Religious analysis…Texas style
Found an interesting roundtable discussion on the focus on faith Democrats have put on display at the Denver convention. Here’s the question the Dallas Morning News religion blog tossed out to a panel of religious experts and observers:
“From Faith Caucus meetings to panel discussions on morality to debates about an Obama administration and religion, the Democratic convention is spotlighting an enormous amount of explicit religious content. What does this mean? Is this appropriate?”
Faded and tattered though it is, William Lawrence of Southern Methodist University played the “fear” card — as in the Democrats are helping the “electorate discuss religion from a perspective of tolerance rather than fear.”
Rabbi Geoffrey Dennis views “the growing focus on the explicit beliefs of the candidates with great unease.”
Dallas Theological Seminary professor Daniel Bock called convention discussion of faith “healthy in a democracy. It reflects the fact that the elephant in the political room often has been religion for much of our population. No longer can we act as if faith does not or should not matter.”
Check out the other responses here. With whom do you most agree?




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!








Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top22 Comments to “Religious analysis…Texas style”
All through the piece you have presented Lynn, ‘ABORTION’ is mentioned a number of times.
Obama being an avid supporter of abortion, it is most INTERESTING to note the following:
Exclusive: Obama’s lost law review article
By BEN SMITH & JEFFREY RESSNER | 8/22/08 5:08 AM EST
As president of the Harvard Law Review and a law professor in Chicago, Senator Barack Obama refined his legal thinking, but left a scant paper trail. His name doesn’t appear on any legal scholarship.
But an unsigned – and previously unattributed – 1990 article unearthed by Politico offers a glimpse at Obama’s views on abortion policy and the law during his student days, and provides a rare addition to his body of work.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0808/12705.html
Report comment to moderator
I’ll go with this quote from Professor Mathew Wilson (though I agree with many others):
“So far, most religious voters (or at least most white religious voters) aren’t buying it. The Democratic embrace of religious rhetoric is seen as all style and no substance.
Obama’s positions on abortion, same-sex unions, and Supreme Court nominations are no different than those held by the substantial number of Democratic convention delegates who are self-described atheists or agnostics.
To be sure, these issues are not all that traditionally religious voters care about. They are, however, a major part of what they care about, and it is difficult for them to trust the moral judgment of candidates who would stray on these issues.”
The Democrats want to be all things to all people and they haven’t been able to be “religious” and “atheistic” as the same time. Which is why no one with any sense believes a word out of their mouths.
Report comment to moderator
So, Victoria, I went to the article and this was an interesting quote, at least for me:
“But Obama has never mentioned his law review piece, a demurral that’s part of his campaign’s broader pattern of rarely volunteering information or documents about the candidate, even when relatively innocuous. When Politico reporters working on a story about Obama’s law review presidency earlier this year asked if he had written for the review, a spokesman responded accurately – but narrowly – that “as the president of the Law Review, Obama didn’t write articles, he edited and reviewed them.”
The case comment was published a month before he became president.
The notion that Obama hadn’t written at all for the Review prompted skepticism.
“They probably don’t want [to] have you [reporters] going back” to examine the Review, University of Southern California law professor (and Michael Dukakis campaign manager) Susan Estrich said at the time.”
This is one of those rare times when I agree with Susan Estrich. They come few and far between. I have no doubt that other such instances of playing fast and loose with the truth will come to light.
Report comment to moderator
So if its unattributed and unsigned, how did they authenticate this as Obama’s. However, the article addresses a hypothetical since a fetus can’t sue its mother due to an abortion. 1) the fetus is already dead, thus only tort lawyers and opportunistic fathers can benefit from this 2) a fetus is not a legal person. The case cited where the father sued on behalf of a child who was left handicapped due to car accident involving the mother doesn’t seem well thought out. Perhaps he was trying to prove a point or some pro-life group was funding him, since I would think a straight forward claim of medical expenses and lost income due to him as the guardian would work better. If he was the legal guardian, he should have sued for himself not the child.
As for the faith message of the convention, American politics was now demanded a certain amount of faith messaging. The content may differ but Democratic Party as well as the Republicans are merely filling a perceived need.
Report comment to moderator
We can only hope that diligent research will uncover obscure Obama writings (law review articles, case notes etc). I’d say Barack is due for a good Borking. “Senator, exactly what did you mean when you wrote – and let me quote you here-”
Can’t wait!!
Report comment to moderator
Many of you may not have heard of the Gamaliel Foundation –
This short quote from The National Review
August 22,2008
Michelle, Anti-American Radicals, and U of C [Stanley Kurtz]
“Michelle, the Herald reported, had been executive director of Public Allies Chicago since 1991. Public Allies Chicago currently partners with the Asset-Based Community Development Institute at Northwestern University, led by noted community organizers John McKnight and Jody Kretzman. Michelle and Barack both have close links to Public Allies, to the Asset-Based Community Development Institute, to McKnight and to Kretzman. The Asset-Based Community Development Institute and its leaders are closely tied to the Gamaliel Foundation. Barack himself worked directly with the co-founder and Executive Director of the Gamaliel Foundation, Gregory Galluzzo. And as I show in my piece, “Senator Stealth,” in the current print issue of National Review, the Gamaliel Foundation is guided by an extreme, anti-American ideology, much like Revered Wright’s. In other words, Both Michelle and Barack Obama were part of a tightly knit network of Gamaliel Foundation organizers, and the guiding ideology of Gamaliel is deeply radical and anti-American.”
http://tinyurl.com/6rage5
Report comment to moderator
Geoffrey Dennis, Rabbi:
Frankly, I have been disillusioned by the divisive role religion has played in this election so far. I view the growing focus on the explicit beliefs of the candidates with great unease. Whether Democrat or Republican, candidates feeling obligated to offer creedal statements about their Christian faith (or denials of Moslem faith) is driving us back to the pre-Kennedy era where a candidate’s doctrinal confession is a greater political concern than his or her competence in statecraft. I fear this trend means the political process is stacking the deck against capable people of minority faith, or no faith at all, successfully running for office. I regard this as a grave threat to the long-term health of our body politic.
So much for specificity. I also find applying religious generalizations to political problems equally troubling.
Pastor Warren asked each candidate, “Does evil exist, and if it does, do we ignore it, do we negotiate with it, do we contain it or do we defeat it?” The theologically thoughtful answer is, “Every sane person combats evil policies, but the president can’t ‘defeat’ evil.” No mortal can. This was a question better suited for someone who is running for super-hero rather than for president.
I appreciate his comments and agree with them!
Report comment to moderator
Here is a link to the Gamaliel Foudnation platform
http://www.gamaliel.org/Platform.htm
I’m not up on what constitutes anti-Americanism these days, but in scrolling through it I see a faith based group advocating slightly left of center policies. Not a single “g —– America” in there.
Its philosophy
http://www.gamaliel.org/NewsRoom/NewsPhilosophy.htm
Report comment to moderator
Law students are not funded in writing law review articles. The Harvard Law Review editor has a list of who wrote what and that was how it was authenticated.
I don’t know anything about the Gamaliel Foundation, but it’s website won’t impress me any more than Rev. Wright’s website impressed me. There were no “g—America’s there either. What is it that Llama always says — it’s not what they say, it’s what they do.
The part of the article Victoria linked to that I found interesting was that lawyer answer: ““as the president of the Law Review, Obama didn’t write articles, he edited and reviewed them.”
This was why I quoted it. It’s true as far as it goes, but it doesn’t reveal the REAL truth that he wrote the law review article anonymously.
Yet another reason not to believe what comes out of Obama’s mouth.
Victoria, keep digging on Michelle and Barack’s activities.
Report comment to moderator
NJL,
The Gamaliel Foundation has been kept in the background so far, but its not going to stay there. I believe Obama’s connections through that organization open the door, its one of the KEYS – When I found out about this organization not so long ago, I was shocked -
Report comment to moderator
NJL
I wrote post 9 after you posted number 10 – some sort of mix-up on the site.
Report comment to moderator
it’s not what they say, it’s what they do.
And what do they do? The writer of the NAt’l Review article calls it unAmerican but doesn’t define the term nor describe what the organization did that was unAmerican.
Okay Victoria shock me and please enlighten me to the Keys — are we entering a Masonic conspiracy web site, if so let me get the tin foil.
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
YOU WRITE:…. “Okay Victoria shock me and please enlighten me to the Keys — are we entering a Masonic conspiracy web site, if so let me get the tin foil.”
You’re silly comments and ‘bait’ aren’t working HRW. This is just a game to you, but for those of us who are American citizens, its important.
Report comment to moderator
And what do they do? The writer of the NAt’l Review article calls it unAmerican but doesn’t define the term nor describe what the organization did that was unAmerican.
No its not a game to me — the election of a new American president is, for better or worse, a global concern. So tell me what does the Gamaliel Foundation do that is unAmerican. And please what is the reference to the Keys and why do you capitalize it?
Report comment to moderator
HRW,
Maybe need to research the Gamaliel Foundation, that is if you are truly interested, as you claim “the election of a new American president is, for better or worse, a global concern.”
Report comment to moderator
National Review
Senator Stealth
How to advance radical causes when no one’s looking
September 1, 2008
STANLEY KURTZ
After hearing about Barack Obama’s ties to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Fr. Michael Pfleger, and the militant activists of ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), it should be clear to everyone that his extremist roots run deep. But the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee has yet another connection with the world of far-Left radicalism. Obama has long been linked — through foundation grants, shared political activism, collaboration on legislation and tactics, and mutual praise and support — with the Chicago-based Gamaliel Foundation, one of the least known yet most influential national umbrella groups for church-based “community organizers.”
The same separatist, anti-American theology of liberation that was so boldly and bitterly proclaimed by Obama’s pastor is shared, if more quietly, by Obama’s Gamaliel colleagues. The operative word here is “quietly.” Gamaliel specializes in ideological stealth, and Obama, a master student of Gamaliel strategy, shows disturbing signs of being a sub rosa radical himself. Obama’s legislative tactics, as well as his persistent professions of non-ideological pragmatism, appear to be inspired by his radical mentors’ most sophisticated tactics. Not only has Obama studied, taught, and apparently absorbed stealth techniques from radical groups like Gamaliel and ACORN, but in his position as a board member of Chicago’s supposedly nonpartisan Woods Fund, he quietly funneled money to his radical allies — at the very moment he most needed their support to boost his political career. It’s high time for these shadowy, perhaps improper, ties to receive a dose of sunlight.
http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=OWI5NjYwZjg3NzU4MjZkZWI0ZWI5MzEwNzYxNmI4ZGQ
Report comment to moderator
What’s the old quote about “Figures don’t lie, but liars sure figure?”
There must be something similar about politicians and praying.
Report comment to moderator
#15 – you are advancing the claim they are unAmerican and are not what they seem. Now you need to provide the evidence for the claim. At that point I will attempt to refute your claim and offer evidence to the contrary. Thats a debate and argument; throwing out links as gospel doesn’t suffice. The ball’s in your court — prove your clam
#16 Your link requires a subscription so I don’t have the whole article to comment on. However, Kurtz advances the claim that the foundation is a separatist anti-American theology of liberation with explicitly stating 1) why liberation theology is unAmerican and more importantly 2) what activities and commitments have this foundation made that are anti-American. He supplies no evidence for his claim. What is unAmerican about church based community organizations?
However he does use a multitude of “hedge” words — one of the least known yet most influential; apparently absorbed stealth techniques; shadowy, perhaps improper, Simnilar language is used by left wing whack jobs to describe the power of the Trilateral Commission, the Bloomberg Group, and the Family.
“They are unknown but influential. We’re not sure but apparently through some sneaky stealth trick this group is subverting America. These groups are in shadows doing improper things. ”
Ockham’s razor dictates that the simplest explanation is usually the correct. If one needs to posit shadows, stealth with adjectives such as apparently, one should be wearing a tinfoil hat.
Report comment to moderator
HRW 18
If you can’t read what I’ve already posted about the Gamaliel Foundation and see that I have proved my point, it’s your loss. As you posted yesterday #8 —- “I’m not up on what constitutes anti-Americanism these days” —- yes I can see that. However you seemed to ‘catch on’ yesterday in post 8 with your links after I posted the info – Why am I not surprised?
I know what the article says, #16 you obviously don’t since you can’t read the whole thing. Many people do subscribe to this publication.
Report comment to moderator
so you give up — you can’t define anti-Americanism and nor can you explain why the foundation is anti-Ameircan,
Report comment to moderator
HRW – 20
Not interested in discussing a subject which you admitted in post #8 — “I’m not up on what constitutes anti-Americanism these days” —
Your bait isn’t working – It’s boring -
Report comment to moderator
But I asked you to educate me and inform me, you’re not interested in clarifying and informing your ill-educated neighbor from the north? Is that perhaps because you like the term but have no idea what it constitutes and are unable to prove it?
In terms of debate strategy I’ve opened myself up here I’m letting you set the terms and then you debate using your own definitions. What can be easier?
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!