Obama has been having a little email chat with David Brody of Pat Robertson’s CBN. It’s nothing new that the he is talking about the intersection between faith and politics. He’s very skilled at talking about the role of his faith in his public life. Mark Kleiman (Reality-Based Community) is especially in awe of Obama’s tone as he confidently fields Brody’s questions.

It does raise an eye that Obama would take the chance of giving CBN an opportunity to use the moment to take a knock at him. What’s in it for him?

Based on his experience with the Rick Warren/Saddleback controversy in December, he clearly knows that his outreach will not sway many people in the fundamentalist community. If this conversation has any cynical electoral implications, perhaps it will help him in Southern and Midwestern primaries.

Certainly, his words sound to me like they would resonate with main line protestants that I grew up with. But they’re a rapidly declining population. I couldn’t guess how Obama’s words are perceived in the ears and hearts of evengelical moderates. I do have a few hunches about possible outcomes of these conversations with prominent evangelicals:

1. The Christian right are not going to be terribly cheerful about any of their options from the Republican side.
2. Some spokespersons from the Christian right will not swing as hard at candidate Obama as they will at the other Democratic candidates, largely because he gives them access and is deft at talking about issues within their own rhetorical framework.
3. If he is elected President, these conversations might enable him to govern with a broader national consensus. I think there are plenty of people who won’t vote for him, but who will grudgingly concede that he seems like a very decent man.

The time has come that we recognize that the various governments that rule the multiple peoples of the world are not all equal. Although it will certainly be a statement that will cause no little distress, it is nevertheless important for all Americans to cease referring to the other state-like entities of the world as nations. If one is to truly look around the globe, one will recognize that while many other sovereign statelike bodies may have positive qualities, it is nevertheless difficult to see how the title of “Nation” could possibly be attributed to them. Consequently, continued use of the term “Nation” to describe these entities will only lead to confusion.

For example, there are many non-national entities that have shared cultures, guarded borders and stable governments. Many may provide for the common good, even with luxuries like education and healthcare. But only the One True Nation can make the claim of being one nation under God, having the quality of undeniable indivisibility, and offering liberty and justice for all, etc.

This assertion, while obviously true, should not be interpreted as an argument against constructive dialogue through diplomacy. While these other statelike regions may not currently ackowledge our singular status, nor yet wish to follow the one true President, we are committed to peaceful coexistence with the many peoples of the world.

More »

Pat Robertson = Extremist Muslim Christian Cleric

I just read a few minutes ago of the Pope’s recent description of gay marriage advocacy as an “ideology of evil.” I’m in a Catholic family now, so I have to tread a delicate line in responding, but this kind of remark just begs for some angry liberal soapboxing. Ah, who am I kidding? I’m marching straight over that delicate line.

The word “evil” has been getting tossed around a lot lately. We’ve an Axis of Evil in the Middle and Far Easts. Interestingly enough, the Axis of Evil is not responsible for promoting this Ideology of Evil. Dr. Evil isn’t even responsible for championing it. Apparently I am. Got that? I’m evil. Evil!

I would never choose to argue other people’s theological beliefs. If your heart tells you that the world was created by a God who loathes homosexuality, I’m fairly powerless to respond. I find it an odd and curious notion, but what you practice in the privacy of your own pew is your business. (And you’re not alone, so you’ve got the whole strength in numbers thing going for you.) Furthermore, if the Pope wants to issue a public statement opposing gay marriage, the rest of us are entitled to disagree. The public sphere, open discourse, yadda-yadda-yadda.

But this is a dangerously thin line for the Catholic church, inasmuch as its (earthly) power is derived from the combination of increasing the number of practicing Catholics and improving the perception of Catholics that non-Catholics have. It’s one thing to say you believe I’m wrong. It’s another thing to call me and other people of conscience evil, when we’ve come by our own theological and ethical perspectives honestly. What’s next? Are you going to state that all non-Christians espouse an Ideology of Evil too? All non-Catholics? Just how anti-ecumenical a message are you willing to go on the record with?

That sort of ridiculous talk just demeans all the good and decent Catholics I have known. I have been trying to cultivate appreciation of the Church for what it means in the context of my own family. This message just creates cognitive dissonance; makes it very hard to see the good side in the faith my loved ones practice. It also makes me really twitchy about my child being raised Catholic.

For my money, intolerance and bigotry is an Ideology of Evil. Before today, I had no intention of casting such a severe label on the spiritual leader of the Catholic denomination, but then you threw down the gauntlet, Pope. If you treat people like enemies, they will think like enemies.

Don’t worry though. There isn’t a soul alive who thinks I’m infallible. Or even reads my stupid blog. Your evil beats my evil hands down, then runs over it with a speeding pope-mobile.