Newsweek Religion Editor Chides Obama to Fight 'Mean Certainties of the Religious Right'
The "On Faith" page in Saturday's Washington Post contained an editorial from Newsweek religion editor Lisa Miller lamenting how Barack Obama has disappointed his liberal base by not being more vocal against "the mean certainties of the religious right." The headline was "Believers wonder: Where is the old Obama?" As if there aren't a lot of believers who never thought Obama was really into religion -- as opposed to the 75 rounds of golf as president.
Miller complained "The longer the president stays silent, the more he gives the ideologues on the right the opportunity to fill the gap, claiming to be working on behalf of God himself." For support, Miller turned to leftist Rev. James Forbes of Riverside Church in New York, who didn't want to pile on Obama, as Miller claimed, because of the "racism that undergirds to much of the criticism."
Miller isn't really standing up for religion, just for liberals. She explained that Obama once upon a time came as a relief:
On the trail, his favorite biblical paraphrase came from Genesis: “I am my brother’s keeper; I am my sister’s keeper.” Unlike some of his tea party foes, Obama rejected the idea of American exceptionalism — that God has special plans for this country. Like his hero, moral theologian Reinhold Niebuhr, he loathed any absolutist claims to know what God wants. “I believe that [God’s plans] are a little too mysterious for me to grasp,” he said in 2007, “and so what I try to do is, as best I can, be an instrument of his will.”
What a relief this was for millions of believers exhausted by the mean certainties of the religious right. Here was a man who would strive for perfection even as he failed to achieve it, and who would use government as the instrument of that striving.
Where is that man now?
Liberals don't believe in American exceptionalism. They merely belief in governmental exceptionalism, that no institution can improve society more rapidly and efficiently than government. Miller applauded using the government to strive to make up for personal imperfection. Then she turned to Reverend Forbes:
The Rev. James Forbes, senior minister emeritus of the Riverside Church in New York, hesitates to pile on, sensitive as he is to the assault under which Obama suffers and alert to the racism that undergirds so much of the criticism. That said, Forbes pleads with the president to be clear about which of his values are non-negotiable.
For it is the ability to say, as Martin Luther did, “Here I stand, I can do no other,” that separates a statesman from a politician, Forbes says. “Those of us who supported you, we feel we need to know. Can you find a venue where you can tell us what your philosophical, foundational, existential value system is? Could we know what are the principles embedded in your heart and soul?”
The longer the president stays silent, the more he gives the ideologues on the right the opportunity to fill the gap, claiming to be working on behalf of God himself. Thirty thousand people showed up to hear Texas Gov. Rick Perry pray to Jesus in Houston.
Last year, in an interview on her book Heaven with the liberal blog Religious Dispatches, Miller admitted that she was a "progressive" who didn't believe in a religion of "arbitrary rules," but complained that conservative believers have a faith that really moves people to action.
I am a progressive in my heart and I don’t like conservative visions of heaven that exclude; I don’t like notions of earthly “righteousness” that separate people based on accidents of birth or arbitrary rules. I don’t believe, for example, that only people “with a personal relationship with Jesus Christ” will get to heaven. (I’m not alone here, by the way; a growing number of evangelical Christians agree with me.) At the same time, the most moving and culturally important visions of heaven are those created by the conservative believers. These are the visions that move people to action: to be faithful to One God, for example, or to martyr themselves.
Couldn't that be Obama's problem, too? Liberal believers can't be moved to action if there aren't any arbitrary rules to obey, or gates of "exclusion" in Heaven? That's different from the problem that he hasn't done much to convince the public he's religious.
- Tim Graham's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Nice try, Lisa.
Submitted by motherbelt on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 7:17am.
I think Barack Obama doesn't speak out more on religious issues because he doesn't have "street cred" and he knows it.
Obama does speak out ...
Submitted by GeneralAl on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 7:35am.
Obama does speak out when it comes to Islam. The MSM just doesn't give that a lot of coverage. Perhaps they're shielding the "Annointed One" from criticism from the "Extreme Right"? Nah, they're too objective and unbiased to do that! LOL!
"Old Soldiers never die, they just fade away"!
Can't touch this!
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 9:03am.
Obama only worships the reflection in the mirror.
But maybe the R's should say they have Allah on their side, then the MSM will shy away from religion.
Let's define "mean certainties of the religious right"
Submitted by moderncommentaries83 on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 9:06am.
By "mean certainties of the religious right" the good journalist actually means this:
Religious people who actually have a theological structure, a fixed morality, and purpose for religion beyond social justice and political activism. People who believe in right and wrong, versus moral relativism, and people who believe religion has a role in framing public life. People who believe religion means something, rather than it being a pastime on a Sunday morning if no good brunches are available.
It's always amazing to see how the left defines us.
They'll use religion whenever it suits them -- to support socialist economics, to support environmentalism, to support tax hikes, even to support abortion and population control -- but the second someone who has a genuine grasp and understanding of religion and its applications to public life, they crumble in fits of hysterics. You see the byproduct of such hysterics here.
Another progressive writes
Submitted by Reaver on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 9:31am.
Another progressive writes about Obama’s faith without mentioning Rev. Wright and the Trinity United church he attended for twenty years and claimed he never heard Rev. Wright say one mean thing. But I think my favorite part is “Can you find a venue where you can tell us what your philosophical, foundational, existential value system is? Could we know what are the principles embedded in your heart and soul?” Has it occurred to you that he simply has no principles, at least none he’s willing to say out loud in public?
Muslim bogus potus
Submitted by jon_torlin on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 9:46am.
Just like I've said in the past that there can be no reconciliation between being a Muslim and an American citizen, let alone a politician like Congressman or Senator, there is absolutely NO reconciliation being being a POTUS and a Muslim. Those two things would be in eternal conflict with the Constitution.
Yet people would continue to scream the racist meme if this was pointed out more often and I wish even Fox News would jump on this. I suspect the upper management might have been coerced or fooled into not doing so by the likes of the Muslim Bro'hood or even CAIR despite those jokers being found to have colluded with terrorists.
I know W has tried to reconcile Islam with Americans ("religion of peace") even though he was mistaken in doing so, but he didn't embrace it so vocally as much as this dictator in chief has. W was doing what any Christian would do, try to get along with everyone. Soetoro on the other hand when it comes to any religion, doesn't embrace Christianity any more than he's a conservative despite many news outlets saying he's actually (not) conservative, but boy he gets involved with the Muslim stuff with enthusiasm like he has shown recently with him taking part in Ramadan and that Iftar dinner lamenting the deaths of Muslim Americans dying in 9/11.(as if there were no other kinds of people dying that dreadful day)
And yet people by and large appear to think there's nothing wrong with this. Hell, there's a recent poll that shows 60% Jews still thinking Soetoro is doing well(those are collaborators in my opinion) and 80+% Muslims thinking he's doing a fantastic job!(therein lies the enemies praising the dictator in chief) Meanwhile everyone else thinks he's just incompetent even though more and more people are seeing that he's deliberately destroying this country. Would that they had realized this sooner, but there it is.
What's it going to take to have more people realize these things despite all the evidence plain as the nose on their faces? I mean, this guy's past is virtually unknown except what he tells us(and we already know him to be a liar) and the only discrepancy that can be found that's questionable at best and a national felony at worst is his mysterious Connecticut SSN when there's nothing relating him do it. Even now, investigators are finally getting court orders to get a closer look at his "birth certificate" or whatever records there are in Hawaii and it's looking like there is more false information than there is fact.(not that it's a surprise to me)
All these things are the antithesis of what a President of the United States should be. And yet, thanks to "news organizations" like Newsweek(worth less than a dollar) and NYTimes and Time Magazine and WaPo continue to defend this charlatan in this fashion saying that the GOP(or "The Right") is racist and mean and other forms of balderdash.
I know some of you on here have been on Earth longer than I have, but I'm sure a lot of you are saying the same thing I have, it's just amazing that it's come to this.
-Jon
Mocking God
Submitted by HardRightTurn on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 11:39am.
Does the writer mean for Obama to fight the "religious Wright"?
To more fully comprehend the Left, one must read “Leftism As Psychopathy” by John Ray, M.A., Ph.D. Caution, it might scare you a little bit.
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/psycho.html
Where's Her Heaven?
Submitted by Gazinya on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 12:04pm.
I keep hearing this complaint that 'Christians' think they have this exclusive right to 'heaven'. Well that isn't really true. What Christians believe is what Jesus said about His heaven. "In My Fathers' House there are many mansions and I go to prepare, for those that believe in ME, a place where they will reside with ME for eternity."
Non-Christian Jews do not believe there is a heaven or a hell. Buddists believe that 'heaven' is attaining a spiritual level called 'Nirvana'. Muslims believe that their 'heaven' is an eternity of virganal sex, especially if they die blowing themselves up with a school bus full of Jewish children. There is no lie or barbarism that is not excused by some god named allah that will not get them into their 'heaven' except that 'heaven' which is created by Jesus.
So it is not the Christian that defines what or where Heaven is or who 'gets in' but Jesus who is the definer of our Heaven and our faith.
I wonder what this twit
Submitted by ThePickle on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 1:44pm.
I wonder what this twit expects Obamalamading-dong to do?
Probably one of those twits that thinks he has "unlimited executive powers" to do as he pleases and expects him to use said power to silence those that disagree with her.
This seems to be a running theme for the left since their ignominious defeat and loose of the House in 2010.
Hardly a day goes by when I DON'T hear some leftist torturing their feeble minds trying to figure out some logical and legal reason that the "Tea Party" either doesn't, or at least shouldn't, enjoy the protections of the First Amendment.
Liberal moralphobes
Submitted by cocodrie on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 2:54pm.
These liberals with an irrational fear of morals are going to go bananas. The moral absolutes of Perry are going to drive them over the edge. Our resident peanut gallery here is about to start their babblel about the need for compromise. I've had enough of compromise.
It will be refreshing to hear a polititian say what he means.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
"On the trail, his favorite
Submitted by stratman on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 3:27pm.
Yes, Obama was paraphrasing except he meant "keeper" more as in jailer, his Statist vision for America and the world treating the non-ruling elite as crops or cattle to be told what to do, when to do it, how much of it to be done, for whatever reward the elites decide is sufficient.
Marxists never tire of lying. It's Obama's IDEOLOGY and the POLICIES he wants to enact, you blithering idiot.
Good grief, you are an especially dense man. The only thing Obama holds as non-negotiable is a supreme Statist government. All else is negotiable - his family, his friends, Americans, religion, the Constitution, timetables, methodologies, etc. - everything else.
So, Ms. Miller is in direct disagreement with essentially the entire world's population who believe their way is the "right" way in order to have munificience bestowed upon them? Where is her palpable disgust for Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Native American Indians, or the other thousands of the world's religions? What a coward and an intellectual regressive. Miller would fit in perfectly with any xenophobic group in history who used differences in people or groups of people to destroy them. Hypocrite much, Ms. Miller?
Obama has on
Submitted by misterbee241 on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 6:55pm.
at least two occasions called Jesus a liar. And the phrase "I am my brother's keeper" is not found anywhere in scripture. This was a question asked of God by a murderer. "Am I my brother's keeper?" Cain asked God after Cain killed his brother.
Obama and Miller are fooling nobody with their "feel good" version of Christianity. The trouble is, there are too many people like Miller who rely on a God made in their own image instead of acknowledging the real Truth. Paul said they denied the true power of God and made themselves foolish. And that's a paraphrase.
And one other thing: there are no arbitrary rules. Jesus gave us two: Love God and love our neighbor.
Indeed, Cain's wording
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 1:01am.
was a snarky brushoff. First of all, having killed his brother, whether or not he was his brother's keeper --that is responsible for knowing his brother's whereabouts at all time--was not even at issue. The answer does not have to be "Yes, you are," in order for Cain to be wrong, because Cain's total characterization of the situation was a lie.
If you tell your child to stay out of the cookie jar, and they say "Is this Nazi Germany or something?" it does not mean that in order for you to have a valid point against your son that it must take place in some fascist regime. There are myriad ways to be wrong, so the correct answer does not have to be direct negation.
Was Cain's failure really not knowing where his brother was at all times, or having caused his absence and knowing where he buried his brother while simply acting like it was simply not his business to know where his brother was in his absence? And is the only possible reversal of murder that Cain should keep an eye on Abel like a keeper?
Now, having said that, I will admit that I have heard men of God take from this that "Yes, we all are our brother's keeper"--but can they mean "keeper" in the sense that Cain meant it? I don't think so. Whether or not any preacher has meant this, it's bad doctrine from the Genesis story. It doesn't matter how many preachers might argue the same thing, Genesis doesn't say it, and it's probably a bad read to argue that it should be construed that way.
Absolutely.
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Sun, 08/14/2011 - 8:20pm.
Maybe if he got Rev. Wright to endorse him again that would straighten things out.
"Liberals don't believe in American exceptionalism.
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Mon, 08/15/2011 - 12:45am.
They merely belief in governmental exceptionalism, that no institution can improve society more rapidly and efficiently than government. Miller applauded using the government to strive to make up for personal imperfection. Then she turned to Reverend Forbes:"
Which means that they believe in might. What is the sine qua non of government? The authority to compel or prohibit. Classically, they compel invaders to stay off our soil or pirates not to attack our ships and people not to enter property that does not belong to them or take things not theirs.
The "efficiency" is the compulsion of force. What is backed is the "effectiveness", the faith is that the ideas backed by government are the best ones available. But that does not have to be the case if we mainly look for efficiency and rapidity in changing society. But force is absolutely necessary.
Consent of the governed, social compact and political dialog is how we test to make sure the the ideas are the best available, and not that they have taken captive a convinced minority. But you can't really do that and "improve society" despite itself. So, they have come to prefer their own process, which incorporates public opinion when it agrees with the elite opinion.