There’s a lot of talk about President Barack Obama’s faith. Is he a Christian, a Muslim, an agnostic, an (gulp) atheist?
But would any of that change the way he leads America?
President Barack Obama
But are secular moral ordinances and laws sufficient? Or does religion need to be in the mix, as well?
An author and blogger makes the point in an essay for the Washington Posts’ On Faith site that Obama’s faith shouldn’t matter. We should judge him by his actions. Read the essay here.
Does it seem like Pope Benedict XVI and President Barack Obama have been in the news a lot? Well, a new study says they have, at least when it comes to religion-related news.
Pope Benedict XVI and the Obama administration were the subjects of the most religion-related news in 2009, the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life reported last week.
The Pope or Obama were the subject of five of the top 10 religion-related stories of 2009, the report states.
Other findings in the report include:
Pope Benedict XVI
To read more of the report, click here.
A group of Christian leaders have had enough of other Christians invoking the name of Hitler and the tragedy of the Holocaust when talking about a certain politician (President Barack Obama) and the actions and proposals of a certain administration (Obama’s). The group, led by Interfaith Alliance president C. Welton Gaddy, sent out a letter today to many politicians, pundits and other religious leaders asking for 
civility.
I have obtained a copy of the letter, which is below:
An open letter to religious leaders, politicians, pundits and the public:
In the last month, we have seen an alarming number of public figures use the Nazis and the Holocaust as metaphors in public debate on issues critical to this country. This development is but the most vile example of the disturbing language that has insinuated itself into our national dialogue. Examples of this divisive and ill-spirited rhetoric include:
• Richard Land, a leader and spokesperson in the Southern Baptist Convention compared some of the proposed health care reforms to ”what the Nazis did.” Actually, Land bestowed a “Joseph Mengele Award” on Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the president’s chief health care adviser. After strong criticism, Dr. Land apologized for his comments, though he offered no apology to Dr. Emanuel.
• The Republican National Committee was asked to take down a link to a YouTube video parody where subtitles in a movie portraying Hitler were doctored to convey the impression that Hitler was criticizing the Democrats’ health care proposals.
• Fox News host Glenn Beck compared the treatment of Fox News by the Obama Administration to the treatment of Jews during the Holocaust.
• Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) referred to the failure to reform the U.S. health care system as a “holocaust.” Grayson later apologized stating that he in no way meant to minimize the Holocaust.iv
The Holocaust was a tragic event in which the Nazis systematically murdered six million Jews. The Nazi regime that perpetrated this mass genocide was one of the most horrific in world history. There is no place in civil debate for the use of these types of metaphors. Perpetrators of such language harm rather than help both the integrity of the democratic process and the credibility of religious commentary.
We, the undersigned faith leaders, call on our colleagues in all religious communities as well as elected leaders, commentators, pundits and others engaged in public debate to refrain specifically from using inappropriate Nazi and Holocaust references and, generally, to help restore civility to our national dialogue.
Sincerely,
Among the undersigned are C. Welton Gaddy,
president of Interfaith Alliance; Imam Mahdi Bray,
executive director of Muslim American Society Freedom; David Currie,
retire baptist leader; Jane Holmes Dixon, former Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington; Rabbi David Gelfand of Temple Israel of the City of New York; Galen Guengerich, senior minister of All Souls Unitarian Church; and Derrick Harkins,
senior pastor of Nineteenth Street Baptist Church, Washington, D.C.
Do you think this letter was needed, or is it grand standing?
Warren
Perhaps you read my Jan. 17 column on the outcry over evangelical pastor Rick Warren being chosen by Barack Obama to deliver the invocation at Tuesday’s presidential inauguration. In short, I said Obama made a good choice because Warren’s views on gay marriage and abortion are shared by many Americans, and Obama’s administration serves everyone.
Below are edited excerpts from my interviews with two religious scholars on Rick Warren and the Obama inauguration. The scholars are Joe Pickle, a former religious studies professor at Colorado College, and Randall Balmer, a professor of American religious history at Barnard College in New York.
First interview: JOE PICKLE, former religious studies professor at Colorado College
MARK BARNA: What is your view of Obama’s choice to have Rick Warren deliver the invocation at Tuesday’s inauguration?
PICKLE: He would not have been my first choice. Even people who are not pro Obama found this choice outrageous. But I think this is an acknowledgment that there are many dimensions of the evangelical community.
Obama couldn’t ask his former pastor (the Rev. Jeremiah Wright). He is clearly interested in people who are not noncontroversial. He’s got a willingness to accept people who speak sharply and clearly even when he doesn’t agree with them. He demonstrates a willingness to talk across the aisles. He knew the choice was a symbolic bombshell.
BARNA: What is your opinion of Warren?
PICKLE: He’s very smooth and interesting.
BARNA: Evangelicalism seems to be moving away from the wedge rhetoric of the Christian right.
PICKLE: There is an attempt within the evangelical community to move on.
Second interview: RANDALL BALMER, a professor of American religious history at Barnard College in New York.
BARNA: What do you think of Obama’s choice of Warren?
BALMER: It is a brilliant move on his part politically. He has a genuine willingness to engage with people of different points of view. That makes him an unusual politician.
BARNA: What is your view of Warren, who is a friend of yours? You disagree with him on the gay marriage issue.
BALMER: Yes, but he has been unfairly pilloried on that. He endorsed Prop 8 (the California measure to outlaw gay marriage) but he was not on the front lines. He represents a broadening of the evangelical approach. He is not part of the religious right, not in the same box as Dobson and Colson. Obama sees Warren as embodying a new approach.
BARNA: What is the future of the religious right?
BALMER: The 2008 election finally discredited the religious right. It’ll thrash about for a while, but it is in its death throes.
V. Gene Robinson, the Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire, has done a one-eighty regarding Barack Obama’s inauguration, now that Obama is letting him be part of the presidential pre-inauguration festivities.
Bishop Robinson
December 2008: Robinson, who is gay, opposed Obama’s selection of the Rev. Rick Warren, an opponent of gay marriage, to deliver the invocation at Obama’s inauguration Jan .20. “I’m all for Rick Warren being at the table,” Robinson said, “but we’re not talking about a discussion, we’re talking about putting someone up front and center at what will be the most watched inauguration in history.”
Monday, Jan. 12: Obama’s inauguration team announces that Robinson will deliver the invocation as part of pre-inaugural festivities. Now everything is OK with Robinson. “The fact that Rick Warren and I are each giving invocations during inauguration festivities just shows that the new president means to include all Americans,” Robinson said.
Of course, Robinson wanted to be part of the inaugural festivities for symbolic reasons: He is at the center of the controversy over the role of gays in Christian leadership. By being part of the inauguration, Robinson is showing that gays have a place within Christianity and that gay rights are important to the Obama administration.
Great.
But was it necessary he be part of the festivities? After all, the inauguration already includes the Rev. Joseph Lowery, who is in favor of gay marriage and will give the inaugural benediction.
It will be interesting to see if Robinson drops any references about gay marriage in his invocation.
Is Robinson politicizing the inauguration? What are your thoughts?
On Jan. 20, the first black president of the United States will be sworn into office. Regardless of your political or religious affiliation, it is a historic event and something of which all Americans should be proud. Once again, the world is seeing that America is the land of opportunity for all.
Below are statements from two black religious leaders, the Rev. Al Pittman and the Rev. MarKeva Hill. The Colorado Springs pastors reflect on what Obama’s presidency means to African Americans.
Interview with the Rev. MarKeva Hill of People United Methodist Church.
Hill, who leads a mixed-race congregation of about 100 people each week, talks about whether black community needs both the Moses generation –black preachers who still use the rhetoric of the civil rights movement – and the Joshua generation, which preaches a broader message not focused on race issues.
MARK BARNA: Is the rhetoric of the Moses generation still needed?
HILL: Every bit of the rhetoric was needed during the civil rights movement, from Martin Luther King to the Black Panthers. It took all of that to get to where we are. But there still is a need for the Moses generation. They keep us remembering where we came from.
BARNA: How does Obama differ from some of the other black politicians?
HILL: Condoleezza Rice (the 66th U.S. secretary of state) and Colin Powell (the 65th U.S. secretary of state) assimilated to the dominant culture’s world. But Obama came through a different door. Obama connects with young and old, black and white, rich and poor. He doesn’t leave anyone behind.
BARNA: The selection of the conservative evangelical Rick Warren to lead the invocation at Obama’s inauguration Jan. 20 has been criticized. What is your view?
HILL: Warren has a line and he digs in, but gay people say that line is not acceptable. Obama’s goal matches his rhetoric, which is to bring all people to the table. I don’t agree with all that Rick Warren says, but I have respect for him.
Below is an excerpt from Hill’s column on Obama that appeared in her church’s newsletter:
There were many of us who could not envision an African-American President of the United States of American in our lifetime. This is not meant to be a criticism, but a critique of how we allow our experiences and environment to limit us, and thereby we place limits on God’s ability to work in us and forfeit the opportunity to experience the zenith of our potential.
I shared with you in a letter last month that this moment in history bears even more significance than the witness of a black man winning the highest office in America; God has lifted humanity to a higher level.
No longer do we, as people of a pluralistic society, have to remain in the stance of victim/perpetrator or oppressor and oppressed. God is calling all of us to be a better people in order to position us to do a greater thing.
As we stand on the cusp of a time of great peril (two wars and an economic crisis), we also stand at a time of great possibility (a united people). Today we are able to honestly tell our children that they, too, can be president of the United States of America.
Below is a statement from Pittman on Obama’s election:
The election of Barack Obama as president is a historic event. As a black American I cannot help but be proud of his accomplishments. Most African Americans I’ve spoken with, from my generation and older, are grateful to witness the election of our country’s first African American president, even though some may not have voted for him. In spite of our political views it is clear that this past election serves as a testimony to the fact that America’s attitude toward race has somewhat changed. However, it would be naive to suggest that racism is dead; racism, at its core, is about the heart of man (our sin) rather than our skin.
Evangelical black Americans feel equally inspired by president-elect Barack Obama’s achievements, which many saw as the fruition of faith; the faith of slaves, a disenfranchised people, who helped build this nation. We are blessed as descendants of slaves to have come this far. There is nothing wrong with having passion for one’s own people, the apostle Paul often expressed his passion for his fellow countrymen (Romans 9:3). However, from the biblical perspective we should always celebrate our oneness in Christ above our cultural and racial differences. Therefore, regardless of our political persuasion, as believers, we should rejoice; understanding that the election of Barack Obama is not only a historic event, but also the sovereign will of God (Romans 13:1).
To read Obama’s eloquent March 2008 speech on race, click here. The speech was given in the wake of the fallout over perceived anti-American comments given by Obama’s former spiritual mentor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.
