Obama's Decision to Pray Privately Not Good Enough for Some

Cincinnati Enquirer columnist Peter Bronson is not that happy with President Obama in his latest blog post. Bronson's criticisms center around Obama's decision to "not take a White House role" in the National Day of Prayer. Instead, Obama decided that he would rather pray privately.

Why does this irk Bronson?:

Outside of attending the offensively radical church of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, there was little evidence of Obama's faith, except what he told us. But since being elected, he broke with tradition by skipping church after his innauguration in favor of a workout; he still has not found a church home after attending a D.C. church on Easter; and he decided not to take a White House role in the National Day of Prayer, saying that instead he would pray privately.

It looks like Obama spent more time in church campaigning than he has since he was elected.

Bronson readily admits that for many, this topic is meaningless and rightly so. After all, Obama was not elected to give us spiritual guidance, that is up to our own individual beliefs and how we wish to express them. Bronson however, disagrees that this topic lacks importance. He says that for people like him, faith is an important part of life and should be a "bedrock foundation for our leaders too".

Bronson goes on to claim that because our nation was founded by Christians, because the majority of those who are asked about religious preference prefer Christianity, and because most people choose Christianity, that we are a Christian nation. While this paragraph is apparently used to show us that he believes that Christianity is number one in his eyes, he mentions that Obama did not just insult Christians, but all people of faith.

Here are the reasons why Bronson believes that Obama made a mistake in not taking a more public role in the National Day of Prayer:

1.) He passed up an opportunity to reassure us all that he respects and shares our faith. Unfortunately, his decision will add fuel to criticism and suspicions that he's a merely political Christian, such as the comments by Rush Limbaugh to his radio audience.

By "our faith" I assume that Bronson means Christianity. If this is a day that celebrates all faiths, then why does Bronson feel that it is important for Obama to express that he shares a specific faith? It has been well-established that Obama is of the Christian faith (except to those who still think he is a closet Muslim), so why would anyone think Obama doesn't respect the religion to which he is a member? It seems as though the only people who are adding fuel to this fire are people like Bronson who continue to advance these claims.

2.) Obama missed the point. He said he would rather pray privately. Many Christians agree and do that every day. But this was not about him. It was about the office of the presidency and using that national pulpit for a few minutes to show respect for all people of faith.

Bronson admits what his real criticism is about in this very point. This isn't about Obama's own relationship with his God, this is about Bronson and others being upset that he did not use his office to advocate for the religious. Obama, like many Presidents before, issued a proclamation in support of the National Day of Prayer which Bronson does mention, but this is apparently not enough. Isn't issuing a Presidential Proclamation "using the national pulpit to show respect for all people of faith"?

3.) Obama turned a non-partisan, ecumenical event into a political jab, by once again going out of his way to show us he is not like President Bush. By now, we all get that. We also know that being the anti-Bush is not always an improvement. Bush's celebrations of the Day of Prayer were classy, considerate and inspirational -- a refreshing respite from the partisan hair-pulling of D.C.

Bronson interprets Obama's actions as a calculated political decision to do the opposite of what President Bush did. This is a baseless claim. Just because Obama's actions were not the same as President Bush's actions does not automatically mean that this was the prime motivator in this decision. Rewind time to 2002 and you can make the same ridiculous argument by replacing Obama's name with "Bush" and Bush's name with "Bush Sr." or "Reagan" since they were not in the habit of holding White House events on the National Day of Prayer.

Bronson's implication is that Obama's decisions were either "classy", "considerate", or "inspirational". It seems like the only person turning this into a "political jab" is Peter Bronson.

4.) Extremists like the Freedom From Religion Foundation want to outlaw observances -- even proclamations -- by claiming they violate separation of church and state. But Congress is opened by prayers; they are written on our courthouses, our currency and our common ideals. Efforts to eradicate religion from our public life would be shocking to the Founders. Such as:

John Adams: "We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

George Washington: "Religion and morality are the essential pillars of civil society."

Patrick Henry: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great Nation was founded not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For that reason alone, people of other faiths have been afforded freedom of worship here."

Obama's faith is between him and God. But the way he treats faith as our president is a fair topic for criticism.

I don't think that "extremist" groups who advocate the separation of church and state would be quite as shocking to the founders as Bronson suggests. Here is a clip from an 1802 letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions"

[...]

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

Bronson's blog entry is nothing more than the right's continued attempt to attack Obama for anything and everything. How else can you explain Bronson stating in one breath: "It looks like Obama spent more time in church campaigning than he has since he was elected." and then in the next breath state: "Obama's faith is between him and God." If Obama's faith (or lack thereof according to Bronson) is truly between him and his God, then why on Earth does it matter how many times Obama has been to church? The only reason that it matters is to further this baseless and pointless attack.

Below is the proclamation that President Obama signed for this year's National Day of Prayer. It is actions like these that have led those like Bronson to claim that Obama is not showing respect for people of all faiths. (Emphasis mine)

NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER, 2009

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION

Throughout our Nation's history, Americans have come together in moments of great challenge and uncertainty to humble themselves in prayer. In 1775, as the Continental Congress began the task of forging a new Nation, colonists were asked to observe a day of quiet humiliation and prayer. Almost a century later, as the flames of the Civil War burned from north to south, President Lincoln and the Congress once again asked the American people to pray as the fate of their Nation hung in the balance.

It is in that spirit of unity and reflection that we once again designate the first Thursday in May as the National Day of Prayer. Let us remember those who came before us, and let us each give thanks for the courage and compassion shown by so many in this country and around the world.

On this day of unity and prayer, let us also honor the service and sacrifice of the men and women of the United States Armed Forces. We celebrate their commitment to uphold our highest ideals, and we recognize that it is because of them that we continue to live in a Nation where people of all faiths can worship or not worship according to the dictates of their conscience.

Let us also use this day to come together in a moment of peace and goodwill. Our world grows smaller by the day, and our varied beliefs can bring us together to feed the hungry and comfort the afflicted; to make peace where there is strife; and to lift up those who have fallen on hard times. As we observe this day of prayer, we remember the one law that binds all great religions together: the Golden Rule, and its call to love one another; to understand one another; and to treat with dignity and respect those with whom we share a brief moment on this Earth.

The Congress, by Public Law 100-307, as amended, has called on the President to issue each year a proclamation designating the first Thursday in May as a "National Day of Prayer."

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, do hereby proclaim May 7, 2009, as a National Day of Prayer. I call upon Americans to pray in thanksgiving for our freedoms and blessings and to ask for God's continued guidance, grace, and protection for this land that we love.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this seventh day of May, in the year of our Lord two thousand nine, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-third.

BARACK OBAMA

This piece is also posted at: http://www.cincinnatibeacon.com

Onward Christian Soldiers

The news organization Al Jazeera recently aired a report on U.S. soldiers discussing how they could "hunt people for Jesus" in other words, how to spread Christian beliefs to the population in Afghanistan. Here is the original video:



Not surprisingly, this raised numerous eyebrows since it appears that this violates the US Central Command's General Order Number One which forbids active-duty troops from attempting to convert people to any religion. Quickly after this video aired, the Pentagon fired back claiming that the footage had been taken out of context and chiding Al Jazeera for "irresponsible journalism".

To combat the Pentagon's claim that the footage had been taken out of context and therefore distorted the truth, Al Jazeera and film maker Brian Hughes released an extended and unedited version of the video in question which can be viewed here:



Hughes stands by the report on Al Jazeera and released a statement in which he said:

Any contention by the military that his words are purposefully taken out of context to alter the tone or meaning of his sermon is absolutely false. To this end, I am exploring my options to release Hensley's sermon in its entirety so that everyone can make his or her own conclusions about context and intent. Stay tuned to this blog.

In recent press statements, the military also contends that - in the footage depicting the Afghan-language (Dari and Pashto) bibles - a cut was made before "it would have shown that the chaplain instructed that the Bibles not be distributed." This is a false statement. The chaplain - as seen in the footage before the cut - instructs the group to be careful and reiterates the definition of General Order #1. After this cut he begins to organize the group for the evening's bible study lessons.

Finally, and in my opinion most important, is the fact that EVERY FRAME of the rough cut from Bagram was provided to the U.S. Army Public Affairs Office in advance of this release. On Thursday, April 30 at approximately 1 pm EST, the Army took possession of a DVD with this footage by accepting a FedEx from me. Since Al Jazeera English first aired the piece Sunday, May 3 at 10pm EST, the Army had every frame of this rough cut for more than 80 hours.

This video footage coincides with a recent piece in Harper's Magazine by Jeff Sharlet entitled Jesus Killed Mohammed: The Crusade for a Christian Military. Sharlet described the meaning behind the title of his piece in an interview that aired yesterday on Democracy Now!:

Well, after about a year of interviewing military personnel, this was, in some ways, the most frightening story that I encountered. A man named Staff Sergeant Jeffery Humphrey, one of the very few soldiers who, in this military climate, had the courage to come forward and speak out about what he had seen, he had been stationed in Samarra. It was Easter. The day began calmly. A chaplain brought around a copy of Mel Gibson’s anti-Semitic film Passion of the Christ, which they then put on constant play throughout the day.


When they came under attack, the Special Forces, Army Special Forces to whom he was assigned, had their Iraqi translator, an Iraqi American Christian, paint in giant red Arabic letters on the side of a Bradley fighting vehicle the words “Jesus killed Mohammed.” Then, while they put the translator on the roof with a bullhorn, shouting in Arabic, “Jesus killed Mohammed,” and then training their guns, training American guns on anybody who responded, the Bradley fighting vehicle rolled out into the city of Samarra and drawing fire everywhere it went, leading the Special Forces to conclude that every single Iraqi who took offense at these words, “Jesus killed Mohammed,” was part of the enemy and therefore needed to be destroyed.


And I spoke to the man who drove that Bradley, Lieutenant John DeGiulio, now Captain John DeGiulio, promoted since. And he describes wreaking almost biblical destruction on one whole block, blowing up every single thing he saw. And he said he was able to do this, because God was on his side and because he had been spiritually armored by watching Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ. And then he thanked his chaplain for preparing him for that kind of spiritual battle on the streets of Iraq.

and Sharlet is reporting that the practice of hunting people for Jesus is not an isolated incident:

You know, I would have thought that was—this guy was just a kind of a rogue, a maverick, if I didn’t speak to so many other officers with just the same attitude. In the story, I talk about Lieutenant-Colonel Bob Young, who is also in Afghanistan at Kandahar Air Base, and he was quite plain in boasting about a PowerPoint presentation he had given to Afghan warlords explaining that American government was based on Christianity, that our Christian god was what made it great, and Afghanistan had a choice if it wanted to achieve democracy. And of course that choice was going to be for Jesus. These people don’t even know that they’re crossing the line between church and state.

I think the question that should be on everyone's mind is the same question that was on my mind following the revelations at Abu Ghraib. Are these isolated incidents or is this a systemic problem?

Dick Morris tackles the tough issues?

A coworker forwarded me the latest article by former Bill Clinton strategist Dick Morris earlier today. You can read the text of this article here.

I read some of the observations that Morris made and felt compelled to respond.

1. Dick Morris lists all of the "fears" that people associate with the Obama campaign; from Rev. Wright to a Muslim father to Obama having a "strange name." Yet later in the article Morris admits "So far, he [Obama] has avoided inflaming them and taken great care not to lend them
any credibility from his own statements or positions." What does this say about those who have an unsubstantiated "fear" about Obama? By Morris's own admission it verifies that the fears are unsubstantiated. Yet this point is lost on Morris. He claims that Obama must "go further and
reassure voters who want to believe him, but are afraid." So in the mind of Dick Morris the following exists: 1. There are fears about Obama's past and associations....2. Obama has not lent these critics any credibility from his own statements or positions..hence 3. These "fears" must be unsubstantiated since they are not credible...but 4. Obama must go further to prove that these fears are not true. How can Obama go farther than not giving any credibility to those who hold such "fears"?

2. Morris states that: "If he [Obama] were white, with similar associations, he would be suspect. But he comes from a world few white voters know or understand ..."

To the first point in this quote, is John McCain also suspect due to his own "controversial pastors"? I speak of John Hagee and Pastor Parsley. If you don't recognize either of these names it is no surprise since this issue did not get nearly the coverage of Rev. Wright, yet McCain fully embraced the endorsements of both men before rejecting them months later. I am not necessarily claiming the media has a racist agenda per se, but this point is troubling. Addressing the second point, perhaps we need more discussion of this "world few white voters know or understand". It may be beneficial to clear up any misunderstanding by doing an in-depth series on the issue on a major network instead of airing the same :15-:20 second sound bytes that only help to inflame and distort the issues from their greater context.

Instead of using the romantic language that the US has a "civil religion" and the President is a "high priest" of this religion, perhaps it would be more helpful to put the role of the U.S. into a greater historical context. The quote from Ronald Reagan...implying that the formation of the
U.S. was a "divine plan"...is not helpful in doing this, but only helps to romanticize the role of the United States without giving true examination to the policies carried out in the name of the country.