Faith `Plays Every Role' in Obama's Life: Obama at the Redemption World Outreach Center in S.C.

[DeepModem Mom]

NYT/AP: Faith `Plays Every Role' in Obama's Life
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: October 7, 2007

GREENVILLE, S.C. (AP) -- White House hopeful Barack Obama stood in front of a pulpit Sunday and told worshippers that his faith ''plays every role'' in his life. ''It's what keeps me grounded. It's what keeps my eyes set on the greatest of heights,'' Obama told members of the Redemption World Outreach Center, whose 4,200-seat sanctuary was mostly full.

Faith, he said, is ''what propels me to do what I do and when I am down it's what lifts me up.'' The Democratic presidential candidate said God ''is with us and he wants us to do the right thing,'' including breaking down the divisions between Democrats and Republicans and among religions. When people work together, he said, there is ''nothing that can stop us because that's God's intention.''

The Illinois senator is a member of the United Church of Christ, a church of about 1.2 million members that is considered one the most liberal of the mainline Protestant groups.

The service at the center, founded by an International Pentecostal Holiness Church minister, had members on their feet much of the time singing, swaying and raising their hands. Thumping, rock-concert loud music played from a pulpit sometimes awash with fog and filled with a band and choir.

Obama asked the church's members to pray for him and his family. ''Sometimes this is a tough role, being in politics. ... Sometimes you can become fearful. Sometimes you become vain and sometimes you will seek power just for power's sake,'' he said. Obama told the audience that people ask him, ''`What role does faith play?' I say, `It plays every role.'''

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Obama-Churches.html

[Colobo]

1. Obama's a smart fellow. Every vote counts.

[DURHAM D]

2. Are you suggesting that his faith is political? eom

[PurityOfEssence]

5. So does this one, and it doesn't help

Ten percent of the country is made up of non-religious types, and most of those are part of the Democratic base. A few more percent who DO believe really hate having it as any part of politics. So let's just say that this rankles lots of us.

From cold-blooded strategy, this is better to tout in the general campaign, but NOT in the primaries. Then again, everything's topsy-turvy this year: usually one has to play to the left to secure the nomination, then swing to the right to win the election, while this time the front-runner is WITHOUT QUESTION the MOST CONSERVATIVE OF THE BUNCH. So perhaps nothing means anything and we're in a Brave New World now. (Please pass the Soma...)

I like this guy, and I trust this guy to a certain extent, although I HATE the ties to Medicine Incorporated and a few other things. Senator Clinton is a loathsome, favor-currying fraud. John Edwards is a visionary and a statesman and my choice since early '01.

Obama is playing with fire, and this absolutely disgusts me. If faith is at the core of his being, then he's not a complete person; we should elect god instead. (Jesus wasn't born here, so he doesn't fit the Constitutional requirement...)

[BeyondGeography]

10. Obama consistently includes nonbelievers in discussion of faith and politics

And he's the only candidate in either party to do this:

"Whatever we once were, we're no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of non-believers," Obama wrote. "We should acknowledge this and realize that when we're formulating policies from the state house to the Senate floor to the White House, we've got to work to translate our reasoning into values that are accessible to every one of our citizens, not just members of our own faith community."

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/08/02/obamas_faith_forums.html

You need to revise your thinking on this one.

[PurityOfEssence]

12. He still lags behind Edwards on the concept

Obama uses faith frontally in politics; whether he acknowledges those without religion or not is not necessarily an afterthought, and I believe him on this. The problem is the concept of a religious endorsement to policy as something that, if not necessary, is even appropriate.

Even if Obama includes non-religious people in his all-encompassing description of us as a people or not, it's still being done in the context that is tantamount to saying that religion is indispensable and belongs in the arena of politics. There's nothing ethical that can't be presented without the slavish acquiescence to a big whoseywhatzit; the appeal can and should be made to right and wrong and such agreements upon what is right and wrong should be expressed in terms of the observable, mortal and "real". If any other approach is taken, those with the official or endorsed spiritual worldview trump the rest of us vermin.

Edwards takes things deliberately out of the realm of religious justification or anything of the sort, and quite coincidentally has policies that benefit the weakest among us the most of the three major candidates.

He's the one who repeatedly and pointedly uses Jefferson's term "separation of church and state" in speeches and interviews, and he does it with the zeal of someone who deeply believes in secular equality. He even used this term in an interview with Beliefnet.

Personally, I think you need to revise YOUR thinking; Obama's acknowledgment of the non-religious may not be merely a sop to forestall criticism, but IT'S STILL BEING DONE IN THE CONTEXT THAT PRESUMES RELIGION BELONGS IN POLITICAL JUSTIFICATION. Religion is here to stay, and acknowledging something that's so central to so many people's lives is not a bad thing, but it's a dangerous path, and he's bringing it up more than many of us think he should. At least he has the balls to do so, unlike Hillary, who plays both sides of the streets and seems to be a closet theocrat to boot.

Please read this little snippet; it's something that strikes to the heart of the issue. It's from a person's encounter with Edwards in an open forum. Follow the link for more.

I had submitted a question to the Presidential Leadership Forum, but it was not asked during the Forum, so I decided to ask John Edwards the question and I was a bit surprised when he pointed to me and I had the opportunity to ask the question. My question was this, "I am part of the 15% of the U.S. population that is atheist or non-believer. Most of the candidates use religious language that turns off this large percentage of the population. How do you plan on addressing the concerns of the non-believers?" John Edwards gave a really good answer. He first asked if I had any problems with using the word "moral" and I said that I didn't. He explained that he tries to use the language of morality rather than of faith because he feels that it is the responsibility of the President to represent the views of all Americans whether they believe in a Christian God, some other form of God, or no God at all. He then asked me again if I was comfortable with his using the language of morality and I said "I have no problem with that.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/8/6/13936/85325

[BeyondGeography]

13. It's not a sop to forestall criticism; it's deeply felt

as Obama himself grew up as a non-believer, or, at the very least, without faith.

Edwards, also known as Mr. Inconsistency, has made plenty of statements you would apparently disagree with if you took the blinders off. One might even conclude that faith is at the core of his being, too:

In 2004, John Kerry said that he wouldn't let his faith affect his decision making. Does it affect yours?

Yes, it does. I do believe in the separation of church and state. But I don't think separation of church and state means you have to be free from your faith. My faith informs everything I think and do. It's part of my value system. And to suggest that I can somehow separate and divorce that from the rest of me is not possible. I would not, under any circumstances, try to impose my personal faith and belief on the rest of the country. I don't think that's right. I don't think that's appropriate. But freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion. And I think that anything we can do to promote the idea that people should express their faith is a good thing.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/213/story_21312.html#extndVer

[PurityOfEssence]

15. I don't disagree with that at all, I applaud it

He doesn't raise the issue of religion or actively seek out support based on his personal belief, yet when questioned about it, he frankly explains its place in his life and thoughts and brings up the issues of separation of church and state and his feeling that imposition of his religion on others is wrong in politics.

I think this is brave, nuanced and more than anything else, polite and reverent toward others. There is a gentleness and sincerity about this that rings deeply, deeply true, and this is typical of statements from him on many issues: I trust this guy.

I also trust and like Obama, although the religion maneuvering sticks in my craw, the ties to Medicine Incorporated are quite troubling and his proclivity for making off-the-cuff statements on very grave issues like war and nuclear war are dangerous. It seems that he's learned his lesson on the last issue, and that will serve him well. The active pursuit of the religion issue is dangerous and simply irritates one of my very deep personal prejudices.

Senator Clinton I wouldn't trust halfway to the door under an armed guard, don't like what few policies I can discern she'd stick by and simply don't like her.

The quote you use is one I use, which is from beliefnet. Can you imagine Hillary Clinton being asked by an extremely faith-oriented forum like this about religion and taking the bull by the horns and bringing up the term "separation of church and state"? Yes, the subject is Obama, and perhaps he'd do something like that too, but he raises the issue over and over and over and over again, and that disturbs me. I don't want it to be ingrained in our subconsiouses that religion is necessary in the political forum or even appropriate, and he is part of the problem.

[papau]

3. We have a nice selection of authentic actively religious candidates - I suspect DK may be

the only non-religious one on the stage - and I may be wrong about DK

[DeepModem Mom]

4. I agree, and I don't see this as a bad thing. I think, particularly with Obama...

we're entering a new era -- and some of this is generational -- of more authentic politics. I think Obama is authentic with his religion, and if it's going to be mixed up in politics anyway, then let's not, as Democrats, shy away from it. Similarly with Clinton, the Methodist Church was very much a part of her life, growing up. Nor is Edwards reluctant to speak about his faith.

My preference would be not to mix politics and religion, but that ship has sailed, I think.

[killbotfactory]

7. I thought DK was catholic

Isn't that why he opposed abortion for so long?

[papau]

8. I couldn't remember - but you're correct - I went back and looked it up - 4 Catholics, 2 Methodists

and 1 United Church of Christ (the former Congregational) and one Unitarian


The Roman Catholics are Bill Richardson, Dennis Kucinich, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd,

The Methodists are Hillary Clinton and John Edwards

Mike Gravel is Unitarian

Barack Obama is UCC (United Church of Christ)

[goodgd_yall]

6. Obama can possibly get away with this

Because he is intelligent, African-American, and liberal-leaning. (I don't say liberal, because of his non-support of gay marriage.) I have a knee-jerk reaction to his using church communities to campaign in, but, thinking more about it, it probably is a smart move in the South and I don't for one instant think, if he were elected president, that he would overplay the god card, like Reagan did. I certainly hope not anyway. But saying all that, I really would prefer a President who did NOT mention God ever ever ever when making speeches. I SO look forward to that.

[Colobo]

9. It won't happen for now, sadly.

[fedupfisherman]

11. Why is he at a church?

Is that not really illegal?

[incapsulated]

14. Huh??

Uh, no, it's not illegal for a candidate to speak at a church.

Follow politics often?