Considering the President-Elect’s Faith

Cathleen Falsani has released her complete, unedited interview with Barak Obama on his personal faith from back in 2004 (all quotes are from that article).  Nothing he says should preclude him from being President, in any way, shape or form.  But much of what he says should preclude him from being a member of any evangelical church I know.  I’ll summarize it, but my goal is not to skewer him or correct him (ok, once or twice).

He denies the exclusive claims of Jesus Christ.

So, I’m rooted in the Christian tradition. I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people. That there are values that transcend race or culture, that move us forward, and there’s an obligation for all of us individually as well as collectively to take responsibility to make those values lived. …

I find it hard to believe that my God would consign four-fifths of the world to hell.

I can’t imagine that my God would allow some little Hindu kid in India who never interacts with the Christian faith to somehow burn for all eternity.

That’s just not part of my religious makeup.

Faith for him is more about living values than trusting a person (Jesus) and believing certain truths about him.  These are values that many religions have in common, rather than reflecting the character of God.

I’m a big believer in tolerance. I think that religion at it’s best comes with a big dose of doubt. I’m suspicious of too much certainty in the pursuit of understanding just because I think people are limited in their understanding.

I think that, particularly as somebody who’s now in the public realm and is a student of what brings people together and what drives them apart, there’s an enormous amount of damage done around the world in the name of religion and certainty.

He’s pretty vague on Jesus beyond the fact that Jesus really existed.

Jesus is an historical figure for me, and he’s also a bridge between God and man, in the Christian faith, and one that I think is powerful precisely because he serves as that means of us reaching something higher.

And he’s also a wonderful teacher. I think it’s important for all of us, of whatever faith, to have teachers in the flesh and also teachers in history.

The guys who keep him straight probably need to be straightened out.

Well, my pastor [Jeremiah Wright] is certainly someone who I have an enormous amount of respect for.

I have a number of friends who are ministers. Reverend Meeks is a close friend and colleague of mine in the state Senate. Father Michael Pfleger is a dear friend, and somebody I interact with closely.

For a constitutional law professor he doesn’t understand the Constitution.  1st, the Non-establishment Clause means no Church of America, or state church.  2nd, the Free Exercise of Religion which guarantees both Obama and I can freely exercise our faith here in America.

Alongside my own deep personal faith, I am a follower, as well, of our civic religion. I am a big believer in the separation of church and state. I am a big believer in our constitutional structure. I mean, I’m a law professor at the University of Chicago teaching constitutional law. I am a great admirer of our founding charter, and its resolve to prevent theocracies from forming, and its resolve to prevent disruptive strains of fundamentalism from taking root ion this country.

Fox News and talk radio confuse well-meaning Americans.  They apparently invented the pro-life movement.

Like the right to choose.

I haven’t been challenged in those direct ways. And to that extent, I give the public a lot of credit. I’m always stuck by how much common sense the American people have. They get confused sometimes, watch FoxNews or listen to talk radio. That’s dangerous sometimes.

He doesn’t seem to get grace.

What I believe in is that if I live my life as well as I can, that I will be rewarded. I don’t presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die. But I feel very strongly that whether the reward is in the here and now or in the hereafter, the aligning myself to my faith and my values is a good thing.

Sin is …

Being out of alignment with my values.

Read Full Post »

Considering the Aftermath

Here is one guy’s take on the election and its meaning.  The presentation is fun.

On a different note- at the end of Wednesday evening’s Law and Orderseason premiere we overheard the following: “Mr. McCoy, any truth to the rumor that you’ve been invited to join the Obama administration?”  Wonder if they had 2 different voice overs, or actually think Obama will have conservatives in his administration.  Just to make us go “hmmmm”.

Read Full Post »

Considering Political Change

Change.  I remember hearing about changing how politics was done.  Hearing about reaching across the aisle.  Stuff like that.

CHICAGO – Barack Obama is signaling a shift in tactics and temperament as he moves from candidate to president-elect, picking sharp-elbowed Washington insiders for top posts. His choice Thursday for White House chief of staff — Rahm Emanuel, a fiery partisan who doesn’t mind breaking glass and hurting feelings — is a significant departure from the soft-spoken, low-key aides that “No-Drama Obama” has surrounded himself with during his campaign.

And transition chief John Podesta, like Emanuel, is a former top aide to Bill Clinton and a tough partisan infighter, though less bombastic than the new chief of staff.   Podesta was President Clinton‘s chief of staff, and several other former Clinton aides are on Obama’s short lists for key jobs, …

In contrast to Obama’s collegial style and that of his top campaign advisers, Emanuel is known as a foul-mouthed practitioner of brass-knuckled politics who relishes both conflict and publicity. He once mailed a dead fish to a political foe.

But he also earned a reputation for pragmatic efficiency, whether the goal was winning House elections for Democrats or working with Republicans to enact Clinton’s centrist political agenda.

“Rahm knows Capitol Hill and has great political skills,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. “He can be a tough partisan but also understands the need to work together.”

House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio was less kind. He called his appointment an “ironic choice for a president-elect who has promised to change Washington, make politics more civil and govern from the center.”

Sounds like change means a return to the Clinton-era: partisan insiders who step on toes rather than persuade people.  I guess I’m a little confused.  I’m not sure that was what people signed up for.  How long ’til the disillusionment sets in?

Read Full Post »

Considering the Candidate of Change

Barak Obama wants change, so he says.  He’s selling change, or so he says.

If he wants change why would one of his closest advisors be the Sr. Senator from Massachusetts- Edward Kennedy?  He has been firmly entrenched in DC for decades- an utter insider.

If he wants change why would he choose Senator Joe Biden from Delaware?  Joe has also been firmly entrenched in DC for decades.

Oddly, both have had voting records to the hard left, and ethical issues that have given them attention they haven’t wanted.

Obama is merely an incredibly charismatic version of John Kerry (I guess the charismatic part is the change).  He’s “so smart” we can’t understand his verbal gymnastics as he fails to clearly articulate a definitive answer to a question.

Change: a return to the far left policies and maintaining power despite breaches of ethical standards.

That is some interesting definition of change.  I’d rather not change, thanks.

Read Full Post »

Considering the Nominees’ Forum

I watched a fair amount of the Presidential Nominees’ Forum hosted by Saddleback Church.  I both liked it, and didn’t like it.

What I liked was that both candidates answered the same questions, and didn’t interact with each other’s answers.  They were able to stay on task and not get caught up in attacking one another.  I also liked that the audience was well prepped.  They applauded both nominees, and did not boo them.  They were respectful.  Their reactions will be reserved for the voting booth, which is great.

What I didn’t like is the notion that they were somehow trying to win the “evangelical vote”.  I don’t care if either of them can share the right terminology to explain their understanding of Jesus.  I’m not looking for them to be my pastor, but to be our President.  That has a very different set of criteria.

Both candidates playfully pandered to Rick Warren.  I have no problem with that- it helped set people at ease and it was for show.  They knew they weren’t pulling something over on people, nor were they trying to.

For me, the big differences between two candidates was the Obama certainly came across as more personable.  But McCain’s answers (whether or not you agree with him) were more clear and decisive.  Obama sounded thoughtful, but that doesn’t help me know how he’s going to lead us as a nation.  For a candidate proposing change, the notion that Edward Kennedy will be one of his most trusted advisors is shocking.  He is the ultimate insider, and stands behind some of the most messed up moments in American politics in recent memory.  Not a good move by Barak.  Nor was hemming & hawing about abortion.  Women don’t get abortions because they have inadequate healthcare or don’t know they can easily and quickly find someone to adopt the child.

I thought McCain had a better grasp of economics.  I also thought Obama doesn’t get that people don’t mind taxes for roads and schools (unless they fail).  It’s all the entitlements and earmarks that people are frustrated with and don’t want to see their taxes raised to continue.

Obama also didn’t seem balanced his view of America, or other nations.  Yes, we are FAR from perfect.  We are not the only nation to deal with racism- it is a problem in every nation in which people of different ethnicities live.  But I’d take our track record with the poor and disadvantaged than any other nations’.  Are we jailing and murdering political dissidents?  No.  Religious people?  No.  This is, by and large, a generous nation.  Think of all the humanitarian aid we provide each year- even to nations that don’t like us.  Think of the numerous people, mostly Christians, who’ve given their time and money to rebuild New Orleans and other areas devastated by Katrina.  Just one of my pet peeves- only mentioning the bad we do, and never acknowledging or downplaying the good we’ve done.  Yes, we have some really dark marks on our record, but also some good ones.

I thought the forum was helpful, mostly.  Any thoughts?

Read Full Post »