This afternoon Barack Obama will propose significant government support for faith-based community service organizations, an expansion of George W. Bush's controversial initiative. The speech's site, a Zanesville, Ohio church that serves its impoverished community with a food and a clothes bank, as well as a youth center, is in a crucial swing state.
In today's speech Mr. Obama will describe the evolution of his own Christian faith during his years as an organizer in Chicago, highlighting the significance of that faith now: ``In time, I came to see faith as being both a personal commitment to Christ and a commitment to my community; that while I could sit in church and pray all I want, I wouldn't be fulfilling God's will unless I went out and did the Lord's work,."
Mr. Obama promises to elevate this commitment to faith-based organizations to a ``moral center'' of his administration, by renaming it the Office of Community and Faith-Based Partnerships. He wants the larger organizations to train many smaller organizations at work in their local communities, similar to the Zanesville church where he will speak.
True to his community organizer's roots, he will seek a "bottom ups" approach in providing grass roots support for the needy.
In my estimation what Mr. Obama will say today has two sides to ponder. First, there's political posturing to curry the favor of the Evangelical and the poor voters--a very clever two-for-one. Second, there's reiteration of Mr. Obama's Christian identity.
Once again Mr. Obama is speaking like a preacher/theologian. In this instance he parallels his commitment to Christ to a commitment to community. My June 16 blog proposed that Mr. Obama is the most integrally religious candidate since Woodrow Wilson. This bumps that analysis up a notch.
Rather than less religion in this year's presidential campaign, thanks to Mr. Obama, we have more in a way that can significantly affect religion's role in politics and culture. I'm wary.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
I'm at a loss to understand how anyone could have religious views of any significance or authentic meaning that do not thoroughly inform their actions and agendas. The only way to block that conduit is to disqualify religious candidates from office.
That's not to say that I can't conceive of a public sphere in which appeals to sacred books or church doctrines are not sufficient grounds for action. I just don't see why an argument/conviction completely uninformed by religious belief is inherently more acceptable to some than those derived from religious convictions.
Obama's proposal is a gross violation of the separation of church and state and is faulty on a number of fronts, not the least of which is that proselytizing is at the heart of many of the most effective programs it aims to assist.
I don't care if his enthusiasm for this program stems from faith in Christ or humanistic pragmatism. It's just a bad idea. Let him go on and on about his faith, if it's sincere.
Post a Comment