´óÏó´«Ã½

« Previous | Main | Next »

The purpose-driven presidency

Post categories:

William Crawley | 15:48 UK time, Sunday, 3 December 2006

Obama.jpgApparently, the path to the White House passes through in southern California, whose pastor, Rick Warren, is one of America's evangelical leaders. The author of , and other books with a similar teleological verve, Rick Warren's endorsement for the presidency could help a great deal. Especially when a potential candidate happens to be a liberally-minded Democrat like . Senator Obama gave a at Saddleback marking World Aids Day, which began:

I want to start by saying how blessed I feel to be a part of today and how grateful I am for your church and your pastor, my friend Rick Warren.

Here, as Andrew Sullivan would put it, is the money quote:

Like no other illness, AIDS tests our ability to put ourselves in someone else's shoes - to empathize with the plight of our fellow man. While most would agree that the AIDS orphan or the transfusion victim or the wronged wife contracted the disease through no fault of their own, it has too often been easy for some to point to the unfaithful husband or the promiscuous youth or the gay man and say "This is your fault. You have sinned." I don't think that's a satisfactory response. My faith reminds me that we all are sinners. My faith also tells me that - as Pastor Rick has said - it is not a sin to be sick. My Bible tells me that when God sent his only Son to Earth, it was to heal the sick and comfort the weary; to feed the hungry and clothe the naked; to befriend the outcast and redeem those who strayed from righteousness. Living His example is the hardest kind of faith - but it is surely the most rewarding. It is a way of life that can not only light our way as people of faith, but guide us to a new and better politics as Americans.

Does this sound like a future American president who knows how to talk to people of faith? You bet it does.

Comments

  • 1.
  • At 07:25 PM on 03 Dec 2006,
  • Gee Dubyah wrote:

I'll kick off with a thought:

Someone once said of the US Presidential election (anyone know who - I've forgotten?)

"It's a vote for President of the World in which only Americans have the vote"

It reminds me of the situation in NI in the sixties - maybe we need a global civil rights movement!!

  • 2.
  • At 08:10 PM on 03 Dec 2006,
  • Helen Aria wrote:

Quite true Gee Dubjah. I just think it's odd that American candidates for president have to suck up to churches so much. Isn't it time that democracy matured in the states?

  • 3.
  • At 08:59 PM on 03 Dec 2006,
  • Gee Dubyah wrote:

Probably - tho my knowledge of the electoral/political/constitutional setup there is v limited.
It's easy to fall in with popular stereotypes of the US - but they have such a massive impact on the rest of the world (lets use ROW for rest of world).

I have a big problem with fundamentalist religion - and the US is a hotbed, frankly.
This is not a contagion I'd like to see spread to ROW, and worsen a bad situation here for example.

  • 4.
  • At 01:50 AM on 04 Dec 2006,
  • wrote:

"Does this sound like a future American president who knows how to talk to people of faith?"

Well, one has to understand American evangelicals. The largest voting block is evangelical conservatives, who would Freak Out at most of what Obama believes - capital F, capital O. Gun control, for example, is a huge issue for conservatives. Obama would raise taxes to pay for social programs. He seems to believe in some kind of universal healthcare.

Obama may wish to court 'people of faith', but conservatives will absolutely not vote for someone with his record, and I believe that makes Rudy Giuliani a much more likely candidate.

  • 5.
  • At 02:31 AM on 04 Dec 2006,
  • Michael N. Hull wrote:

As an ex Belfast man living in New York I might be able to add a bit on Obama. The following observations should be read as my personal opinion and not be taken as fact.

1) The USA population is not primarily fundamentalist or evangelical in outlook. There is a large component of this outlook here and they are very politically active, but most of the churches in the USA are quite liberal and tend to be private about their politics with a leaning towards the Democrats.

2) The USA is definitely more 'religious' than 'secular' which was quite a surprise to me when I first came here. The reverse seems to be true in the UK and Europe. I see this as more of a strength than a weakness to the US because the youth here are being exposed to some form of 'spiritual' thinking. My view of the UK is that its youth receive no message that they can live by emanating from the secular society. Indeed the only strong message I see there is a radicalized fundamentalist message from some of the muslim community. This I fear will eventually lead to a major clash between the 'skinhead' racist types of the soccer stadiums and the second and third generation radicalized English muslims.

Ask any young person in the UK this simple question: What do you believe as either a secularist or a person of faith depending on how you define yourself? You can't get an answer! Belive me, I've tried, and it was a very interesting experiment. The same question in USA will usually generate a weak religious response, but a response nevertheless.

3)Given what I have said in item 2) it is not that strange to see American politicians seek support and speak to 'religious' groups. I would think that Obama is quite liberal in his religious approach - Bush on the other hand is quite evangelical and fundamentalist. Bush might well believe that God positioned him in the presidency so he would be there to handle 911. Obama would not think that way.

Obama is the 'black' equivalent of JFK. He is very charismatic in the 'rock star' sense. He is very articulate, very well educated, very balanced in how he speaks to both sides of every problem. I am not of his party but if he seeks the Democratic party's nomination, which I think he will announcing shortly after Christmas, and if he wins the nomination, then I will be taking a very hard look at what my candidate on the Republican side, probably McCain, says before he will get my vote.

Regards,
Michael Hull

  • 6.
  • At 12:10 PM on 04 Dec 2006,
  • David wrote:

His first name is spelt "Barack". This is easy to remember for those of us here in Budapest as it is also Hungarian for "peach", presumably not the etymology of the name.

  • 7.
  • At 02:01 PM on 04 Dec 2006,
  • pb wrote:


GW

I find it quite curious that people slam the US for being a hotbed of fundamentalist religion yet it democratically supports a massive abortion and pornography industry.

This is the aspect of the US which disgusts many muslims.

So it appears the enemies of the US can select whichever facet of the country most suits their purposes to attack.

PB

  • 8.
  • At 06:49 PM on 04 Dec 2006,
  • Gee Dubyah wrote:

PB

Possibly a fair comment. I'm no expert on US matters - and I'm surprised by the abortion situation, less so by the porn.

I find the particular brand of Evangelism in the US confrontational, reactionary and ultra conservative - but again that is a superficial snapshot more informed by what I am exposed to via the press than anything else - what is the truth?

  • 9.
  • At 08:05 PM on 04 Dec 2006,
  • wrote:

The vast majority of Americans don't give a damn what the rest of the world thinks... and I see that as a cardinal strength.

  • 10.
  • At 10:52 PM on 04 Dec 2006,
  • pb wrote:

GW

Respect! you took that one on the chin.

I dont suppose any of your postings here might appear a tad confrontational, rectionary or ultra liberal? ;-)

You know America is not the great nation it is in spite of the fundamentalists; it is the great nation it is because of the fundamentalists!

There is a great deal of truth in this as far as many advanced and civilised countries go, the majority of which were able to do so because of their Christian foundations. Think Europe and north America.

You need to understand fundamentalists had a huge influence in drafting the US consitution to give religious and civil liberty for all. The reason? because religious tyrants elsewhere persecuted them so much they wanted to create a new society where all would be free (including atheists!)

I think it might repay you to think again about whether or not you really believe in freedom of religion, thought and speech and then to think again about which types of society have a track record in this; hint, it is never the atheistic societies!

PB

  • 11.
  • At 11:54 PM on 04 Dec 2006,
  • wrote:

PB- I'm glad you recognise that America is a great nation. But it is so because of freedom (and therefore capitalism), not religion (and therefore fundamentalism).

  • 12.
  • At 10:51 AM on 05 Dec 2006,
  • Gee Dubyah wrote:

JW

Is that a summary of US foreign policy?

  • 13.
  • At 10:54 AM on 05 Dec 2006,
  • wrote:

On the matter of theology William,I thought you might have picked up on DR. Ian Paisley’s reference to the old Princeton theologian Charles Hodge and his work, when he was relating the difference between Non-Subscribing Presbyterians and Presbyterians to Gerry Adams, for an article for the blog I wait patiently in anticipation.

  • 14.
  • At 03:40 PM on 05 Dec 2006,
  • wrote:

Regardless, what is needed in an opening of the USA Political System to alternative political parties.

  • 15.
  • At 04:17 PM on 05 Dec 2006,
  • Gee Dubyah wrote:

IS america a great nation?

It is a/the most powerful one, but one could argue that the US is also the source of a large part of the moral erosion we see around us. Don't get me wrong here, we in Europe are quite capable of, and frequently guilty of, soiling on our own doorstep.

International law is increasingly eroded by Washington, with London complicit. Crime of all sorts is so rife in this "great" nation it makes rougher parts of London/Cardiff/Edinburgh/Belfast look like a Sunday School picnic.
And they have aceived all of this under stronger influence of their Churches than UK administrations experience.
There are many many plus points about the States before I am deluged - don't take it the wrong way.

My question is - what is our definition of a "Great" nation?

  • 16.
  • At 05:40 PM on 05 Dec 2006,
  • wrote:

Gee Dubyah- It all depends on your values. For Gweneth Paltro, for example, who - it turns out - hates capitalism, America is not such a great nation. Personally, I value capitalism, freedom and individualism so I believe America, and the culture that has emerged as a result, is the greatest nation on earth. Since you probably don't share my values, you may have your own thoughts on that. But America doesn't need your sanction to define itself as great, and I think a great many facets of Americanism adequately prove itself in that regard.

David: Thanks for the spelling correction. Sorted. An thanks for not suggesting that was a Freudian slip!

Billy: I'm clearly out of the loop (and will say why in my next posting) - what's the quotation from Ian Paisley?

  • 18.
  • At 07:49 PM on 05 Dec 2006,
  • Gee Dubyah wrote:

JW

You are right America doesnt need my sanction - but by your argument any tinpot state calling itself "great" is therefore de facto a utopia. I think not.

As it goes I also value capitalism, freedom and individualism.

However, take a warning note from Northern Ireland - patriotism is a heady brew....

  • 19.
  • At 07:49 PM on 05 Dec 2006,
  • wrote:

I think the big ej... - sorry - man was referring to unitarians not black hearts - sorry persbyterians!
BTW - what is the origin of 'black hearst'?

  • 20.
  • At 07:51 PM on 05 Dec 2006,
  • wrote:

I think the big ej... - sorry - man was referring to unitarians not black hearts - sorry persbyterians!
BTW - what is the origin of 'black hearts'?

  • 21.
  • At 08:02 PM on 05 Dec 2006,
  • wrote:

John
No country can define 'itself' properly as great - it's surely a matter of judgement by others - many of us in Europe - and I do define myself as European - not Ulster, Irish or British - recognise as Mr Dawkins says - that a large percentage of Americans aren't fundamentalists or even religious - it's another case of a winner takes all - whether it be 51%, or in the case of Bush probably more like 45%!

  • 22.
  • At 09:17 PM on 05 Dec 2006,
  • Billy wrote:

Dr Paisley said he had listened to a "very interesting extract from republican propaganda history" but he wanted to "inform the gentleman who has spoken" he was unaware of the difference between Presbyterians and Unitarians and that the Presbyterian synod around that historic period was totally opposed to the United Irish rebellion.

But did Dr Paisley accept that all the names he mentioned were Presbyterian, Mr Adams asked. The Free Presbyterian moderator suggested the "honourable member" should read "Hodges theology" or, better still, consult the Bible.

  • 23.
  • At 11:23 PM on 06 Dec 2006,
  • pb wrote:


JW ref post 11

Havnt you ever read Max Weber on the biblical work ethic?
That is the root of America's capitalism!

Have you never counted the number of your presidents who were Ulster Presbyterian stock? And the rest of your population...

You appear to me a bit like a great tree that refuses to believe it has roots. Dont you know about the beliefs of the founding fathers of the US? OK they were not all Christians by any means but they had a huge influence.

And, GW, when I say great, I mean America is like the Roman Empire, it was a great empire, but look, everyone knows what was rotten about it.

The shortcomings of the US are obvious too, especially in iraq and in the immorality in its population. But I doubt it is really more immoral than the UK, it is just it is a bigger country.

But there seems to be alot of basic hatred or jealously of america going on - even among those who ape its lifestyles and devour its economic and/or cultural outputs; but you cant have your cake and eat it!

PB

  • 24.
  • At 01:46 AM on 07 Dec 2006,
  • wrote:

PB- I know my American history, thanks. I have no comment on the Christian history of American government. I'm attributing America's greatness to capitalism and freedom, which certainly doesn't derive from the bible.

  • 25.
  • At 09:28 AM on 07 Dec 2006,
  • Gee Dubyah wrote:

PB

I don't hate America and I'm not jealous either - but a self styled global policeman that doesnt give a stuff what the ROW thinks - well thats a curious mix isn't it?

  • 26.
  • At 08:22 PM on 07 Dec 2006,
  • pb wrote:

Come on John you usually put up more of a fight than "no comment!"

It suggests you are struggling for material; you cant just pretend Max Weber isnt there, he is a pretty big hitter in sociology.

GW, I sympathise with your concerns, but you have already displayed a position which you conceeded was mistaken in describing the US simply as a fundamentalist nation. This suggests something of the irrational prejudice, though I may well be mistaken.

A useful test may well be whether or not you felt hostile to the US before it got involved in the debacles in Iraq and, increasingly, Afganistian.

I have a feeling that much of the anti-American feeling has a similar worldview to that of animal rights campaigners/eco-warriors in the UK.

Many of them, whether they consciously realise it or not, use fox hunting as a weapon for their undeclared marxist class war; if animal welfare was their true priority then factory farming would be their top target, as it causes many times more suffering.

But in reality, look at the amount of lobbying and parliamentary time aimed at disrupting an admittedly cruel but obscure and minor hobby for toffs.

I get the feeling that Iraq is the fox hunting of the global marxist agitators, and Americans are the horseback hunters in their red jackets.

Perhaps Americas biggest critics actually do little if anything that is really within their power to make a difference in the lives of the people they purport to be concerned about. But these same victims might make excellent pawns with which to slap America around the head for being so "successful", whatever that means.

PB

  • 27.
  • At 02:54 PM on 08 Dec 2006,
  • wrote:

PB- Reread, I didn't say "no comment". The problem is that you believe I said no comment when in actual fact I said way more than you did in nine paragraphs. Capitalism is not derived from the bible.. period. The bible may have some capitalist ideas in it sporadically, but capitalism did not come from the bible. Your worldview, PB, is disturbing, because you believe that everything must be found in some ancient books mostly written for Jews. It is not the case.

  • 28.
  • At 11:44 PM on 08 Dec 2006,
  • wrote:

PB- In fact, I think it could be much more easily argued that the bible recommends a socialist system as opposed to a capitalist one. Yet again, it's open to interpretation.

  • 29.
  • At 01:10 AM on 09 Dec 2006,
  • pb wrote:


John

respect! glad youre still here...ok?

Ummm... I never said capitalism came from the bible. You can have a biblical work ethic no matter what the economcy or culture you are in.

Capitalism and socialism are modern concepts and it is more accurate to say the bible interprets them (and us) than vice versa.

If you take a read through the very straighforward book of proverbs it majors on hard work, planning, wisdom and self reliance. It also most definitely talks about caring for the poor. These themes are repeated throughout the bible and are intrinsically linked in it. Paul repeats them.

Capitalism cant work without an engine. It is a bit coincidental that the countries which have been openly impacted by the bible have the strongest economies in the world, Europe and N America.

I think this is because of the sense of accountability and responsiblity that Christian faith brings. To be a steward of your talents and time for God and others. And to worship God through the work of our hands Mon to Friday, not just in church on Sunday.


This is the biblical work ethic.

best
PB


  • 30.
  • At 01:13 AM on 09 Dec 2006,
  • Michael N. Hull wrote:

At 08:22 PM on 07 Dec 2006, pb wrote:

"A useful test may well be whether or not you felt hostile to the US before it got involved in the debacles in Iraq and, increasingly, Afganistian. I get the feeling that Iraq is the fox hunting of the global marxist agitators, and Americans are the horseback hunters in their red jackets."

PB: Sometimes I think you are like a gigantic firefly emitting enough light to bring attention to yourself but not enough to illumine the subject!

I know quite a bit about why the USA is in Iraq and the problems of global terrorism.

You can start here is you wish to inform yourself.

Then we can talk!

Regards,
Michael

  • 31.
  • At 02:08 AM on 09 Dec 2006,
  • pb wrote:

Michael

You recently on this blog said you were well up on the latest on evolution, had a phd and were an elder in the church.

You would sort me out quick smart if I proposed creationism was true.

But when I demonstrated the very limited credibility of your supposed missing links you immeditely ran up the white flag and change the subject.

I was stunned how quickly you threw in the towel. It is all there in the recent blogs.

So perhaps you know as much about America as you do about evolution?

It is hard to say, because you havent given me the respect to say why you disagree with my views, you have only afforded me a personal insult.

I have no doubt you are well able to do more than that.

PB

  • 32.
  • At 03:31 AM on 09 Dec 2006,
  • Michael N. Hull wrote:

At 02:08 AM on 09 Dec 2006, pb wrote:

"It is hard to say, because you havent given me the respect to say why you disagree with my views, you have only afforded me a personal insult. I have no doubt you are well able to do more than that."

PB: My comment about the firefly did indeed read like a personal insult. Accordingly, I apologise without reservation to you and withdraw the comment.

Regards,
Michael

  • 33.
  • At 11:33 AM on 09 Dec 2006,
  • pb wrote:


Respect Michael

and apology fully accepted.

Im still genuinely interested in your views on the america subject though.

PB

  • 34.
  • At 11:58 PM on 10 Dec 2006,
  • Mark wrote:

....ahem, ahem, getting back the original topic...William...let me be the first to break it to you in case you haven't figured it out for yourself yet....Barack Obama doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of becoming President of the United States. At least not in this decade. You can take that one to the bank.

This post is closed to new comments.

´óÏó´«Ã½ iD

´óÏó´«Ã½ navigation

´óÏó´«Ã½ © 2014 The ´óÏó´«Ã½ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.