The Noise in my Head

Trying to find the signal. Since 1960.

Barack Obama’s Christian Faith July 1, 2008

Filed under: Politics — mfmosman @ 11:51 pm
Tags: ,

You’re going to hear the nonsense.  You really are.

If you’re surrounded by absolute yokels, you’ll hear that Barack Obama is a closet Muslim, even that he attended a Muslim “madrassa” for a few years in elementary school.  (He is not, and he did not.)  Moving up the ladder, you’ll run into those who take an unfortunate choice of words, his “guns and religion” comment, and suggest not that he is a Muslim, but that he secretly despises religion.  (His 20+ years as a committed Christian suggest otherwise.)  And from almost every Republican, you’ll hear about how “scary” his two decades in Reverend Wright’s church are.  (They’re not.)

Everyone: Barack Obama is a Christian, perhaps the major candidate most devoted to Christianity since Jimmy Carter.  Before he gives a speech, he holds prayer with staffers.  He prays every night with his family.  He attends church frequently — his own when he can, another when he cannot.  He attended (until a recent forced break) Trinity United Church in Chicago, one of the nation’s largest predominantly black churches with 8,500 members.

Trinity United requires some explanation, it seems.  Black churches have tended to be, particularly in our largest cities, a good deal more missiological than white churches.  That is, they tend to focus on a practical theology, which will often include politics (Martin Luther King, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and others are reverends, after all), anthropology, history and geography as well as theology.  Reverend Wright’s extreme positions are not shocking in the context of the black church: it’s just that a predominantly white media has focused on what has been commonplace for many years (the often militant missiology of black churches).  What would be shocking, would be to discover that all of his 8,500-strong congregation agreed with him on all counts.  Trinity United is a church that Barack Obama attended, not an indoctrination camp for the Black Panthers.  Dissent is allowed.  (Interestingly, in fact: the church has a role in Chicago history in countering the influence of radical Black Panther groups that set up shop in the city after the height of the civil rights movement.)

A few quotes from Senator Obama with respect to religious faith and politics:

“Conservative leaders have been all too happy to exploit this gap (the political divide along religious lines), consistently reminding 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.

Democrats, for the most part, have taken the bait. At best, we may try to avoid the conversation about religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that – regardless of our personal beliefs – constitutional principles tie our hands. At worst, 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.

Now, such strategies of avoidance may work for progressives when our opponent is Alan Keyes. But over the long haul, I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in people’s lives — in the lives of the American people — and I think it’s time that we join a serious debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy.”

-

“(America’s) religious tendency is not simply the result of successful marketing by skilled preachers or the draw of popular mega-churches. In fact, it speaks to a hunger that’s deeper than that – a hunger that goes beyond any particular issue or cause.”

-

“I believed and still believe in the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change, a power made real by some of the leaders here today. Because of its past, the black church understands in an intimate way the Biblical call to feed the hungry and clothe the naked and challenge powers and principalities. And in its historical struggles for freedom and the rights of man, I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death, but rather as an active, palpable agent in the world. As a source of hope.”

-

“You need to come to church in the first place precisely because you are first of this world, not apart from it. You need to embrace Christ precisely because you have sins to wash away – because you are human and need an ally in this difficult journey.”

-

“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.”

-

“If we truly hope to speak to people where they’re at – to communicate our hopes and values in a way that’s relevant to their own – then as progressives, we cannot abandon the field of religious discourse.

Because when we ignore the debate about what it means to be a good Christian or Muslim or Jew; when we discuss religion only in the negative sense of where or how it should not be practiced, rather than in the positive sense of what it tells us about our obligations towards one another; when we shy away from religious venues and religious broadcasts because we assume that we will be unwelcome – others will fill the vacuum, those with the most insular views of faith, or those who cynically use religion to justify partisan ends.

In other words, if we don’t reach out to evangelical Christians and other religious Americans and tell them what we stand for, then the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons and Alan Keyeses will continue to hold sway.”

-

“The discomfort of some progressives with any hint of religion has often prevented us from effectively addressing issues in moral terms. Some of the problem here is rhetorical – if we scrub language of all religious content, we forfeit the imagery and terminology through which millions of Americans understand both their personal morality and social justice.

Imagine Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address without reference to “the judgments of the Lord.” Or King’s I Have a Dream speech without references to “all of God’s children.” Their summoning of a higher truth helped inspire what had seemed impossible, and move the nation to embrace a common destiny.”

-

“But, you know, my Bible tells me that if we train a child in the way he should go, when he is old he will not turn from it. So I think faith and guidance can help fortify a young woman’s sense of self, a young man’s sense of responsibility, and a sense of reverence that all young people should have for the act of sexual intimacy.”

-

“Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King – indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history – were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their “personal morality” into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.”

-

“And that night, before I went to bed I said a prayer of my own. It’s a prayer I think I share with a lot of Americans. A hope that we can live with one another in a way that reconciles the beliefs of each with the good of all. It’s a prayer worth praying, and a conversation worth having in this country in the months and years to come.”

-

I think I’m going to let these words of Senator Obama stand on their own as a testament to his commitment to Christianity.  Anyone still wondering?

 

Why I’ll Vote for Obama June 2, 2008

Filed under: Politics — mfmosman @ 11:13 am
Tags: , ,

Let’s review what is wrong:

  • An endless war, fatally mismanaged, is siphoning money from vastly more deserving pursuits.
  • Underfunded education.
  • A gas crisis.
  • A mortgage crisis.
  • An economy that is reeling.
  • Shamefully lowered ethical standards.
  • A world that hates us.

Look for a second only at the economic side of that picture: In the last seven years the economy has shed more than 2 million jobs.  To put that in perspective: in the United States in the last seven years, out of every sixty-seven adults who want to bother holding a job, one of them lost theirs.  Basically one person every two blocks or so, across the country.  Even worse, we’re losing better-paying jobs for worse-paying ones: the average job gained over the past three years pays just over $35k per year, while the average job lost paid $43k.  This is the “Wal-Martization” of America: at this rate, we’re all greeters sooner or later.  Don’t listen to anyone telling you the economy is okay.  It’s not.  It’s pretty bad, truth be told.

This is the short list of problems.  I’m embarrassed.   Now we face an election that could begin to change all that.

I think it should be noted, to begin with, that this election is perhaps not our greatest weapon for change.  The United States, on its best day, is what it always was: a nation irreverent toward power in government, and mistrustful of anyone who attempts to maintain that power.  Our founding document was about revolution, and created a government that is supposed to derive its powers from the consent of the governed.

This nation has effected change, not by slow degrees and not by marginal differences at the top, but quickly and bottom-up.  Always bottom-up, until those in Washington and elsewhere catch on and join us.  David Sirota’s new book, “The Uprising: An Unauthorized Tour of the Populist Revolt Scaring Wall Street and Washington,” chronicles just how deeply disaffected Americans are right now, and how close we are to a genuine populist uprising of the kind we saw with the slave rebellions, with the railroad uprising of 1877, or (we should note on almost exactly the 40th anniversary of his assassination) with the highly successful populist movement of Dr. Martin Luther King.  We are fed up with the rule of greed, with the way that ordinary Americans have been systematically disenfranchised and sold out by an obviously corrupt system.  Change occurs in this country because people rise up, not because politicians build monuments to their power.

Don’t fall for this faux bipartisanship that is all the rage, either.  We’ll build more roads that way, and make Washington a pleasanter place, but heads will not be turning toward solving your problems and mine.

Still.  There is this election thing.  And what I’m asking myself is, “which of these people can spawn (and will perhaps allow) a movement for change?”  I think it’s a given that change is necessary, so I have to ask that, don’t I?

Senator McCain seems an honorable sort and all, and one has to respect his service to the country.  But he’s not about changing much of anything.  And I’ve gotten increasingly bothered by the smirk that’s creeping onto his face with respect to Senator Obama.  He clearly thinks that you have to have been a military man to understand anything at all about Iraq, and he’s wrong.  That smirk has a different genesis, but it’s the same kind of arrogance that we’ve seen from the Bush administration, and it frightens me.

Senator Clinton is selling the least attractive brew of all: competence.  As though our problems can be solved if we’re just studious enough.  But leadership and management are second cousins, not twins.  To be sure, this administration has shown us what can happen if a President’s management skills are poor.  But we will not find our way out of the litany of problems above through mere competence.

Senator Obama has been excoriated by his challengers primarily for two things: 1) He is not experienced enough; and 2) He’s all talk.  Let’s look at those:

Experience: Senator Obama served many years in the Illinois legislature before winning a U.S. Senate seat nearly seven years ago.  Many people discount those years in Illinois in looking at the senator’s experience, as though only experience in Washington can matter.  This is analogous to me saying to a potential employee: “I know that you worked for twenty years in tech for smaller companies in Seattle before moving to the Bay Area to put in your seven years with Cisco.  I’d feel better about your experience if it had been with nothing but big companies in Silicon Valley.”  That’s a little nuts, isn’t it?  The variety of experience matters, and experience outside of Washington may in fact matter a lot.

Time Magazine pointed out, by the way, the President with the most similar experience to Senator Obama’s: Abraham Lincoln.

All talk: I’m not afraid of this criticism at all.  We need talk right now.  As I noted above, the kind of change we need will happen when people at a grassroots level are inspired.  I am inspired by Senator Obama.  I want things to change, and he makes me believe that maybe that can happen.

So keep turning a phrase, Senator.  Let me see that you’re smart by how you speak to me.  I want that in a President.  Make me feel that you’re hearing what the country is saying.  Lord knows, I want that, too.

Maybe in November I can be a proud American again.