Was there anything wrong with these calls? Here's my take.
First, religious groups do have every right to advocate for specific public policies on any and all subjects. Those on the Religious Right even have the "right" to support curtailing or abolishing the separation of church and state. (I've spent much of my life trying to be an advocate on the other side of that debate.)
Second, these groups, like all others, may invite politicians, including the President to address their gatherings, live or on the telephone. Ronald Reagan used to frequently address the primarily religious "March for Life" every January on the anniversary of Roe v Wade via a telephone call played through loudspeakers at the Capitol. Many of us were horrified at what he said, but I don't recall anyone saying he didn't have the right to speak to these people.
This, however, is only one side of the matter. The other is what politicos should say when they address such groups.
One, no politician should claim that his or her plan for anything--from tax reform to health care reform- has gotten God's stamp of approval. According to some reports, including one via Twitter from another friend, Rabbi Jack Moline, President Obama told the morning call yesterday that "we are God's partners in matters of life and death." Since no full transcript of the President's remarks have been released, it is not clear what the context of that statement was, but it certainly seems to veer into the "penumbra" of my fear about claiming to mirror some divine intent.
Two, even if a political leader does believe that his or her view is consistent with a set of holy scriptures, that can't be the basis for policymaking. There must be commonly shared secular values (including those derived from the Constitution) which shape any programs or proposals. In the healthcare debate there are all kinds of rational bases for seeing the need for dramatic changes in the current system. There is no need to have political figures "throw in" some references to the Bible to buttress the evidence.
I wish President Obama would skip the religious rhetoric and instead clearly lay out the kind of reform he's looking for. If he wants the support of religious leaders, he needs to be crystal clear about his bottom lines for acceptable reform. Is it cost savings, the public option, limits on insurance company profits, or other specifics? One of the things the Religious Right often said after Reagan's anti-choice calls was that he never followed up on specific proposals. Progressive types ought to insist that the current administration make a firm committment to specifics--and that last minute further compromises will not show up on the table.
To subscribe to "Lynn v. Sekulow" click here.
One, no politician should claim that his or her plan for anything--from tax reform to health care reform- has gotten God's stamp of approval. According to some reports, including one via Twitter from another friend, Rabbi Jack Moline, President Obama told the morning call yesterday that "we are God's partners in matters of life and death." Since no full transcript of the President's remarks have been released, it is not clear what the context of that statement was, but it certainly seems to veer into the "penumbra" of my fear about claiming to mirror some divine intent.
Two, even if a political leader does believe that his or her view is consistent with a set of holy scriptures, that can't be the basis for policymaking. There must be commonly shared secular values (including those derived from the Constitution) which shape any programs or proposals. In the healthcare debate there are all kinds of rational bases for seeing the need for dramatic changes in the current system. There is no need to have political figures "throw in" some references to the Bible to buttress the evidence.
I wish President Obama would skip the religious rhetoric and instead clearly lay out the kind of reform he's looking for. If he wants the support of religious leaders, he needs to be crystal clear about his bottom lines for acceptable reform. Is it cost savings, the public option, limits on insurance company profits, or other specifics? One of the things the Religious Right often said after Reagan's anti-choice calls was that he never followed up on specific proposals. Progressive types ought to insist that the current administration make a firm committment to specifics--and that last minute further compromises will not show up on the table.
To subscribe to "Lynn v. Sekulow" click here.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
God gave people a choice. It is called free will. So is God a murderer? Case Closed.
It is very interesting when people starting secularizing their comments about abortion. Yes, God gave people a free will, and you can decide between good and evil, Heaven or Hell, that is what the free will is all about. It is your Choice! Which do you prefer?
I do not understand why we are not concerned with the President placing czars over our economy and country. It looks to me like they are trying to create a dictatorship in our country. The healthcare system is just part of it. I would recommend you all talk to David Horowitz or Glenn Beck.
Yes, talk to Glen Beck, who sees symbols from 70 years ago on the walls of Rockefeller center as an indication that the current President is a communist. Yes, that's a good rational voice to listen to.
Glenn Beck wears magical protective underwear. Horowitz is a racist idiot who thinks black people should pay reparations to the descendents
of slave owners for the loss of their "property." Could you name two bigger idiots for us to question? ROFL!
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.