As we approach the one-week anniversary of the Obama administration, it is a bit early to judge the level of true change brought by the 44th president. However, it is becoming increasingly clear what is not going to change (at least for the better) in the Obama administration. With all of the euphoria of the inauguration, many supporters fought back a strange and long-lingering sensation: doubt. There was little room for doubt in the collective celebration of our first African-American president and a new course after a ruinous eight years under George W. Bush.
Yet, given his tendency to avoid fights on issues like war crimes and unlawful surveillance, Obama seems to view “change” in terms of social programs rather than legal principles. On the principle of the separation of church and state, these doubts are particularly pronounced and personified by the man who delivered the invocation at Obama’s inauguration: evangelical preacher Rick Warren.
Warren is viewed by many as an anti-gay and intolerant voice of the religious right. Obama has insisted that Warren’s much-discussed role simply reflects his desire to be inclusive and show that all views are welcomed in his administration. However, Warren represents more than a preacher with controversial religious views, but one who actively seeks to shape society along those same biblical lines.
From the Rev. Jeremiah Wright to the Rev. Warren, Obama’s choices raise a concern that he (like his predecessor) seems to gravitate toward ministers who see little dividing the pulpit from politics.
The fact is that Obama has never hidden his agreement with President Bush on the role of religion in American politics. During the primaries, he proclaimed his intention to be “an instrument of God” and to create “a kingdom right here on Earth.” To be sure, past Democratic presidents also have sought religious advisers and incorporated religious organizations into federal programs as a political necessity in a largely Christian nation.
Expanding the Bush program
Yet, the intermingling of faith and politics was one of the more controversial aspects of Bush’s tenure. The centerpiece of that effort was the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives through which Bush gave billions of dollars to religious organizations to carry out a variety of public projects.
Despite the good work done in areas ranging from drug rehabilitation to disaster relief, it came at the cost of the government’s direct subsidization of religious groups. The faith-based office has been denounced by critics as an attack on the doctrine of the separation of church and state and a reward to the administration’s base of religious activists.
Many people assumed that any Democrat would restore the secular work of government and strive to remove religion from politics. But Obama has indicated that he intends to expand, not eliminate, the faith-based programs. Indeed, he has stated that Bush’s faith-based office “never fulfilled its promise” due to a lack of funding. This “lack of funding” cost this country $2.2 billion in 2007 alone.
Obama reportedly plans to change the name from the “Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives” into his own “White House Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.” The old office would become 12 offices to carry out the expanded program. Not exactly the change that many secularists and liberals were hoping for.
Obama has assembled an informal faith-based advisory group to assist him in plans to expand the incorporation of religious organizations into government at the cost of billions of dollars each year. Warren will likely be one of those advisers.
Warren leads a fundamentalist congregation of 20,000 in Orange Country, Calif. He was a central supporter of Proposition 8, which stripped gay couples in California of the right to marry, calling such unions an affront to “every single culture and every single religion for 5,000 years.” He was criticized for a statement that many viewed as equating the legalization of same-sex marriage to the legalization of incest, child abuse and polygamy. In the ensuing firestorm, he seemed to backtrack a bit and has even indicated that he’d be willing to consider civil unions instead of same-sex marriages, but the sentiment was already out there. He also has insisted that religious people must vote against anyone who opposes abortion, calling politicians who do so, such as the new president, “Holocaust denier[s].”
This brand of activist evangelism seems to appeal to Obama the Community Activist. Despite Warren’s rigid religiosity, Obama reportedly likes him because, among other reasons, he supports anti-poverty programs. Obama’s aides have dismissed same-sex marriage as a “single issue,” and Obama has said the choice shows that he is incorporating all viewpoints into his administration. Yet, this treats all viewpoints as inherently equal and worthy of incorporation. Warren’s narrow definition of marriage echoes the objections made by ministers a few decades ago to the marriage of mixed-race couples like Obama’s parents. Would those ministers be worthy of incorporation in the administration? In the name of inclusion, Obama added a voice of exclusion.
It is a simple matter of priorities: Obama just seems to be more interested in programs than principles. He views change in more concrete terms: helping families, creating jobs and expanding the social safety net. Worthy objectives to be sure, but what about restoring the core principles that define our government?
Program-centric governing
In a program-centric rather than a principle-centric administration, Warren is a perfect fit. While infuriating for liberals, the picture with Warren — as well as the reverend’s lengthy opening prayer — played well with religious conservatives and may lay a foundation for a mutually beneficial alliance with Obama. Religious organizations can help politically and practically with the New Deal-type programs that Obama wants to implement. The entanglement of church and state is dismissed as an abstraction and distraction.
Obama’s preference for practicalities over principles is reflected in some of the people he picked for his Cabinet (Hillary Clinton at State, for one), as well as by his voting record. Obama voted to grant immunity to the telecommunication companies and extinguished dozens of lawsuits aimed at the warrantless surveillance program. Obama previously indicated that he would vote against such legislation, but again the practicalities appeared to triumph over principle. It was treated as little more than a fight over abstract privacy.
When civil libertarians denounced Obama’s vote, he simply encouraged them not to get hung up on one issue. That issue, however, was constitutionally protected privacy. The concern is that if Obama does not fight for the separation of church and state, equal protection (his most recent “one issue” flare-up) and privacy, his administration would seem strikingly like the last one, in which principles were dismissed as nave abstractions.
Obama’s approach to religion differs from Bush in one respect. The latter appeared intent on lowering the wall of separation between church and state. For Obama, this is not about principle; it’s business. Warren is a good choice because he supports these programs, and churches like his can deliver needed political and practical support for their implementation. The end, not the means, drives the policy.
Obviously, important things are to be done in a host of other areas by Obama, but it is a dangerous precedent to have another president who treats constitutional principles as something of a distraction. Just as Bush dismissed abstract principles in his war on terror, Obama seems poised to do the same in his economic war. Again, it will simply be an inconvenient time for principle.
I joined millions around the world relishing the moment Obama took the oath and gave such eloquence and hope to a besieged nation. But there is a danger of a cult of personality developing around Obama, that supporters could, in all this adoration, confuse the man with his mandate. So, when Obama put his hand on the Lincoln Inaugural Bible, I silently prayed not for a president but for principle, and that Obama will be able to tell the difference.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY’s board of contributors.
For the USA Today opinion page, click here.
USA Today — January 26, 2009
Sheba:
based on Obamas fundamentals I would say this is a way for him to direct church spending.
If religious organizations want to do good works, why don’t they use their own money instead of getting handouts from the government? Where are the preachers who eschew federal money to avoid entanglements with the state?
Surely Warren’s 20,000+ megachurch, the Catholic church, the Salvation Army, et al, can raise the money to fund their own programs without using my tax money. Is this a way for Obama to direct the spending of the church’s own money, by promising matching funds? What kinds of strings are to be attached to this giveaway? Or is this just a sop to religion?
Buddha:
what shall we debate? Please pick the topic and limit it to 400 words or less I will engage in thougtful debate. I posted the capitalist pig missive as a differing point of view to the one you are used too.
Bron,
If you think there are no disagreements on this blog then you aren’t reading the posts. Make a strong argument about one of the topics. If you do, I’ll hear it out. If you don’t I will just scroll through your posts from now on.
If you had a view you could back up, you’d get taken seriously. There are disagreements here all the time. You are just incapable of keeping up with the crowd. Evidence? Causality, you are the one who came in here instigating, troll boy. You are by your own admission just here to “get the juices flowing”. Initial civil responses were returned with what we have now come to know is your usual passive/aggressive non-debate snark and often juvenile lack of sensibilities. Your logic is facile when not outright faulty, the best you can muster is an appeal to authority or resorting to “true opinion” by block quoting secondary resources (at best secondary). Your analysis and understanding of the fields we discuss is also inadequate. It’s like you’re using a crib sheet, or you’ve read all the books without understanding the words. You also argue like an amateur. You fall for some of the easiest tricks in the Buddha’s Big Book of Logic Argument. If you think I could have pissed off raff, mespo, Patty or any of the others as easily as I did you, you’d be wrong. Because they know better than to take the bait. You’re not here as an “ambassador” or “bearing an olive branch” by your actions. You’re a simple agent provocateur. A shit disturber. The political equivalent of a soccer hooligan.
Apparently you forgot that part when considering why you just don’t get no respect, Rodney.
Jill:
there are no arguments on this blog just self congratulatory pats on the back. anyone with a differing view is shut down with such pithy comments as troll, and douche bag.
and anyway Buddha was baking bread so I disparged his flour.
Obama is a one term President.
He has screwed up more in one week than most new Presidents do in 4 years.
Buddha:
what else can you extend to a liberal?
Let’s be clear too. The only thing you extended was your middle finger, sport. The lesson? You reap what you sew.
And while I’m here . . . come on and dance, monkey, dance! Wooo Hoooo! (insert Walter Huston Crazy Old Prospector Dance here)
You are a beautiful case study in self-destruction, Bron.
Patty,
I did say they were sewn in. 😀
Bron98,
I find it impossible to read what you’re writing as it’s full of so much stuff that doesn’t belong in an argument.
Buddha:
Just like a fucking liberal and that is why republicans in congress should obstruct every thing Obama tries to do, as conservatives we extend the olive branch and you take the hand. I hope your bread flour had wevils in it.
Nope. Garden variety douche bag.
Mespo and Buddha:
I agree with both of you, I should have used the Jane Goodall approach when she was trying to insinuate herself into a tribe of chimpanzees. As hominids it would have been the best route to take.
Your observations are keen, and as a conservative I have enjoyed studying your banter and interactions. I had to act derisively to elicit the “id” response. Which I have received in copious amounts, but I have actually learned quite a good deal in the past few days and I thank you for your insights and analysis on issues that I look at from pretty much one angle/prism.
I have a different perspective about how to achieve it, but I think we want peace and prosperity for all.
‘… He also has insisted that religious people must vote against anyone who ‘opposes’ abortion, calling politicians who do so,
such as the new president, “Holocaust denier[s].”…’
———
Undoubtedly, most people know what you meant, JT. They don’t have proofreaders at USA Yesterday?
One again, fellow turlees, I sense that menace buzzing about is none other than WB/CCM/BB or perhaps his CLONE, GF – remember him?
How long’s it been? A month?
Unlike Michael S., regarding our posts on the NEJM thread and mine on the upcoming embryonic stem cell trial, I refuse to engage in a discussion with someone whose least interest is a learning exchange, but rather having ‘fun’ by ‘getting the juices flowing’. No thanks!
Go start your big deal debate site, already!
p.s. lead saps? really? 😛
Merely socially maladaptive with poor target discrimination? I’ll concede the possibility. I’ve seen worse attempts at joining a group in my day. Bron may have finished troll while in the oven, but will say he didn’t strike me as troll dough while in the bread pan. Pardon the metaphor but the house smells like baking bread. It’s quite distracting. Back to mespo’s point. I’ll cut him the slack due for his reach exceeding his grasp. Perhaps he is young. Some of his multiple errors could based in lack of experience. He may just have latent kool-aid poisoning. Eight years is a lot of propaganda to absorb, especially for the susceptible. It could be a little of both. Either way, this is a dangerous room. Most of us, even Mike S – one of the nicest guys on the internet, have iron fists in our velvet gloves. And I’m pretty sure Patty has lead saps sewn into her gloves. I would submit that the corollary in nature that while larger groups tend to act like herds, in smaller groups, humans are pack animals. Less sheep, more wolf. If so, then enough of the alphas have barked and snarled at the beta to illustrate the rules of the pack. I’m pretty sure all of us irregular regulars tried, some of you more than once, to help him if integration was his objective. The results were plain to see. I say the next move is his. New pack members are good, but I have also been known to like to play with my food before I eat it.
Speaking of which, I cannot stay out of the kitchen any longer.
Gyges:
“What people like Bron mean when they say state is actually something akin to an anthropomorphic deity, one that’s the nemeses of Freedom.”
**********************
You have one on me, since I don’t know what he means. I am aware of no person who “worships” the State. The State is a human invention used to organized similarly interested individuals and entities into a society. Our common interest in this “State” is, inter alia, freedom to live and function as we choose within the bounds of our responsibilities to each other. I find nothing divine or worthy of worship about that, and I dare say few people would so find. Bron seems to me the kind of person who likes to repeat profound concepts simply for the sake of saying them. I agree with Mike that Bron lacks a certain substance to his remarks. That’s not bad, but if he’s here to participate, he might follow the rule I used when I first landed on this site. I took a look around before unleashing my vitriol to see if my abilities matched the level of discourse. Now some, perhaps many, would say it still doesn’t match it, but I do enjoy the back and forth and if I can contribute so much the better. It’s like joining any group, you strive for some minimum level of acceptance first before launching a jihad against the group’s policies you find erroneous. Otherwise you risk de facto ostracism as one who complains first without any feel for the group or its goals.
Hey, at least you got the name right this time. Go ahead and cry that you’re misunderstood. It seems like everyone here understands you just fine. Because you’re misunderstood just about like Blagojevich is being persecuted like Gandhi. You’re not that complicated and certainly NOT a martyr. Except in your own mind.
I dont believe in social anarchy, the state has a couple of valid functions like defense and as a referee as in the legal system. beyond that I dont think the founders intended handouts and giveaways. Go read J. Madison on handouts.
you all cant rap your minds around it, Gyges thinks I am an anarchist and Buddha thinks I am a theocrat seems like a dichotomy to me. I guess Mike thinks I am asshole.
Regads,
Theocratanarchistasshole.