the God active in the tradition of the Hebrew prophets, Jesus, the martyrs, or advocates of social change over the centuries.  No, this is the God of Guantanamo and Abu-Ghraib, and if belief in this God of Country gains currency in our society it poses a significant threat to the teachings of our churches and the consciouses of our citizens.

More to write, perhaps, but it's getting late and my mind is going to mush.  G'night.

Why the "Compassion Forum" Bothers Me

I don't have cable television - and thus no CNN - and I did not see the "Compassion Forum" on Sunday night, the discussion about faith and compassion with Senators Clinton and Obama.  But I've read some of the news coverage, including a skim through the transcript. 

The whole concept just bothers me.  I'd gladly ask questions of faith when my synod elects a bishop or when my congregation votes to call a pastor.  But why ask questions about faith to the person who wants to live at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?  I just don't see the point.

Kudos to John McCain - the Republican - for not showing up.  For once, we have the Democrats pandering to religious leaders while the Republican shies away from speaking of faith.

Clinton and Obama may each have strong faith.  They may also have passionate perspectives on the Designated Hitter.  They might also have opinions about whether Bob Dylan's performance at the Newport Folk Festival was an unfortunate sellout or a siesmic shift in the history of rock and roll.  But these are not the kind of issues that will come across the President's desk in the Oval Office.

Here's one question posed to Senator Clinton:

BROWN: Let's talk about your faith. And we warned people the questions tonight would be pretty personal. So I want to ask you. You said in an interview last year that you believe in the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. And you have actually felt the presence of the Holy Spirit on many occasions.  Share some of those occasions with us.

Huh?  How is this relevant to the Presidency, to leading our military in war or our government in providing for the common good?

And here's a question posed to Senator Obama:

MEACHAM: Senator, do you believe that God intervenes in history and rewards or punishes people or nations in real time for their behavior?

Again . . . huh?  How is this relevant?  We're electing a Commander in Chief, not a Pastor in Chief.  Give me a break.

To be fair, many of the questions were not explicitly about theology, faith or the Bible, but about social justice, freedom, and hunger, and other issues related to compassion around the world.  These (otherwise valid) questions could just as easily been asked in a normal presidential debate, but in the context of a discussion of faith (on the campus of a Christian college) these questions took on a greater hue of morality and faith. 

But again I ask the question - why?  Why do we need to ask faith questions of our political leaders?

Some will say that this kind of forum helps us understand who the person is, how she or he makes decisions, and what kind of leader they will be in the White House.  Perhaps this will help voters of faith relate to the candidates.  After all, voters in 2000 said that they found George W. Bush more likable than Gore.  Likability, relatability are important qualities these days in politics.  Whole lot of good that criterion did us.

When McCain, Clinton or Obama is sworn in next January as President of the United States, they will pledge to uphold not religious truth or faithful doctrine, but the Constitution and laws of this land.  Please, let us quiz our candidates on matters of law and governance, politics and policy, not faith and theology.

Perhaps in a few days I'll respond to the "substance" of the forum, to the candidate's answers and what their answers reveal about their personal faith and their politics.  And too, perhaps, I'll look at what impact having such a conversation has on political discourse and the separation of church and state. 

But . . . what if we had an atheist candidate?  If religious conversation is now a pre-requisite for becoming president we've set up an unconstitutional, uneasy, unnecessary, and unhelpful expectations for candidates to speak in terms of faith while they're running for the presidency.  That is, the Compassion Forum represents a kind of religious litmus test.  This can't be good for democracy and the first amendment.

And I also fear that this forum is bad for religion - for the political pandering it inevitably seeks, the religious lip service it inevitably generates, and the narrow presentation of faith that such a forum inevitably offers.  Is this good for anyone?

I pray and I vote, and I'm passionate about both.  But when I vote, I don't care if my president prays.  That is not why I elect a president.  Rather, when I vote I care that she or he can do a good job carrying out the tasks of the presidency.  And nowhere do I see faith or religion in the president's job description. 

Forums such as the "Compassion Forum" risk blurring the lines between religion and politics, and hurting both in the process.  And that bothers me.

Obama ain't afraid

Andrew Sullivan helped me understand why I like Obama so much - he ain't afraid.  After offering some ill-advised comments in San Francisco about bitter, working class Pennsylvanians, he could have offered some press release or spokesperson apology.  He could have hung his head low and apologized.  But instead he came out with these honest and clarifying remarks - and importantly, he did not shy away from the word bitter - while also rebutting the attack of McCain/Clinton against him.

Watch the whole 9 minutes.  The best part is when he starts cracking up talking about Senator Clinton's new love of hunting.  "She's running around talking like this is an insult to sportsmen and hunters, like she's an Annie Oakley.  Hillary Clinton's out there talking like she's out in a duck blind every Sunday."

Just words?  There's substance behind dem dar words.  Give a listen.

Clinton's Troubling Politics of Choosing Church

"We have a choice when it comes to our pastors and the churches we attend."
- Senator Hillary Clinton, in response to a reporter's question about Barack Obama, his church, and its fiery former pastor, The Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright, Jr. (from AP article Clinton Would Have Left Obama's Pastor)

These words sent a chill down my spine.

We have a choice when it comes to our pastors and the churches we attend.

It wasn't enough for Senator Clinton to critique Pastor Wright.  It wasn't enough for Senator Clinton to critique Pastor Wright's role as an unpaid adviser to Senator Obama's presidential campaign.  No.  These words are much more than that.  These words go to the core of religious and political identity, and suggest that religious identity should answer to political identity.

We have a choice when it comes to our pastors and the churches we attend.

With these words, Senator Clinton has declared a political litmus test on the faith and religious membership of politicians and, indeed, on all Americans.

We have a choice. 

I guess we had better make the politically correct choice.  Perhaps Senator Clinton can publish a list of approved churches and approved ministers so that I can be sure that I have made the proper religious choice.

We have a choice.

On the surface Senator Clinton is right.  We who worship and affiliate with religious communities choose where we worship and with whom we affiliate.  But attending church is not a simple choice, and not one that many of us make based on political considerations.  The relationship between a believer and her faith, between a church member and her congregation, between a congregant and her pastor is not defined by a political litmus test.  Many of us attend churches and belong to faith communities despite political and theological disagreements with church and denominational leaders.  Agreement on isolated issues is not the basis of Christian community.

We have a choice.

Should Roman Catholics who support family planning and abortion abandon their faith because they worship in a church and listen to priests who ardently oppose abortion from their pulpits?  Should Roman Catholic Republicans abandon the Church because the social agenda of their church is often at odds with the GOP's policies?  Before I join a congregation, should I ask for a sampling of past sermons to evaluate the political implications of the pastor's preaching?

We have a choice.

Faith is not a matter of choice (Ephesians 2:8-9). For many of us, membership in a church (a local congregation or, for some, membership in a broader communion, denomination, or "Church") is deeply connected to faith, and as such is not so much an element of choice as one of belongedness, of being in the Body of Christ (expressed locally in a congregation) - a belongedness, a being that is a gift of God.  And so if my membership in a church is partly - largely - a gift of God, and if membership in a church is part of my participation in the Body of Christ, then how is receiving a gift of God and participating in the Body of Christ a choice?  No occasionally loud-mouthed preacher is gonna wreak the gift of God or destroy the Body of Christ.  God's presence, Christ's Body is bigger than any one preacher, than any collection of sermons.

We have a choice.

Yes, we have a choice whether to listen to preachers shout "God damn America," or who sing "God bless America."  And Senator Clinton and I would make different choices, it seems to me.  Give me the preacher who calls the nation on its sins any day over the preacher who confuses God and country.  Give me the preacher who stands in the tradition of Old Testament prophets calling political leaders to task rather than the one who fails to be moved by the suffering this great nation often leaves in its wake.  Give me the preacher who considers Religious Faith before National Patriotism, Creed before Pledge, God before Country.

We have a choice.

We have a choice between a candidate who uses religion as a wedge issue, and another candidate who uses religion as a source of hope. 

I've made my choice.

Is Hillary Clinton the Messiah?

James Carville (loyal friend of the Clintons') has likened Governor Bill Richardson's endorsement of Senator Barack Obama to Judas' betrayal of Jesus.

“An act of betrayal,” said James Carville, an adviser to Mrs. Clinton and a friend of Mr. Clinton.

“Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic,” Mr. Carville said, referring to Holy Week.

- From The New York Times, First a Tense Talk with Clinton, then Richardson backs Obama

If Governor Richardson is like Judas, then is Senator Hillary Clinton like Jesus?  Should I fall to the ground in worship when I approach her?  Well, the folks in her camp sure do have a Messiah complex about her, as if she were the Promised One to lead the Democrat Party and the country into a supposed Promised Land.  So then, this metaphor is apt, less so for Richardson's endorsement of her rival than for revealing the Clinton Camp's disturbing sense of entitlement.  Hillary Clinton is God, and anyone who gets in their way is Judas.

Furthermore, is this yet another veiled attempt by the Clinton camp to throw doubt on Senator Obama's faith?  Here they are presenting Obama as receiving an endorsement from Judas, the man whose betrayal led to Jesus' murder.  Senator Obama hangs out with Judas!  Put that together with rumors that Obama is Muslim and Senator Clinton's limp noodle response to those rumors - "as far as I know" he's not Muslim - and perhaps we see a pattern of religious warfare in this race.

Perhaps.  It's a stretch, I know, but I'm becoming increasingly sensitive to the subtle role words play in parsing out racial and religious distinctions in this race.  At the least, this is a sloppy and offensive analogy that compares betraying God to betraying Hillary Clinton.  At the worst, this is gutter politics being duked out with religious imagery.  The candidates and their surrogates need to be more careful about their use of racially and religiously-charged language.  This race is becoming increasingly ugly to watch.

Lord (Jesus, not Hillary) have mercy upon us.

Clinton, McCain next to give big speeches?

Mitt Romney gave his speech on Faith in America.

Barack Obama gave his speech on Race in America.

John McCain gave his speech on Old White Men in America. 

Oh wait a minute, he didn't do that.  He doesn't have to do that.  We're used to having old white men run this country.  It's the religious and racial minorities that really get this country freaked out.  They're the ones who get backed into corners, who get reminded everyday that they're different, who start out with a certain percentage of the electorate hell-bent against them simply because of their creed or color.  They're the ones who have to bend over backwards to define themselves, demystify themselves, declare to the country that they're not boogeymen.

When will Hillary Clinton give her speech on Gender in America?  Perhaps she doesn't have to make such a speech.  And perhaps that says something about our country, that (thus far, anyway) Senator Clinton hasn't had to define herself vis-a-vis her gender the way that Romney did with religion and Obama did with race/religion.  Gender equality is still far off in this country, but perhaps - just perhaps - Hillary Clinton won't have to give a Gender in America speech.  And that's good news.

Obama speech podcast?

Anyone know where I can find Senator Obama's speech on race in America as a podcast?  I'd like to listen to it on my iPod . . .

Thanks.

It's Time for Clinton-Obama '08

With the voters clearly divided about who should be the nominee, and with personality, tact and age - rather than policy - distinguishing the two candidates, it's time for them to come together and form a unified ticket to defeat John McCain in November.  The only way this happens is with a Clinton-Obama ticket.

Allowing this race to go to Pennsylvania - which will not make a significant impact on delegate count - and beyond only sows greater disunity in the party and requires the candidates to combat each other AND the Republicans.  It's a waste of time and money.  While McCain unifies his party and heaps attacks on the Democrats, Obama and Clinton are still scrambling for support from real voters and from so-called SuperDelegates in a process that makes Florida 2000 look like the paradigm of democracy.  The candidates should end the madness, create a unified ticket, and focus on November.

Why Clinton-Obama?  I'm no fan of Senator Clinton, but

1. there's no way she drops out.  There's not a magnanimous bone in her body. If one of these candidates withdraws from the race to take the bottom slot on the ticket, it would be Obama.
2. Obama makes sense on either end of the ticket.  Senator Clinton would be a lousy VP candidate and a drag for an Obama presidency.  As VP Obama strengthens the Democratic ticket. 
3. Clinton has won the large states and has a firm grip on the Democratic base.  Though Texas will likely go for McCain, and California would go for anybody flying the Democratic flag - even Kucinich - she's got strength in core Democratic areas.  This cannot be denied.
4. If the Dems lose to McCain with Clinton at the top of the ticket, Clinton takes the fall and Obama is the Democrat front-runner for 2012.
5. One big caveat - I think this works only if Clinton and Obama agree to a Cheney-style Vice Presidency - that is, a Vice Presidency with real power and influence, a Vice Presidency worth more than a "warm bucket of spit," as VP John Garner once called it.  Obama supporters (like me) could stomach a Clinton presidency if we believe he has real influence in the Executive Branch.  Plus, by dropping out of the race now - while he's ahead (but unable to secure the nomination without ugly intraparty politicking) - he retains his political power and public appeal.  There is no way that a charismatic Obama with a ton of delegates and huge fundraising appeal doesn't redefine the Vice Presidency on the campaign trail and in office, and use it to the party's advantage in shaping domestic and international policy.

It kills me to say this, but I think a Clinton-Obama ticket is the way to go.  It won't happen, but that's what my politically naive brain has come up with this morning.

Monday Morning Musings

• Hillary Clinton's experience argument is, at best, short-term.  Even if she were to win the Democratic primary, how does her experience argument hold up to John McCain's?  She'll have to change her narrative - she has a narrative? - in the general election, if she makes it that far.
• In Ohio, the democrat candidates are trying to out do each other with opposition to NAFTA, even though a direct connection between Ohio's manufacturing decline (which began decades ago) and NAFTA (which was pushed and signed by President Clinton in the early 1990s) is impossible to make.  Nonetheless, we have Obama and Clinton each saying they'd review or return to the negotiating table on NAFTA with rhetoric that makes them sound like anti-trade protectionists.  Uh, has anybody told them that we live in a global economy?
• [The Democrat's pandering to Ohio workers makes McCain's honest assessment of Michigan's manufacturing decline quite refreshing.  McCain told workers in Michigan that their jobs are not coming back.  He lost that primary to Mitt Romney, who promised all kinds of unrealistic industrial and economic magic.  But where is Romney now?  Pandering doesn't win.]
• That's the problem with a long Democrat primary.  Although they both start out as fairly centrist Democrats, a long primary battle turns this into an ugly pandering to the left-wing Democratic base.  In their effort to out-left their opponent, I'm waiting to see which candidate first embraces the legacy of Marx and suggests that Soviet-style economics was just misunderstood.  Campaign appearance with Hugo Chavez, anyone?
• Change?  Think there's going to be change in January 2009?  At least in foreign policy, not much will change.  Take a look at this op-ed piece appearing in yesterday's Washington Post, showing Obama and Clinton advisors praising many aspects of Bush's foreign policy.
• Speaking of foreign policy, during the Cold War we never cut off diplomatic ties with the Soviet Union.  Since the era of Nixon we've had diplomatic relations with China.  Both of these states were/are bad guys.  We thought engagement was better than embargo.  So, uh, why not engage with Cuba or Iran?  Or do embargo-supporters suggest we cut off ties with China, Saudi Arabia, etc. etc.?
• Though I do not doubt that a President Obama or Clinton will draw down troops from Iraq, I just don't see how it is possible in the short term.  The military generals largely don't want it, the US-trained Iraqi army is not ready to stand up and do its job, and does a President Obama or Clinton have the gravitas to defy the advice of the career generals on the ground?  I think this talk of withdrawing troops within 60 days of taking the oath of office is just pandering to the anti-war crowd.  It just ain't realistic.
• The Washington Post had a fascinating article on Saturday about the detrimental impact of granting immigration visas to religious minorities in Iran.  Even though there is little persecution of Christians and Jews in Iran (according to Iranian religious minorities - Washington-based Bush administration ideologues have another perspective), we grant them visas and, in the process, we destroy their fragile communities and contribute to a growing religious polarization throughout the Middle East.  US policy has contributed to the rapid destruction in recent years of Christian communities in Iran, Iraq, and the Palestine territories, communities that have been in these regions for 1500 - 2000 years.