CHICAGO (AP) - Barack Obama is unveiling his plans to expand President Bush’s program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups.
      In remarks obtained by The Associated Press for delivery today in Zanesville, Ohio, Obama says the challenges are “simply too big for government to solve alone.”
      David Kuo — a conservative Christian who was deputy director of Bush’s Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives — says Obama’s proposal “is a massive deal.”
      But Obama’s support for letting religious charities that receive federal funding consider religion in employment decisions could bring protests from within his own party.
      The Reverend Barry Lynn, who heads Americans United for Separation of Church and State, says the Bush administration’s faith-based program “ought to be shut down, not continued.”
      Obama is also proposing a 500-million-dollar-per-year program to provide summer learning for 1 million poor children to help close achievement gaps with white and wealthier students.

Read more about the plan here, at the Chicago Tribune, at the Chicago Tribune, & read more about Obama’s feelings on faith in general here,  at his website (PDF file).

What do you think?

Here’s a report from a man whom I think is a good reporter, David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network, on the efforts of both candidates to court the Christian vote this year.

What do you think?

A follow-up to this post, in last Saturday’s Washington Post:

Dobson vs. Obama

By Peter Wehner
Saturday, June 28, 2008; 12:00 AM

Earlier this week, Focus on the Family’s James Dobson criticized Sen. Barack Obama, accusing him of “deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit … his own confused theology,” of having a “fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution” and of appealing to the “lowest common denominator of morality.”

Dobson’s judgment was based on Obama’s keynote address at a “Call to Renewal” conference on June 28, 2006. In fact, this speech was impressive in many respects. As an evangelical and conservative who has deep concerns about Obama’s policies and political philosophy, I nonetheless welcome such a statement by a leading Democrat.

For one thing, Obama took on liberals “who dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant” and “caricature religious Americans … as fanatical.” He went on to say: “Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square…. 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 our morality, much of which is grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.”

So Obama was doing what people like Dobson have long urged: making the public square more hospitable for people of faith and calling for a halt to their demonization. Obama made his case in ways I found to be respectful and authentic.

Dobson took particular umbrage, for at least one obvious reason, with this passage from Obama’s speech: “And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson’s, or Al Sharpton’s? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is okay and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount — a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let’s read our Bibles now. Folks haven’t been reading their Bibles.”

Dobson was critical of Obama’s biblical references here and suggested that he had set up a series of straw men to support his “confused theology.” But as I understand him, Obama was pointing out why the words of Scripture do not provide a ready policy blueprint for modern American society. Indeed, many of us have grappled with how to arrive at a theologically informed and fair-minded reading of the Bible that takes its moral principles seriously without simplistically applying to our time the cultural norms of previous eras. The chief defect of Obama’s speech was that he didn’t provide more insight into how to navigate these theological waters.

The passage of the speech that prompted Dobson’s “fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution” and “lowest common denominator of morality” comments was this: “Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. What do I mean by this? It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, to take one example, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.”

Dobson paraphrased this as “unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe in.” But that’s not what Obama was saying at all. Rather, he was arguing that in a pluralistic nation like ours, politics depends on people of faith being able to persuade others based on common and accessible ground and appeals to reason — which sounds entirely reasonable. Christians who oppose abortion can make an effective case by talking about sonograms, fetal development and the moral imperative to protect the most vulnerable. That doesn’t mean one’s faith shouldn’t inform the question of abortion — or, for that matter, war, poverty and other issues. After all, President Lincoln’s argument against slavery was partly grounded in faith. But appeals to the Bible or church teaching aren’t sufficient in a pluralistic nation. That’s why Lincoln talked primarily about the Declaration of Independence.

There are certainly reasons for evangelicals to have concerns about Obama — based on his extreme views on abortion, judicial nominees, Iraq (his plans for a precipitous withdrawal would probably trigger mass death and perhaps even genocide) and other issues. But critics of Obama have an obligation to provide a fair and honest critique, and the attacks leveled by Dobson fall terribly short of that standard.

If Christian conservatives want to be taken seriously, they need to make serious arguments and speak with intellectual integrity. In this instance, Dobson didn’t. He has set back his cause and made some of us who are evangelicals and conservatives wince.

Peter Wehner is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and a former deputy assistant to President Bush.

What do you think? Post a comment!

Evangelical leader Dobson accuses Obama of “distorting” Bible

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (AP) - A key evangelical leader is accusing Barack Obama of distorting the Bible and pushing a “fruitcake interpretation” of the Constitution.
James Dobson is taking aim at examples Obama cited in 2006 in asking which Biblical passages should guide public policy. Dobson says the likely Democratic presidential nominee has wrongly equated Old Testament texts and dietary codes that no longer apply to Jesus’ teachings in the New Testament.
Dobson refers to a speech Obama gave to a liberal Christian group in 2006 where he said passages in the book of Leviticus suggest slavery is OK and eating shellfish is an abomination. Dobson says Obama said Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount was “so radical” it’s doubtful “our own Defense Department would survive its application.”
Dobson’s comments are to air [Tuesday] on his Focus on the Family radio program.
An Obama spokesman says a full reading of the speech questioned by Dobson shows Obama is committed to reaching out to people of faith and standing up for families.

We’re going to tread lightly over the discussion about what exactly Jesus meant in the Sermon on the Mount & rather take the opportunity to highlight the speech in question, which in many ways is cut from the same cloth as Obama’s vaunted “race” speech earlier in the campaign.

Just as that speech broke new ground in what was up until then a relatively taboo topic for a black candidate to discuss, & just as that speech challenged those who considered themselves on “Obama’s side” on the race issue, the speech Senate candidate Obama gave at the Call to Renewal center in 2006 is also novel in the way he confronts his own party on religious issues.

Here’s the speech in full, spread out over 5 clips. If you are interested at all in how Obama feels about faith & its role in public life, & especially if you believe he is a stereotypical “secular humanist liberal” on such matters, this may surprise you. (if you have a slow computer or can’t watch YouTube at work, click on the link provided inside the above wire copy for the full speech text):

What do you think? Is Obama’s interpretation of the New Testament fair game for criticism in the campaign? Or is a person’s faith a private matter, even if that person holds the highest office in the land? Post a comment & give us your thoughts!

UPDATE: Here is a link to the Dobson audio.

We thought we’d share a provocative comment from a poster who commented on this post.

The commenter didn’t leave his (her?) name, but had an address to this website, “Muslims Against Sharia:”

Here’s the comment:

Senator Obama is NOT a Dirty Muslim!

“What you won’t hear from this campaign or this party is the kind of politics that uses religion as a wedge,” says Mr. Obama, while denouncing statements of him being a Muslim as a smear. Why is the presidential candidate who claims to be religiously inclusive is treating the word “Muslim” as an insult? Apparently, it is OK for Mr. Obama to be associated with terrorists like William Ayers or racists like Jeremiah Wright, but God forbid somebody would call him a Muslim! No, he won’t stand for that kind of smear! We admit that most terrorists are Muslims, but most Muslims are not terrorists and the statement on Mr. Obama’s website is insulting to hundreds of millions of people.

How could a man who discards his family heritage in favor of political expediency be even considered for presidency of the United States? Where are all the so-called “Islamic civil rights groups” like CAIR, MPAC, ISNA, MAS, etc. who are quick to defend every Islamic terrorist, but are silent when Muslims in general are being denigrated? Would Mr. Obama have the same reaction if someone claimed that he was raised as a Jew? We sincerely doubt that.

Muslims Against Sharia demand immediate removal of “SMEAR: Barack Obama is a Muslim” statement from the official Barack Obama’s website as well as an apology for giving the word “Muslim” a negative connotation.

Here’s a link to the specific issues the commenter raised on the “Fight the Smears” website.

OUR TAKE:

*Is it true that Islam has gotten a bad rap since 9/11? Absolutely. The majority followers of one of the world’s oldest monotheistic religion are by far lovers of peace & intend no harm against non-believers. & if you read the Koran (& yes, I have), you will see far more wisdom, peace, love & advice on how to treat humanity than you will calls to violence. Put another way, there are just as many calls to violence in the Bible as there are in the Koran, & anyone who professes belief that either book is the word of God does not come into conflict by eschewing those tenets.

The fact is that the majority of peace-loving, moderate Muslims who don’t believe Sharia law is the answer (like the site linked above) are exactly the kind of people we need on our side if America is to prevail against terrorism. A big obstacle in achieving this is the tendency among many ignorant Americans to lump all Muslims into the same category. This group includes President Bush, who failed to discern the nuanced differences between Shia & Sunni before the Iraqi invasion. So it is unAmerican to categorically denounce Islam as a false religion, just as it is unAmerican to categorically denounce all Christians for their faith. The world is far more complicated.

*Now, as to the issue of whether or not Obama insults Islam by his clarification: I don’t at all see any perceived insult to Islam on this page. What is there is an attempt to get the truth out about Obama’s background. His (largely absent) father comes from a long line of faithful Muslims. & Obama was exposed to Muslims as a boy for a few years in Indonesia. But there is nothing about his background that suggests he is some sort of “secret Muslim,” as many inaccurate e-mails say.

*That said, it’s hard for me to fathom how calling someone a Muslim can be an insult. It’s my view that there is nothing wrong with a person of the Muslim faith running for President of the United States, provided that they (like any good American) recognize that it’s the myriad of faiths & the freedom to practice them that makes our country one of the strongest in the world.

*Islam & Christianity are a lot more closely linked than you may realize; in the Koran, Jesus, while not considered the son of God, is considered a prophet, born of a virgin, who performed miracles in the name of God. Islam treats Jews & Christians as fellow “people of the book,” the book being the Old & New Testaments that (to Muslims) led to the penultimate revelations of Mohammed as spelled out in the Koran.

*Our view of Islam & Sharia law generally falls into line with the views expressed on the commenters website: the American experiment has proven that if the state gets out of the way of religion (& vice versa), the causes of democracy & human rights advance. Both religion & government prosper when they aren’t linked together. But Obama does not deserve criticism for trying to tell the truth about himself. We share in the frustration of the commenter that a lot of Americans have an unfair & ignorant view of Islam, but don’t see that Obama is implicity denigrating the religion on his site.

UPDATE: The conversation continues:

“if you read the Koran (& yes, I have), you will see far more wisdom, peace, love & advice on how to treat humanity than you will calls to violence.” is a stretch. See http://www.reformislam.org/polls/), it is not. Moderate Muslims are in the minority.

“tendency among many ignorant Americans to lump all Muslims into the same category”

You are exactly right!

“I don’t at all see any perceived insult to Islam on this page”

That’s because you’re looking at the wrong page.
 http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/ch… is not offensive; http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/f… is.

My response:

I admit that my line about the majority of Muslims being moderate was a pure guess; I’m assuming you have a lot more research & numbers to back your claim up.

I still disagree with you that Obama is attacking Islam on his site. I assume when you refer to the link to his “main site” you are referring to this line: “Senator Obama has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian.”

Is it that you feel this line is factually inaccurate? Do you feel his father’s faith makes him a muslim by birth? And/or, that he is a Muslim because he went to a public school (majority Muslim) while he was in Indonesia?

Or is it that you feel that in his categorical denial he seems to give off the impression that being Muslim is somehow a bad thing? If that is the case, I don’t believe that was the intent or the impression.

UPDATE: Far more discussion on this issue here. 

What do you think?

Here are remarks Obama gave on fatherhood on Sunday at a church in Chicago, Illinois.

Yes, we’ve been meaning to blog about the above clip since it broke last week (a station-wide crackdown on overtime & my writing 2 newscasts at the same time hampered the efforts to be as up-to-date here as I would have liked).

It’s unfathomable to me that this “reverend” thought his ’stand-up’ comedy routine would have been appropriate. When your man is the apparent victor, it never helps to gloat or dance in the end-zone. That’s exactly what’s going on above.

So Obama chose a Saturday evening, with intentions of burying the story & its implications, to announce he’s breaking with his church:

Obama had little choice to do this, but it diminishes the impact of his chance to make inroads among evangelicals this year significantly. The fact that John McCain is that rare Republican (rare these days anyway) who is not comfortable wearing his faith on his sleeve was an advantage; the fact that Obama must now go in search of a new church will not play as well among the faithful. Still, anything could happen.

What do you think? We have faith that you’ll post a comment!

ATTACK: McCain criticized Obama for his stance on a Veterans’ Bill being debated in the Senate:

“Perhaps, if Senator Obama would take the time and trouble to understand this issue he would learn to debate an honest disagreement respectfully. But, as he always does, he prefers impugning the motives of his opponent, and exploiting a thoughtful difference of opinion to advance his own ambitions. If that is how he would behave as President, the country would regret his election.”

Zing! Read the full statement here.

UPDATE: Obama responds:

“I am proud to stand with Sen. Webb and a bipartisan coalition to give our veterans the support and opportunity they deserve. It’s disappointing that Sen. McCain and his campaign used this issue to launch yet another lengthy personal, political attack instead of debating an honest policy difference. He should know that this is not about John McCain or Barack Obama — it’s about giving our veterans a real chance to afford four years of college without harming retention,” Obama said in a statement. “Sen. Webb’s bipartisan bill will do this, and the bill that John McCain supports would not. These endless diatribes and schoolyard taunts from the McCain campaign do nothing to advance the debate about what matters to the American people.”

DEFENSE: McCain has had to distance himself from a religious figure, John Hagee, who has endorsed McCain but also (it has recently been revealed) made statements that appear to praise Hitler:

OOF! That’s not good.

So today McCain said,

“Obviously, I find these remarks and others deeply offensive and indefensible, and I repudiate them. I did not know of them before Reverend Hagee’s endorsement, and I feel I must reject his endorsement as well. I have said I do not believe Senator Obama shares Reverend Wright’s extreme views. But let me also be clear, Reverend Hagee was not and is not my pastor or spiritual advisor, and I did not attend his church for twenty years. I have denounced statements he made immediately upon learning of them, as I do again today. “

Our take: a little late in coming out with this, as there were plenty other offensive statements from Hagee. But he is correct in saying this is not the same situation as Barack Obama & Reverend Wright. & as far as the “GI Bill” goes, I think it should be fleshed out more in a post of its own, but his refusal to vote for a bill that would help those who have enlisted since 9/11 is a hard one to portray as ‘right.’

By the way, McCain also appeared on Ellen Degeneres’ show today, & the two sparred over gay marriage. You can watch the clip here.

So what do you think about any of this? Post a comment!

Any talk about his personal faith.

Full story after the jump. (more…)