AP headline said "Christians optimistic but disappointed in Obama," but report was about conservative Christians
SUMMARY: The New York Times published an AP report on its website with the AP's headline, "Christians optimistic but disappointed in Obama." In fact, the report stated that "[c]onservative evangelical and Catholic leaders" and "some right-leaning Christian leaders" -- not Christians in general -- were "expressing feelings ranging from disappointment to optimism in their reaction to the president's decisions so far."
The New York Times published a March 12 Associated Press report on its website with the AP's headline, "Christians optimistic but disappointed in Obama." In fact, the report's lead stated that "[c]onservative evangelical and Catholic leaders" and "some right-leaning Christian leaders" -- not Christians in general -- were "expressing feelings ranging from disappointment to optimism in their reaction to the president's decisions so far":
Conservative evangelical and Catholic leaders who went out on a political limb by aligning themselves with the Obama administration are expressing feelings ranging from disappointment to optimism in their reaction to the president's decisions so far on culture war issues.
Although most of President Barack Obama's moves on abortion and stem cell research have been expected, some right-leaning Christian leaders who took a risk sitting down at the table with a Democratic president feel that several major decisions fall short of the common ground Obama had promised on divisive social issues.
Media Matters for America has noted numerous examples of the media's equating conservative Christians with those who care about "values" or who are "pro-family" or who are concerned about protecting children.
From the March 12 AP article, headlined on The New York Times' website as "Christians optimistic but disappointed in Obama":
Conservative evangelical and Catholic leaders who went out on a political limb by aligning themselves with the Obama administration are expressing feelings ranging from disappointment to optimism in their reaction to the president's decisions so far on culture war issues.
Although most of President Barack Obama's moves on abortion and stem cell research have been expected, some right-leaning Christian leaders who took a risk sitting down at the table with a Democratic president feel that several major decisions fall short of the common ground Obama had promised on divisive social issues.
Obama's reversal this week of Bush-era restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research is the latest example.
"Thus far, I have been disappointed to see little give. There's been a lot of take," said the Rev. Frank Page, a former president of the Southern Baptist Convention who serves on a month-old advisory board to Obama's White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. "I've seen little give in the area of relating to the evangelical community as far as life issues."
Others point out that Obama is, after all, a Democrat and supporter of keeping abortion legal -- and he has promised to proceed with caution on stem cells.
Obama "is not doing anything he hasn't said he was going to do during the campaign," said the Rev. Joel Hunter, an evangelical megachurch pastor from Orlando, Fla., and another advisory board member. "So I am not enthusiastic, but I'm not disappointed, because we knew what to expect. I'm encouraged he is not totally flipping to the other side. We've got to be patient here."
[...]
Obama's nomination of Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a Catholic who supports abortion rights in conflict with church teachings, for health and human services secretary also has stirred the old culture war divisions.
But Page credited the White House for listening. He said an administration official reassured him that Obama would never force a health care provider to perform abortions against his or her conscience -- easing Page's concerns about the so-called conscience clause.
"So, on that hand, I think they are listening and trying to seek some common ground," Page said. "But basically it seems like the more left-wing Democratic agenda is being followed."
On embryonic stem cell research, which involves the destruction of human embryos, many questions remained. President George W. Bush limited federally funded research to stem-cell lines that had already been created by August 2001, when he issued the order. Obama lifted that restriction and directed the National Institutes of Health to propose new guidelines, emphasizing that research should be done "responsibly."
If Congress were to take a step further and reverse legislation that bans federal money from being used to create or destroy human embryos for research, "then we're going back into the culture wars," Hunter said.
Douglas Kmiec, a Pepperdine University law professor, Catholic opponent of abortion and former Reagan administration lawyer who became a lightning rod in the Catholic community for endorsing Obama, said he was encouraged by the administration's first seven weeks.
He cited the abortion reduction goal, provisions in the stimulus package to help the poor and Senate approval of an expansion of State Children's Health Insurance Program, which Catholics on the left have promoted as a way to improve socio-economic conditions and reduce abortion rates.
"As far as the expectations I had for a president who is a pro-choice president and did not share my pro-life views, President Obama has been honest about what he intended to do and has done those things," Kmiec said. "He has been honest, we've been honest about our disagreements, and the conversation continues."
Joshua DuBois, director of the faith-based office, said in a statement that "we have ... begun to work with key leaders on tough issues in hopes of finding common ground," and added that the work would continue.
Some Christian leaders invited to the Democratic table during the campaign made clear they would challenge Obama if necessary. At an interfaith service opening the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Bishop Charles E. Blake drew attention for chiding those who show "disregard for the lives of the unborn."
Blake, presiding bishop of the 6 million-member Church of God in Christ, a predominantly black Pentecostal denomination, also challenged Obama to adopt policies to reduce abortions.
"I can only believe he is going to keep that commitment," Blake said this week of Obama's promise to enact such policies. "There might have been some political motivation that caused him to take the early positions he has taken. But I think he will be just as aggressive and consistent in pursuing policies that will make abortions less necessary."
Cameron Strang, editor of Relevant Magazine, which is geared toward younger evangelicals the Obama campaign worked to target, said Obama has "done what he said he'd do."
He said he was impressed "that they are continuing the dialogue," adding that he felt "there's an opportunity for Christians to be optimistic they will continue to have a place at the table during this administration."
For others, Obama's actions on stem cells, abortion and the conscience clause represent an "extreme shift toward the left," said the Rev. Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, an evangelical group.
"I like our president. I pray for our president. I want our president to succeed," said Rodriguez, who took part in Obama transition team conference calls. "But we need our president to really govern from the center and not from the extremes."
But Hunter, the Orlando pastor, called for patience.
"I think it's premature to make a judgment," Hunter said. "The president in most cases is taking a wise and cautious course. I think a lot of people are just shooting warning shots across the bow right now."

















I am not !
disappointed, that is. Along with 365 electoral college votes and the majority of americans.
I am a Christain and I was disappointed in G. W. Bush for an imoral war. I am disappointed in the religious right for being the Pharases of today. I am not I repeat not disappointed in Obama in fact I am proud of him.
Sean Hannity, on the other hand, claims he's a Christian, but loves to say that he'd support torture.
I'm a Christian, and I can tell you that you cannot be a Christian and support torture, even if the person you are torturing is Osama bin Laden.
Torture is not about the person who is being tortured. It's about the person doing the torturing. My savior doesn't let me torture people, no matter how deserving of torture I think those people are.
risking going soft here, the body is considered a temple and Mr Hannity's needs a pressure wash big time.
" I am dissapointed in the religious right for being thr PHARASEES of today." Great idea PROGRESSIVE. I wish i had thought of it . I believe it is an accurate assesment of thr religious right in AMERICA today.
This is a good reason why Christian "leaders" should not lean right or left. They should follow Christ's teachings and encourage those who look to them to do the same.
There is a HUGE difference between a person who is transformed by scripture and one who tries to use scripture like a club to bash people who don't agree with their dogmatic interpretations.
This is well said, Mary59. Jesus Christ, as far as I can tell, was pretty apolitical. I thnk that is one of the reasons he was rejected as the Messiah by the Jews, in that he did not call or lead the overthrow of the Romans. We, as individual Christians in America, need to make our voice heard politically, even though it is not a united voice. Our interpretations of how things should be will be different, and, for the most part, that is OK. Those who wrapped themselves in their religion in order to "force" a certain viewpoint on the rest of us should be exposed as the charlatans they are, politically right or left.
Here's an interview on religion from the most important "christian leader"...Pres.Obama:
-- I am my sister's keeper, we are all children of God. Or I can express it in secular terms. But the basic premise remains the same. I think sometimes Democrats have made the mistake of shying away from a conversation about values for fear that they sacrifice the important value of tolerance. And I don't think those two things are mutually exclusive...
I think there is an enormous danger on the part of public figures to rationalize or justify their actions by claiming God's mandate.
I think there is this tendency that I don't think is healthy for public figures to wear religion on their sleeve as a means to insulate themselves from criticism, or dialogue with people who disagree with them. --
Wesley,
If you believe this, "I think there is an enormous danger on the part of public figures to rationalize or justify their actions by claiming God's mandate" when did you start becoming scared of Bush?
I don't know why you are confused, Friedbergboy. I understand Wesley's philosophy perfectly: If Obama does it, its bad. If Bush does it, it's either Good, or not worth discussing. And that's it.
It's not my statement...it belongs to Pres.Obama...which makes the premise of your question ridiculous.
I posted the link because it's an interesting interview with Pres.Obama concerning his religious views.
Huh? What's wrong with what Obama said? You guys on the right are not only irrelevant, you are making even less sense than usual.
The RIGHTIES rarely ever make sense.
I have to disagree with Obama here. I won't have a conversation about "values" because I really don't care what someone's personal value system is. You live your life the way you want and I'll live my life the way I want.
Values is more that sexual mores etc. Helping the poor is a value. Being a good steward of the Earth is a value. Democracy itself is a value. Obama is right. Democrats need to keep reclaiming the concept of genuine American values, rather than the false values foisted on us by the cons for so many years.
The early teachings of christianty were far more open and tolerant than the so- called "fundamentalist" movement in America today. In fact "fundamientalist" is a bit of a misnomer, becuase thier movement only goes back about 80 years or so - to the tent revivals of the 1930's. The take just that - America over the last 80 years - and go marchinig about as if they wrote Jesus's sermons for him personally. These people's ignorance is despicable. By any biblical account, Jesus would find the modern megachurch to be and utterly repellant monstosity - to politcal and to much based on money. (Profits over Prophecy, you might say!)
Funny how some of those churches emulate the money changers to a t. Perhaps they should start selling doves again...they certainly are good at slaughtering sheep.
"They should follow Christ's teachings and encourage those who look to them to do the same."
If that is to be the case Mary... then they would all want to teach liberalism then... as based on what I know of Jesus and his life... he was the proverbial liberal! (At least by the definition of a liberal today)...
He was a radical and a rebel. He questioned the status-quo, challeneged the moneyed power-brokers, and went against society's conventions on everything from criminal justice to established religion to the role of women in society. Yeah... REAL conservative guy. Give me a break. Jesus of Nazereth would not even recognize the guy that these RW conservative funny-mentalists keep talking about. (And he'd be p!ssed when he'd eventually find out it was HIM!)
No surprise here either. The KKK is a right wing christian organization. Other hate groups that claim christian status includes Fred Phelps. I'd hate to go against the constitution, but it sure seems that the bar for claiming christian status is perhaps a little too low?
The bar is set hellishly low. Of course, human beings tend to go as low as possible frequently, no matter what they call themselves...
Not being totally transformed myself, I'd love to see a few lightening bolts crash atop the heads of those KKK folk, Phelps, and other residents of Gehenna.
slightly ot (though some of these claim to be christians too!) but did you see the report from Rachel Maddow about home grown terrorists? Just a blurb from the posting on C&L:
-- The anthrax killer.
-- The far-right "Patriot" who constructed a sodium cyanide bomb capable of killing hundreds.
-- The Alabama militiamen who plotted to go on an anti-Latino killing rampage.
-- The ex-Army Ranger who planned an anti-abortion killing spree.
-- The young skinheads who wanted to kill 107 black people and cap it off with Barack Obama.
There has also been outright malfeasance on the part of the FBI when it came to investigating far-right extremists in the past eight years.
That appears to be changing -- the FBI has been public about its concerns regarding the resurgence in white-supremacist hate groups and their activities and recruitment since Obama's election. We'll have to see if that translates into tackling the problem seriously.
Imagine that!
Over the ages, a lot of violence has been unleased in the name of religion, whether it be by Christians, Muslims (to name a couple) or others.
OT, depending on how the interview went earlier this week, you may want to check this out. www.adeccousa.com (Looking for 1200 engineers)
I don't think that religion and politics are ever a good mix; unfortunately, they are mixed up more often than they are separate.
It is hard to separate the followers of a specific religion from politics, but the umbrella organizations (and their chief spokepersons) should not be directly involved in pure political agendas. Now, sometimes it becomes hard (using me as an example) to ask me to separate my religious belief system from my political thoughts. The tenants of my beliefs give me certain principles and values to live by and it is impossible to separate them from the secular events of the day. I don't want (and they never have) my religious leaders telling me whom to vote for or against. I will weigh each candidate's views and each issue's premise against my principles and values and vote accordingly as I think each of us should. So it that way it is impossible to separate religion and politics completely.
Thanks! I'm also looking at Corvalent. I actually had a phone interview with National Instruments on monday, at the end I asked if I was still a candidate, he said yes. I'm hoping I'm seeing a break here! ;)
My thoughts and prayers are with you Snoopy.
Good for the FBI ...What a steaming heap 'o rubbish. Nothing "christian" about any of these guys. Same for all those so-called Muslims who chop off people's heads. They're psychopaths.
Republicans don't go after right wing terroirsts (Seperatists, White Supremists) they tend to focus on left wing terrorists (Greenpeace). Obama's not going to do anythign serious about groups like Greenpeace, but (as you said) we're already seeing a change regarding crack-downs on RW domestic terrorists.
We should go after all terrorists and stop playing politics. But I would challenge what level of punishment is correct. I would call greenpeace industrial terrorists because they disrupt businesses, I wouldn't think it necessary to apply the death penalty though (I'm not aware of them ever killing anyone, or trying!).
Agreed. Although I'm favor of the death penelty, it should only EVER be applied when the case involves loss of life. And no, I'm not aware that greenpeace has ever killed anyone (though I could be wrong.) I just wanted to highlight the politics involved. I'm with you though - and there's really no question that the LAW is the LAW when personal (and yes, even corporate) prooperty is destroyed, let alone loss of life or limb. (Google or Wiki 'tree-spiking' some time!) But yeah, I don't see why these things need to be so politicized.
snoop are you telling me she didn't include Bill Ayers. That absolutely shocks me (LOL).
Ah, so now ayers is a right winger? Y'all change your minds like a girl changes clothes.
As far as the MSM is concerned, there are only Conservative Christians- if there are any Liberal Christians, they don't count.
In 2007 Newsweek put on it's cover a picture of a donkey with a halo around it's head and the caption: "Can the Democrats Level the Praying Field? After Years of Ignoring the Faithful, Democrats reach out to the religious..."(sic) So even a rather left-leaning magazine like Newsweek buys into the ridiculous myth that Liberals aren't religious, and the Democratic Party has a "problem" with religious people. It's just crap.
The Democratic party has a problem with white Evangelicals. It has no problem with Jews, no problem with black Evangelicals, and splits the Catholic vote just about evenly. This is just the MSM having made something up years ago, and continuing to run with it, facts be damned.
The myth persists for a few reasons:
1) Nowadays, it is only the Democrats/Liberls that welcome ATHEISTS & AGNOSTICS to their fold. It is also the party/philosphy that believes in the seperation of church and state. (The Goldwater republicans are looong gone.)
2) The funny-mentalists scream bloody murder about all of this, along with everything the democrats do that the disagree with. (And what does the likes of James Dopson NOT disagree with?)
3) The MSM, while owned by conservatives who couldn't give a $#!+ about ever acting in a christian manner, gives voice to the funny-mentalists because these people have been brain-washed over the past 30 years to vote republican.
Cycle, rinse, repeat.
So you see... The media doesn't "buy the myth"... they are basically responsible for creating it. Without the MSM, the funny-mentalists in this country would be releagted to street corners, wearing sandwich boards that read, "The End is Near!"
Politically speaking, anyway.
Is it me or is this whole article not even worth being written? It just says some are disappointed, some are not. Wow... great insight. Maybe next the AP can have an article about who likes peanut butter mixed with chocolate, and who doesn't.
I vote overwhelmingly for the peanut butter/chocolate mix every time. (Extremist in this case, I guess. I'll smear your peanut butter with chocolate every chance I get).
"I'll smear your peanut butter with chocolate every chance I get"
That is a clear violation of Jif v. Hershey, 1977.
Good catch, I was looking at Nestle's v. Peter Pan, 1958
Oh...the Christian Taliban disapproves??? So what!! Next bit of news please???
"I like our president. I pray for our president. I want our president to succeed," said Rodriguez, who took part in Obama transition team conference calls. "But we need our president to really govern from the center and not from the extremes."
So let me get this straight. Supporting stem-cell research is governing from the extremes. I guess that means that denying science a viable means of curing disease because God might be angry that embryos are being destroyed which might contain souls and those souls might go to Hell (which is the same situation when the embryos are destroyed anyway)...that is the centrist position.
When dealing with moral absolutes there is no such thing as compromise. That's the whole problem with moral absolutes.
I think Rodriguez and others like him have no idea that they are members of the extreme.
Probably so. And what I wonder is this:what would be the extreme positon on the opposite side of supporting stem-cell research? Any woman who donates an egg and any man who donates sperm for an embryo that eventually goes to waste get charged with murder? Or stoned to death in the public square? I'm genuinely curious what anyone in the world is proposing that goes too far to the Christian/conservative side for Rodriguez to accept.
If you can't conceive of a position that goes beyond yours, then you're kidding yourself to believe your position is moderate.
They keep on throwing out the phrase "common ground" but what exactly is that on this particular issue? There are only two options: Either we fund it or we don't fund it. Bush chose the latter and Obama has chosen the former.
Actually now that you mention that, Bush didn't oppose the research as a whole. He just opposed public funding for it. As far as secular interests are concerned, that is somewhat centrist. But still, that would seem to be unacceptable to those that are religious. If it's a matter of the sanctity of life, then "people" are getting killed whether endorsed with public funding or private funding.
How is it worse that fertilized eggs get used in research rather than being thrown away as medical waste?
See, in my world, doing some good with those fertilized eggs is BETTER than throwing them away.
And if those who object to using the stem cells from those fertilized eggs aren't also objecting to throwing away unwanted ones as biohazard medical waste, then they're hypocrites. But we already knew they were hypocrites, didn't we?
The stem cell issue since you brought it up, is a political tool to add more govt intervention in private industry. If the research was so important the private sector would have happily paid for it. Also there was a ny times article about a week ago saying that they can reproduce stem cells in a lab now that work just as well as embryonic stem cells, so the issue is does the govt need to be involved at all? If so why to the tune of 8 billion that the private sector is going to benefit from if anything does come out of it?
It was part of the item in question, I didn't "bring it up".
Right, it's a political tool, it doesn't have anything to do with people's health or anything. If there are other means that are just as effective (and I mean exactly, not almost), then that's fine. My issue is when the path of science is made more difficult to any degree by people who are not just acting on their own faith, and on top of that articles of faith that don't make any sort of sense even in a religious context.
It's not just the private sector which would benefit. People's lives would be improved significantly. And I can tell you for a fact that if I had the thousands upon thousands of dollars that I've spent for a nursing home that handles Alzheimer's patients, I could be using that money elsewhere in the economy. The interests that benefit from this would stimulate the economy as well. Quite clearly there's some public good at stake here.
The private sectors have been paying for a lot of the funding, and true to form when right wing groups found out about it they launched boycotts. Most private groups then chose to only fund adult stem cell research to avoid the hassle that illogical ideology imposes.
To brabs, sorry about your personal situation, it is always my feeling that less government is better, and I just don't feel this is an issue the govt should or needs to be involved in.
To snoop I googled stem cell boycotts, and all I found was some christian groups boycotting a couple of charities, the drug companies aren't that moral to begin with, and if there was money to be made they would be all over it. To me it's similar to global warming, I think it is a political football that keeps getting kicked around solely for political reasons. If someone can post some data as to the attributes of embryonics cells over normal stem cells that is irrefutable I may be disuaded.
If you only relied on the first couple of responses then you didn't look too deeply. No offense, but there were 140,000+ hits, and boycotts ranged from boycotting charities that supported stem cell research, to boycotting races and parades because parade supporters were for stem cell research (supporters who had funded stem cell lines, BTW) to actual product boycotts.
But let's be fair, what will you cosider irrefutable evidence? I've seen way to many examples of people making that exact same claim only to use an army of one as "proof" that the evidence isn't irrefutable. So is your tipping point a reasonable one?
snoop, with no disrespect, you are right I did only look through the first 3 pages on google to search your point, but I don't have the time to look over 140k hits. I also see nothing wrong with any group boycotting whatever they feel ,they have a right to boycott. Your statement made it seem that these groups caused/disrupted any embryonic cell research which I think is a long stretch.
As for irrefutable evidence I think you are right, for all the examples you could give, there are probably an equal number that would go the other way, which is why I brought up the global warming analogy.
We can move on to the next subject but the discourse is always good.
You wouldn't really want to be targeted by such a group, would you? I would think you would find it discouraging at the very least and something you would want to avoid. Things like charities and events in particular don't want the impression of being controversial.
People have the right to protest whether funding is public or private. The difference is the amount of influence it carries. Private enterprise doesn't want to see its bottom line suffer because of negative publicity, while there's really not much you can do against the entire government. So the question is:why should something like this be subject to market forces?
It can't be based on cost, can it? People pay for it one way or another, so the only objection there would have to be on moral grounds. It's more effective for the government to do it, since controversy doesn't affect the cash flow, so objecting to it simply because it's the government seems a bit of a knee-jerk reaction.
Jesus was only the Savior of the Jews. His teachings were intended for the them only. Paul later claimed that God spoke to him and told him that if the Jews wouldn't accept Jesus to spread the word to the Gentiles. Since Paul seems to have been something of a nutcase I'm not sure I believe him.
I am sorry because even in the Gospels Jesus said to spread his word to all.
I don't recall that but it could be. I think he was preaching to the Jews only though so "all" could still be interpreted as all Jews. Hard to say. Do you know where in the Gospels that appears though? I'm going mostly by what I remember of the Epistles of Paul.
"Christians optimistic but disappointed in Obama."
I dunno, but I think this headline is a candidate for Jay Leno Headlines, 3000 W. Alameda Ave. Burbank, CA 91523. ...
Or perhaps I could rewrite the headline with synonyms to further show how silly it is (and the NYT picks up this headline too?):
Christians positive but discomfitted in Obama
Christians upbeat but defeated in Obama
Chrsitians cheerful but frustrated in Obama
Exactly- the title AND the article are both dumb.
The AP's quality/agenda are suspect imo. For a wire service they are pretty darn iffy.
Wonder what Tony Perkins thinks of GW Bush now that his real governance is starting to be public.
He probably thinks it's pretty Psycho....yeah I know, wrong Perkins. ;-)
"we still get cash for the chaos" Jonny Rotten
This is very interesting. Ive seen a lot of comments from people that claim to be christians. What do you think about bill mahers movie that condems and repudiates religion and the people who follow it, incuding christians?