Hasn't Got A Prayer?
At a National Prayer Breakfast, President Obama seemed to say that Jesus supports his political programs. There's something untoward here. I understand that religious people--which most presidents claim to be--get their morality, or at least believe they get (some of) their morality, from their faith. And I suppose it can't help but inform their political choices (though even that makes me a bit wary).
But when a politician starts claiming Jesus, or whomever he prays to, would come down strongly on one side of a partisan issue, it doesn't sit right. Especially when you're talking about some abstract virtue (charity, responsibility, kindness) that both sides support, but in different ways.
I think I understand why the President said this. It was at a prayer breakfast, a natural place to talk religion, and seemed to be a political move, since certain policies of his have riled people (especially Catholics) along religious lines. He wants to assure them, as it were, that he's acting in good faith.
But it's troubling when a politician starts talking about how Jesus would come down on various political issues of the day. I think it cheapens both religion and politics at the same time.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:07 AM
5 Comments:
Effective counterspeech to rebut the Jesus that has a hard-on for deficit reduction according the twangy speakers
That's an easy accusation but they don't talk that way, that's just what the left imagines it hears. Anyway, two wrongs don't make a right.
The problem, in my opinion, with politicians citing God (or more specifically, Jesus) to defend their policies is that the implication seems to be "If you believe in Jesus too, then you should agree with this bill."
Consider, by way of contrast, what would happen if we had a president who kept his views on God totally secret, but then said "My deeply held beliefs (which I continue to prefer to keep secret) have led to my support for this bill." Such a claim might make you admire him as a man of great consistency and thoughtfulness, but the statement itself wouldn't persuade you to support that bill.
Of course, politically, there's an asymmetry: conservatives who invoke God sometimes imply "We, unlike liberals, follow God," whereas liberals who invoke God sometimes imply "We love God too, just like the Right." This asymmetry seems to have begun in the early 1980s. In the generation before 1980, the presidential candidates who talked the most about their faith were Gene McCarthy, RFK, and Carter. And in the generation before that, politicians never talked about their faith.
The clip from CNN about the contraception mandate has pictures of the church that I attend, and a professor from my school interviewed as well.
I suspect that the Obama administration miscalculated, and thought the reaction wouldn't be as strong as it is. Or rather, as it will be. All the press coverage has mentioned "most Catholics in America don't object to contraception," but it's hard to see how that's relevant. Most Jews in America don't keep kosher, but a federal law requiring the cafeterias in Jewish hospitals to serve bacon would be offensive to a lot more than just the Orthodox.
One of the most silly responses I've seen from folks on the left is "The Catholics can't complain, because they take federal dollars." This ignores the fact that this mandate also applies to Catholic hospitals and soup kitches and charities that don't take any government money.
Although it would be hyperbolic to compare this to the Kulturkampf in its magnitude, I think that it might end the same way: the government will back off once many non-Catholic groups start objecting, on the grounds that violating anyone's religious freedom threatens all religious groups. This seems to have already started.
Just imagine of George Bush had said directly that following Jesus leads to his policies. The New York Times would run it on the front page for several days straight.
Post a Comment
<< Home