Ignoring Obama speech to evangelical church, Gerson criticized him for "not effectively reach[ing] out to" evangelicals
In a June 29 column discussing Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) recent speech at the 26th General Synod of the United Church of Christ, Washington Post columnist and former George W. Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson wrote that "Obama still missed an opportunity. By speaking at a gathering of the United Church of Christ -- among the most excruciatingly progressive of Protestant denominations -- he was preaching to the liberal choir. And he did not effectively reach out to an evangelical movement in transition." Gerson added that "to appeal broadly to religious voters, he will need to be more than the candidate of the religious left." At no point did he note that Obama spoke at a popular evangelical event on an issue that Gerson identified as important to young evangelicals. The Los Angeles Times reported on December 24, 2006, that "at the invitation of Rick Warren, Obama spoke to a hall full of conservative Christian evangelical activists gathered at Saddleback Church in Orange County. Warren, author of the bestseller 'The Purpose Driven Life,' [Zondervan, 2002] is among the most successful and popular preachers in the world."
Gerson cited "John Green of the Pew Forum" in writing that "evangelicals under 30 tend to be more concerned about the environment than are their elders, more engaged in international issues such as HIV-AIDS, a little more open on homosexual rights and less attached to the religious right." However, as Media Matters for America has noted, Warren's event at which Obama spoke was an AIDS conference, precisely one of the issues Green identified as being of importance to young evangelicals. Defending his invitation for Obama to appear at the AIDS conference, Warren issued a statement in which he asserted: "Our goal has been to put people together who normally won't even speak to each other. We do not expect all participants in the Summit discussion to agree with all of our Evangelical beliefs. However, the HIV/AIDS pandemic cannot be fought by Evangelicals alone. It will take the cooperation of all -- government, business, NGOs and the church."
Further, during his United Church of Christ speech, Obama specifically singled out Warren's work for praise:
But I'm hopeful because I think there's an awakening taking place in America. People are coming together around a simple truth -- that we are all connected, that I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper. And that it's not enough to just believe this -- we have to do our part to make it a reality. My faith teaches me that I can sit in church and pray all I want, but I won't be fulfilling God's will unless I go out and do the Lord's work.
That's why pastors, friends of mine like Rick Warren and T.D. Jakes and organizations like World Vision and Catholic Charities are wielding their enormous influence to confront poverty, HIV/AIDS, and the genocide in Darfur. Religious leaders like my friends Rev. Jim Wallis and Rabbi David Saperstein and Nathan Diament are working for justice and fighting for change. And all across the country, communities of faith are sponsoring day care programs, building senior centers, and in so many other ways, taking part in the project of American renewal.
From the June 29 Washington Post:
Sen. Barack Obama's speech on religion and politics this month lacked this kind of sparkling clarity, but it had virtues of its own. He spoke frankly of his faith: "I learned that my sins could be redeemed. I learned that those things I was too weak to accomplish myself, He would accomplish with me if I placed my trust in Him." Obama recognized the central role of religion in the history of American social reform, from women's rights to the abolition of slavery to the civil rights movement. And he made a sophisticated distinction between the religious right and American evangelicalism, rather than lumping them together as a monolithic menace.
For Democrats, the speech was a class in remedial religion. But Obama still missed an opportunity. By speaking at a gathering of the United Church of Christ -- among the most excruciatingly progressive of Protestant denominations -- he was preaching to the liberal choir. And he did not effectively reach out to an evangelical movement in transition.
John Green of the Pew Forum describes that transition in generational terms. Survey research shows that evangelicals under 30 tend to be more concerned about the environment than are their elders, more engaged in international issues such as HIV-AIDS, a little more open on homosexual rights and less attached to the religious right. This should provide an opening for Democrats. But there is evidence, according to Green, that young evangelicals are as conservative on abortion as their parents and grandparents, if not more so.
[...]
Obama is clearly more fluent on religious issues than most in his party. But to appeal broadly to religious voters, he will need to be more than the candidate of the religious left.
When did God become Left or right? And for that matter, I thought liberals were all godless. Now we have religious left. This whole narrative made up by the right is dividing our country and demonizing good people. I'm sick of it.
I also think it's a bit brazen for this Gerson fellow to tell Obama what he "needs to do". Is this guy trying to do Obama a favor, I doubt it.
JJ, you sound "excruciatingly progressive".I mean, to someone who feels that progress is painful.
Obama is making some brilliant moves here. I think he will be the next president. He has my vote.
Even if Obama doesn't get the evangelical vote (which I don't think he will), he is making it harder for them to demonize him successfully.
That's good. Obama needs more votes from people like you. Let's get the democratic vote split between clinton and Obama and whoever runs against them will win it. Remember Perot! Clinton got one of the nations lowest vote totals because of the split vote and still only won by a small margin. MOST of America thought clinton could not do the job, and he proved it throughout his duration.
Keep trying to get people to vote for Obama and the other clinton and we'll see a repeat. Democrats are already losing the faith of the American people because of their failed and empty/incomplete promises from the last election (hasn't even been a year), all that's needed now is to be divided among who you want as president.
OK, what the bloody hell are you talking about? Are you imagining that Clinton and Obama will both get the Democratic Party nomination? Perot ran for a third party, remember?
As for Clinton not doing the job, based on what? His approval ratings were better than Reagan's. By what measure did he "not do the job"?
It is not possible for me to care less about all of the calculus. I will vote for Obama at this point. He appears to be the most able to me. Others may vote for Hillary, Ron Paul, Julie-Annie or whomever. I don't really care, nor do I trick myself into believing I have any real influence here.
Curious Auto,
Do you think the loser of the primary is going to pull a Lieberman and run as an independent? If not, your last post makes little sense.
Anyone know where the term Religious Right originated? I'm curious to know who coined it first.
I'd be very surprised if any sort of record exists as to who coined it.
You may have an easier time trying to figure out who baked the first ever loaf of bread.
My guess is the answer was buried with Falwell.
Evangelicals must be nauseated by the wild fluctation between religious martyrdom and overt self-righteous arrogance of the type displayed by Gerson.
"Excruciatingly Progressive?" Does that mean they don't fall on the floor and have spasms, don't believe that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, and don't send money to Pat Robertson? Does it mean they aren't willing to nuke the Middle East to hasten the return of Jeeeezzzzzzuuuussssss? Does it mean they're all going to Hell?
Isn't it amusing how the troglodytes must torture logic in order to make "progressive" a negative?
Nerz, they did a pretty good job on the zombies with "Liberal".Don't misunderestimate the New Orwellian Players.
It was excrutiatingly painful to read that article. It must be excrutiating to do research.
That's the phrase that caught my eye as well. From what I know of the church, which admittedly isn't much, the appeal of it is that it accepts all people. Well, so did Jesus. If that's "excrutiatingly progressive", then that's exactly how Christian faiths should be.
"it accepts all people"
Well, there's the problem, right there. Tolerance just can't be tolerated in a church, can it?
For those who find damnation of homosexuality in every other chapter of the bible, those who think females and blacks cannot be religious leaders, those who believe in a vengeful god, those who exclude from their church the very people they believe need their religion the most... for those people, the existence of the UCC truly IS excruciating.
Any chance Gerson was speaking from that perspective? And given that, what opportunity of supposed enlightenment for THOSE people did Obama miss? Someone in an "excruciating" state is probably not in the mood for education.
Another hack column intended only to promote the illusion that Gerson knows what he's talking about.
Amen brother! Why don't these guys just admit it - in their minds, Obama didn't appeal correctly to the white right wing evangelicals.
Guess it's only true if he (Gerson) knows about it.
If Obama wasn't a politician, he would make a dynamite preacher.
Yeah, baby. He is a dynamite speaker. Or maybe I should say he is excrutiatingly articulate. But then I might sound like Joe Biden. I haven't decided who I'll vote for yet, but Barrack is the only candidate who has inspired me to part with any of my money.
Huntington Beach, you are right. Liberal is a legitimate and honorable political appelation, but once Rush Limbaloney and Company were through with demonizing the word, it was "commonly" misunderstood.
Now we hear that the true villians are the "secular progressives". Well, I welcome the title, because the opposite (those who coined it and use it as a weapon) are the religious regressives. This is the group that has put our nation and our world in peril, due to a failure of critical thinking. The neocons easily duped the fundamentalists into believing they were victims of a secular society, and needed the neocons to set the country on a more "godly" course. This course has led to incompetent and ignorant policies that hurt our nation and soil our Constitution.
Obama and other candidates from both parties have to play the "I'm religious, too" game, and it insults the intelligence of believers and non-believers. I don't give two hoots about a candidate's religion, what I care about is intelligence, vision, executive skills, and a vision for our nation that places our Constitution and Bill of Rights first.
"The neocons easily duped the fundamentalists"
BINGO!
Naw. The religious right wasn't duped. They made a deal with the devil.
Well, I think we were being diplomatic...
Sure Senator.
You and your friends might be confronting poverty, HIV/AIDS, and the genocide in Darfur, but where do you stand on the War on Christmas?
I think that any thinking person would doubt this whole War on Christmas baloney, but there in lies the rub doesn't it? I have people whom I work with start talking about the War on Christmas right about the time O'Reilly starts firing up that old nuggest again every year for the past couple. And these are normally smart, sort of well informed people. I always pose the same question to them and it is:
Has anyone come into your house and told you NOT to celebrate Christmas and to take down your tree? Answer amazingly enough is always NO.
this is extrememly off topic but somthing i saw on fox bush now says you dont actually have to beat the terrorists in iraq to claim victory
Iraq is never off topic, as far as I'm concerned...it's the most importan crime of the Bush Junta.
I strongly suspect that "victory" will be defined downward immediately after the "Oil distribution" agreement is in place.
Gershon is a snake and a weasle. I examined his op-ed and something smells really bad. Gershon stated this:
Obama's criticism of the religious right for baptizing the agenda of economic conservatism -- making tax cuts their highest legislative priority -- had some justified sting. But then he proceeded, in the typical manner of the religious left, to give a variety of more liberal causes a similar kind of full-immersion baptism: passing a "universal health care bill," withdrawing quickly from Iraq, approving comprehensive immigration reform. Agree with these proposals or not, none is a test of true religion.
In the above Gershon is criticizing Obama for not knowing what the test of true religion is. But we have the pot calling the kettle black when read this from Gershon in the earlier part of his op-ed:
Second, Democrats should emphasize common-ground issues that credit the moral concerns of religious conservatives while calming the waves of the culture wars -- such as confronting the toxic excesses of popular culture, encouraging character and discipline in public schools, and promoting religious liberty abroad. Obama's speech showed little creativity on such matters.
Again I ask all of you to read the two italicized paragraph and see the pot calling the kettle black for yourself. Note: Gershon is agreeing with Hamilton that the People are the Beast and guess who Gerson will appoint as the nanny. Hint character and discipline and it won't be anyone on the left. So much for the true test of religion.
I as a progressive believe that government can solve most of my problems. I believe that there should be a balanced transference of wealth from those who have it to me. I think the rich people should provide me with health care. I believe that anyone who can get across the borders and live here for a while undetected should be allowed to stay. I think rich people should pay for my children's education including college. I believe we all could give just a little more to our government and good things will happen. What have I left out? Oh yes, I hate George Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and Haliburton, what else was there?
Ignorance is Strength.
In your stupid attempt to mock your opposition you left out your soul. But then again when has a Conservative ever demonstrated they ever had a soul.
Any Society that can:
accept a Savior-King as its diety and still be democratic politically
subscribe to other-worldly virtues of Christianity and simultaneously sell their souls to the general store
wait expectantly for the imminent return of King Jesus while pouring billions of dollars into the war machine (thus planning for a distant future)
...is a society that can entertain a jumble of exceedingly diverse ideas and not perceive these to be incongruous when juxtaposed.
Conservatives always talking out of both side of their mouths. That is what you are missing.
YOU as a moronic troll have no authority to speak for progressives thus using the light granted me by logic itself I banish the stupidity of your post to the nether regions from whence it came.
I hope Tweaky didn't spend too much time on that.
I'm still thinking it, but I ain't saying it.
I've got my eye on him though.
I'm sure he/she thought it was funny at the time. So many strawmen, so little time though. He/she/it did manage to get just about all of them in there. It pains me to think that conservatives actually believe, as it has been passed downward from on high by the mighty Rush himself, that all of those things Tweaky said actually represent liberalism.
Tweak, it's not even close. Pull the head out of that orifice that you normally sit on, and learn a little bit about what you're trying to insult.
Who at the "general store" has the authority to purchase said souls? And if the purpose of the store is to profit who then is the purchaser and at what price? Sorry Harley, you conundrum needs some work.
Have you ever heard of Man cannot live by bread alone?
The store is the Universe itself, the purpose is to profit the entire world and all those in it, the price is paid in integrity and no his point doesnt need work your ability to understand points need a complete overhaul.
Have you tried to make a purchase with your "integrity" lately? Note to self: Add condescension, narcissistic to chart, delete prescient, sagacious.
I made no claims about myself in that post. YOU asked questions I answered them not to tweeeeek. Add stupidity to your personal chart and delete EVER knowing what you are talking about.
Take it easy folks, I just drop by from time to time, don't want to upset your little party here. But seriously I have not been able to find the "progressives hand book" there for study of the phenomenon is in order. Charting the "against" is easy its the "for" that seems to oscillate. Party on.
You drop by from time to time to display your ignorance of which you are inexplicably proud
Seek first to understand, then be understood. But we won't hold our collective breath.
Like a poor scientist, you only search for evidence to back up your misguided theorem, throwing out all else. From the very beginning, your ignorance of the term "liberal" as used politically and socially has set you on the wrong path.
Begin your research again, this time with the understanding that "liberal" in this context means the willingness to abandon fairy tales and fables in favor of clear and persuasive evidence. Understand that "liberals" do not tie their honor to myths and misguided strategies, thereby allowing them to analyze and conclude logically, rather than engineering arguments based solely on the defense of an assumption.
Then drop in from time to time to see if you're ready to party with the adults.
Harley, "bread" being the "manna" of life was figurative. Food for the soul during the Exodus. Hillbilly translation 2007....Get-r-done! Islamo fascist translation....blow-r-up.
Soylent Green is people.
tweakthetroll,
Your post doesn't make any sense. Man cannot live by bread alone was the response Jesus gave to the devil when the devil offerred Jesus stocks in Halliburton and a no bid contract to the Iraq war worth billions not to mention the chance of a life time to become a Bush pioneer for a small donation of 2,000 dollars and your soul.
Yes Harley, I was talking to Diane Finestines husband the other day and he said for only $1000.00 he, through the defense department committee that his wife sits on he could hook me up with a bunch of no bid contracts in the trucking business. California here I come. [link to sfgate.com] Oh poop.
Don't forget to pay Cunningham a visit when you get out there. I would give you his inmate number but I don't know what it is. I do know this number though 28301-016.
When 28301-016 goes to hell he'll be one of Satan's favorite leaker's and Novak wil be happy to jot the leak down for the next edition of Satan's Daily.
Shrub and Roger7, or however he is this week, seem to both declare victory early and often. Is this a neocon thing?
I'll bet Bush wishes he could change his name after every failure.I just checked back on the Friday MM thread, and Max finally fessed up to being Roger.
Well, didn't really admit it , that would have been honest and straightforward.He somehow knew that the reason Roger was banned, in a typical display of non-accountability, was for being flagged too many times.
NOT for posting flag-worthy comments, but because some mean ol' person flagged his brilliant posts.Har.
This just in, another victory for shurb, Scooters skating, sentence comuted by you know who.
And now a moment of silence for a poor spurned jail cell somewhere in the federal penitentiary system.
If the rapture comes now and we all get taken up.... but the trolls are left behind, they would only be able to fight among themselves. What a hellish punishment!
This is what separates the liberal Christians from the evangelicals. It's all about punishment for evangelicals, and they never consider the forgiveness that Jesus offers us. How can you even begin to have an intelligent conversation with this kind of thinking?
I don't really know why someone would expect Obama to be any more or less than who he is. How exactly do you reach a group who already has their ideology wrapped in a box and sealed with a caution ribbon? Jesus was accepting of all people including sinners, and his message was clear. I believe Obama demonstrates this with his message of unity and care for one another. Love your neighbor as you love yourself. Sound familiar? This man, Obama, is a walking testimony to the very core of Christianity. Look at the people Jesus spent his time with: hookers, sailors, tax collectors, the sick, etc.... If people don't see this, then they aren't looking close enough...
Good point. After all, you're dealing with a group of people who think the earth is only 6,000 years old, that dinosaurs and humans coexisted, and that the King James Bible is the ONLY legitimate translation.
Exactly. They're probably going to vote for someone like Romney who doesn't believe in evolution.... Oops... Maybe not.. I forgot.. He's Mormon. To try to sway that vote? It's a waste of time and energy to me.
most people who identify themselves as evangelical will not even consider a dem.
as for left and right christian. God id God. christians interpret scripture and tradition many ways