Frederick Clarkson Finds Sen. Obama Guilty (By Association) of Being Influenced by Jim Wallis!! (Pt. One)
One of the central Republican campaign techniques has been to frame issues to create a phony sense of crisis that basic values are under attack by a politically correct secular culture. This gives them endless opportunities to feel outraged and under siege. Thus we see discrimination posing as “Marriage Protection,” we hear rants about protecting The Flag, we see true believers riled up by a bogus War on Christmas. Given this context, it is perhaps inevitable that liberals would often have their dukes up and be ready to pounce when they see fellow progressives (wittingly or unwittingly) tap in to one of these themes. This is perhaps one explanation for the really unbalanced and unfair criticism of Sen. Obama’s speech on faith and politics.
The most recent comes from Frederick Clarkson:
Obama and Jim Wallis before him are wrong to scapegoat "secularists" for the problems mainstream Christians and others have had in finding their voices. They are also wrong to allege that non-religious people are somehow chasing religious expression from public life. It is long past time to call a halt to this nonsense. Let's start today. He then goes on to note that... "the religious right frames much of how they view politics in America as a struggle in America between Christianity and secular humanism; between faith and no faith; between religiosity and secularism. The words differ a bit depending on who is doing the talking, but the the frame is always the same. Indeed, it has been one of the central features of the religious right's rise to power for decades and has been articulated by every major leader from Jerry Falwell to Sun Myung Moon."
Okay, no argument there. We disagree, though, about how this relates to Obama's speech. What does Clarkson site as grounds for putting the weight of this history on Sen. Obama? This line: "Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square." (For the record, I have a relative who quit going to Democratic Party meetings because there were too many religious people involved in her local group. Now she probably had other reasons for leaving, but that's what she made a point of telling me--knowing that I write this blog.)
Clarkson writes, "I am not aware of anyone being asked leave their faith at the door of public life. Are there a few cranky atheists out there who oppose all religiosity, particularly in politicians and public life? Well sure, so what else is new? But there is no evidence that anyone is making any actual headway in reducing religiosity in America.Nevertheless, the influence of Wallis shows in Obama's speech. Let's talk about that influence for a moment.
To listen to or read Jim Wallis, you would think that legions of the Secular Left are rampaging across the land; that the secularity police are billy-clubbing every expression of religion in public life -- especially if it happens to be Christian; and ruthlessly blocking "people of faith" from participation in constitutional democracy and requiring politicians to hide their religiosity."
This wasn't Sen. Obama's point--but, so what? It's far more important that Clarkson find Senator Obama guilty (by association!) of being influenced by Jim Wallis!! Man, we better send out the attack dogs--that is horrible!! Thank God, we have brave bloggers like Clarkson and Atrios to set him right...
This brings me back to the lack of, well, intellectual tolerance and a sense of proportion in especially the conservative but also the liberal blogosphere. Blogs are full of people who literally seem to believe that there is only one right way to think--or even one right way to approach a conflict of ideas or strategy. Obabma's strategy was about tolerance of opposing viewpoints and respect for those who disagree with us. Obabma made it clear that his approach came out of his own experience, his experience in the African American church in particular... (Lunch hour/More later)
The most recent comes from Frederick Clarkson:
Obama and Jim Wallis before him are wrong to scapegoat "secularists" for the problems mainstream Christians and others have had in finding their voices. They are also wrong to allege that non-religious people are somehow chasing religious expression from public life. It is long past time to call a halt to this nonsense. Let's start today. He then goes on to note that... "the religious right frames much of how they view politics in America as a struggle in America between Christianity and secular humanism; between faith and no faith; between religiosity and secularism. The words differ a bit depending on who is doing the talking, but the the frame is always the same. Indeed, it has been one of the central features of the religious right's rise to power for decades and has been articulated by every major leader from Jerry Falwell to Sun Myung Moon."
Okay, no argument there. We disagree, though, about how this relates to Obama's speech. What does Clarkson site as grounds for putting the weight of this history on Sen. Obama? This line: "Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square." (For the record, I have a relative who quit going to Democratic Party meetings because there were too many religious people involved in her local group. Now she probably had other reasons for leaving, but that's what she made a point of telling me--knowing that I write this blog.)
Clarkson writes, "I am not aware of anyone being asked leave their faith at the door of public life. Are there a few cranky atheists out there who oppose all religiosity, particularly in politicians and public life? Well sure, so what else is new? But there is no evidence that anyone is making any actual headway in reducing religiosity in America.Nevertheless, the influence of Wallis shows in Obama's speech. Let's talk about that influence for a moment.
To listen to or read Jim Wallis, you would think that legions of the Secular Left are rampaging across the land; that the secularity police are billy-clubbing every expression of religion in public life -- especially if it happens to be Christian; and ruthlessly blocking "people of faith" from participation in constitutional democracy and requiring politicians to hide their religiosity."
This wasn't Sen. Obama's point--but, so what? It's far more important that Clarkson find Senator Obama guilty (by association!) of being influenced by Jim Wallis!! Man, we better send out the attack dogs--that is horrible!! Thank God, we have brave bloggers like Clarkson and Atrios to set him right...
This brings me back to the lack of, well, intellectual tolerance and a sense of proportion in especially the conservative but also the liberal blogosphere. Blogs are full of people who literally seem to believe that there is only one right way to think--or even one right way to approach a conflict of ideas or strategy. Obabma's strategy was about tolerance of opposing viewpoints and respect for those who disagree with us. Obabma made it clear that his approach came out of his own experience, his experience in the African American church in particular... (Lunch hour/More later)
posted by Faithful Progressive at 1:49 PM
4 Comments:
Faithful Progressive finds Clarkson Guilty by association with liberals and bloggers! Let the show trials begin!
Interesting how the argument jumps from what I wrote to what other, unnamed liberals and bloggers may have thought, written or done. They ain't me.
Meanwhile, Obama is in fact, associated with Jim Wallis as a featured speaker at his Call to Renewal conference; and Wallis has been a prominent and publicly acknowledged advisor to the Democratic Party on how to approach these matters. That Obama chose Wallis' conference to roll out his major speech on this subject should come as no surprise. But that is only part of the point.
The other part is made quite clear in what I actually wrote -- and that is in the unsupported (unsupported because it is untrue and cannot be supported) that liberals and Democrats are trying to drive religion out of public life as is clearly suggested by Obama in his speech, and certainly reflects the view of Wallis, although certainly not only Wallis. As I wrote, there are certainly people who are intolerant of religion and religious ways of looking at the world. But in fact, such people inhabit the GOP and Libertarian parties as well. For that matter, there is more than a little intolerance of non-religious people in many circles too-- and this is just as inexcusable.
My critique of Obama is not, as Faithful Progressive suggests, based on a single line of text, although it is one I chose to start out with.
I invite everyone to read what I actually wrote -- and to read Obama's speech. This is a conversation that needs to be had. That is part of why I wrote what I think is a fair and balanced piece, that clearly distinguishes what Wallis says and what Obama says, and notes the areas in which I agree and disagree with Senator Obama.
Thanks for stopping by, Mr. Clarkson. Come back later when I have completed my thoughts on what Obabma was really saying. Must say that I think your post, like that of Atrios, rather missed his point--though, once again, you both made your own different points. I think what he had to say was much richer than your discussion--or any that I've seen other than maybe EJ Dionne. But I'll be back tomorrow with my full argument.
Regards,
FP
And we wonder why progressives and Dems fail at the polls, year after year.
Welcome Tenoch.
Part Two here: Here's What Sen. Obama Was Saying
Post a Comment
<< Home