Rev. Barry W. Lynn: January 2009 Archives

As you pointed out, Jay, earlier this week the Democrats handed Rush Limbaugh a major victory: they made him relevant again.  Of course, President Obama's comment to the Republicans about not "listening" to Limbaugh was supposed to be ironic, as in, this is the wing of your party that is really out to lunch.  The DCCC "petition" is just one more fundraising gimmick--and a bad one at that.  I'm sure that Limbaugh will be converting to the Democratic Party if just a few million people tell him they are upset with him.  (And, oh yes, a pig just flew by my window.)

The broader point you attempt to make is that this is all prelude to some Democratic plot to quell right-wing talk radio.  And you invoke the dreaded "Fairness Doctrine."  During the time the "doctrine" was in place, it had very little positive effect and zero negative effect.  Here's what it was and wasn't.  It was not an "equal time" rule, requiring a balanced coverage of all issues by each show.  Indeed, it didn't even cover specific shows, including shows by, say, Jay Sekulow or Barry Lynn (or that Limbaugh fellow).  It was designed to push local radio and television stations to present alternative views where an issue had become a local matter of controversy.  It was crafted under the unremarkable theory that since the electromagnetic spectrum is a finite resource and it was "sold" to certain people in the form of licenses to broadcast on specific frequencies, owners had some modicum of responsibility to serve the needs of a broadcast area. 

The Fairness Doctrine, in its entire history, was only partly responsible for two broadcasters' failure to renew their licenses. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the doctrine, and not even the ACLU saw it as a First Amendment problem.

 
And by the way, Obama said he doesn't even support the Fairness Doctrine.

 

I knew you would not be happy, Jay, that President Obama did what he had always said he would do--remove the restriction against even discussing abortion by groups which are engaged in international family planning and receive any tax dollars.  The rule imposed by the Bush Administration was so broad that it prohibited such counseling or referral even with privately raised dollars, much less those government dollars.

The fact that these funds have been unavailable has had an incalculable negative effect on the health and safety of women all over the world. Combined with U.S. "no condoms" policies and other anti-scientific actions, the Bush Admininistration left a legacy of bad "public health" carnage.  I actually spoke about this last year at the Harvard University School of Public Heatlh and wrote about it in a column.

I also knew that the Roman Cathollic hierarchy in the United States and the Vatican itself would not like Obama's move.  What I found really odd was the language the Vatican used to condemn the action: arrogance. Monsignor Rino Fisichella said Obama had "the arrogance of those, being in power, [who] believe they can decide of life and death".

Of course, some of us have been deeply concerned for years about another kind of arrogance: the arrogance of those men with ecclesiastical power who have managed to delegitimatize the moral decision-making power of women in regard to reproductive health.  They have often resided in places like the Vatican and they have often successfully lobbied secular officials around the globe to bend to their theological arguments.

Barack Obama has stood up to them.  This does not make him "pro-abortion".  This just makes him the first President in eight years who seems to know that there is a difference between state-imposed religious dogma and the American concept of making ethical choices based on one's own spiritual and reasonable principles. 

I'm sorry, Jay, but I can't say "amen" to your characterization of Rick Warren's participation in the inaugural ceremony.  Although once you pass the threshold of having two Protestant ministers, it is not unexpected that one or both (in this case, only one since the Rev. Joseph Lowery did not) is going to pray in the name of Jesus. As you know, I think the prayers should have been restricted to the worship service the then-President elect attended earlier in the day. Adding the Lord's Prayer to the end of Warren's own was really over the top, since this is such a well-known Christian intercession. 

As he discussed on Larry King's show, Warren doesn't believe non-believers should be elected to public office, at least not to the Presidency.  So he still thinks their moral compass is inferior to his own just on the face of it.  Also, I don't like people prattling on about "our commitment to freedom and justice for all" when they just participated in a campaign of injustice, in Warren's case his support for passage of California's notoriously discriminatory Proposition 8.

As for that poll about Warren, sorry, but I'm not buying it.  Given that very few people know who is on the Supreme Court, the idea that 61% of people even know who Rick Warren is simply stretches credulity. 

I'm not as excited as some of you may be about all the inaugural activities.  Maybe it is because of that tad bit of "realistic cynicism" that hits us here in Washington after a while.  Having said that, yesterday's concert at the Lincoln Memorial was an overall delight (poor Marisa Tomei having to quote from the fraudulent promise of Ronald Reagan's first inauguration notwithstanding).

Two actions though stood out above all others.  The Gay Mens Chorus of Washington (although not identified accurately--no "Gay"-- by HBO in its broadcast) was a brilliant addition to the singing by Josh Groban and Heather Headly.  And then the capper, was not just having Pete Seeger and Bruce Springsteen sing "This Land Is Your Land".  They sang it complete with the rarely performed verse "I came to a sign that said 'Private Property', but on the other side it didn't say nothing.  That side was made for you and me!"  The ideas of fullblown American integration of the GLBT community and an actual redistribution of wealth at an official inaugural event was a priceless reminder of the diversity of opinion and the radical views about economics that have always been a part of the American conversation.  I know that when these ideas are even articulated, some conservatives go ballistic.  It was probably best on Sunday if those folks were just watching football.

P.S. I loved Marisa Tomei in The Wrestler, and I have nothing against football.

I realize, Jay, you are eager to draw me into this case because your side is likely to win. My position has been consistent: Michael Newdow and all of the other plaintiffs in this suit are right on principle, but that doesn't mean the court will agree with them.

Public events like presidential inaugurations, gubernatorial swearings-in and even city council meetings should be open to all. Everyone should feel welcome at these gatherings. When we include sectarian prayer at such events, we send the message that some believers are more welcome, even that they are better citizens. (Don't bother arguing that exclusion of prayers is hostility toward religion, Jay. Anyone is free to pray on their own at any time during these events. It's the government sponsorship I object to, not the praying.)

Having said that, I accept that legal challenges like this are not likely to succeed in the current judicial climate. Dr. Newdow brought a similar case in 2004 that was not successful. I failed to see the point in bringing another (which is why AU did not join the case), but I do believe his filing brought a lot of important historical information to light.

Prayers at inaugurals are an on again, off again phenomenon.  The Constitution's version of the Presidential oath does not end "so help me God." I had hoped that Barack Obama would have dropped both of these practices, but he did not.  (It only adds a problem that Rick Warren is the first voice we'll hear at the inaugural. I certainly don't anticipate that he will give some homophobic prayer, but we know him already by his acts against same-sex marriage.)

In this case, you claim to be standing up for religious freedom. What you are actually standing up for is a brief prayer recited in a pro forma manner as part of day-long celebration to mark the instillation of a secular ruler of an officially secular nation. You are standing up for the coupling of religion and state in a highly symbolic and ritualized manner. Is this a real prayer with a real religious message or just a by-rote exercise that is included because everyone expects it to be?

In the Book of Matthew, Jesus warned against such ostentatious public prayers. It's better to pray alone in your closet, he said. Jay, you have argued for the right to pray in public on behalf of the government because it is "traditional." Notwithstanding the evidence, that is not even the issue. If a "tradition" (of whatever genesis or duration) is non-inclusive and demonstrates an official preference for one religion over others or religion in general over secularism it is wrong.  Plain wrong.

Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} You're not the only one filing...

Jay, I am glad you returned safely from the Middle East.  I'm afraid that long ago I decided that I could not resolve the crisis there so I'll let your comments speak for themselves. On another front, I know you...