Praying for Obama

The News and Record reports regarding Barack Obama's visit to Greensboro today:

About 12:40 p.m., the Rev. Cardes Brown of New Light Baptist Church in Greensboro delivered an opening prayer invocation.

"We are those who believe there is hope," Brown told the audience. "We pray that we will fully understand unity."

He added: "I pray a special blessing, oh God a special blessing, on Barack Obama," which prompted cheers from the audience.

Ahem.

Meanwhile, Doug Clark reports about Obama's words on more mixing of faith and politics, as the esteemed wall of separation is breached once again on the left:

Maybe the most interesting segment was his response to a question about his personal religious faith. He described himself as a Christian who believes he will attain everlasting life because Jesus died for his sins. "I also believe in a gospel of not just words but deeds" This means caring for the poor, applying the Golden Rule, being a good steward of the earth, treating people with kindness. "I've tried to channel this into my politics."

Over the last couple of days, we also learned of how our mayor, Yvonne Johnson-- also known as Greensboro's Golden Girl-- was endorsing Obama and announcing his visit.  Some of us had a vague recollection that our elected officials in Greensboro city government were supposed to be non-partisan.  Or was she speaking as the titular head of the local Democratic party, or as the local chair of his campaign?  It was never made clear in what capacity she was speaking.  What particular standing did she have to make this announcement regarding his visit?

Church and state are supposed to be separate, except when they are intermingled to further progressive causes.  Our local politics is supposed to be non-partisan, except when it is partisan to further progressive causes.

As long as we understand and accept the ground rules, then we can all "fully understand unity", as the Rev. Cardes Brown suggests.

Comments

[Everest]

"Barack Obama is the only candidate who can take on the special interests, put an end to petty partisanship, and unite this entire nation around a common purpose."

And what about Obama's short tenure in the Senate leads Mayor Johnson to believe the above to be true...? When he's made himself available for votes, he's easily the most liberal Senator in the Senate and hasn't exactly built a reputation for "reaching across the aisle" (whatever that means.) All of his solutions to today's problems are the same old tired, core liberal policies that the Left have been pushing for 40 years...and those policies are the reason this country hasn't elected a true liberal in many decades.

And what's the "common purpose...?" Turning this country into the old Soviet Union...?

It is inconceivable to me that there appear to be this many voters willing to support this total lightweight for the most important office in the world...that scares the hell out of me Joe....and tells us something about our Mayor...

[Fred Gregory]

I have seen no effort of Obama reaching across the aisle. Quite to the contrary.

Everest, you nail him and our non-partisan Mayor good. Was James Hinson in the crowd, in a non-official capacity ?

These two "Overseas Republicans" with this article in the Jerusalem Post titled " Why McCain ? He Gets It " make a solid case for the GOP nominee.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1205420770098&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter

[Bubba]

"Church and state are supposed to be separate, except when they are intermingled to further progressive causes. Our local politics is supposed to be non-partisan, except when it is partisan to further progressive causes."

Always and forever.....

And if anybody else figures out the "rules", or points out hypocrisy or inconsistencies, the subject and the rules are immediately changed, and a deflection question or issue is raised.

That's Standard Operating Procedure, particularly in our local "business as usual" crowd, and certain of our pals in the local blahgosphere.

[Doug Clark]

I have no reason to believe this is true of Obama, but some liberals seem to think they can fulfill their religious obligation to help by poor by supporting government programs rather than giving of their own resources.

[Doug Clark]

I can update that now that Obama has posted tax returns. Until the last couple of years, when book deals pushed his annual earnings into seven figures, he made paltry contributions to charities.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/chi-0704250022apr25,1,1209388.story

[Doug Clark]

Correction: That's old news, but the point is the same.

[Joe Guarino]

Doug, you raise a great point. I suppose some may feel they may meet their obligations for charitable giving via their state and federal tax withholdings. :)

Bubba, for some reason, it seems difficult for everyone to agree that ministers and politicians on the left are attempting to influence governmental policy, sometimes according to their religious beliefs. This has been happening for decades. There is nothing new here. It is only a problem when evangelicals or conservative Catholics do this.

Fred and Everest, you both make a good point about Obama failing to "reach across the aisle". While he stylistically suggests he would do this, his voting record indicates otherwise. And Everest, the lack of substance he presents is, indeed, alarming. He proposes to increase spending programs dramatically when the nation is effectively bankrupt.

[Everest]

Great points Joe, and a great article from the JP...

Curious if you saw the most recent article from Obama's "former" pastor, where he slurred the Italians in Jesus' day (the article was about Easter.) So he's not only a racist and an anti-Semite, he is an equal-opportunity bigot....if Obama was a Republican he would be living in France about now....
(since France elected a conservative, pro-US President most recently)

The media is enraptured with this guy, and follow him around like a 2 month old puppy...can they be that in the tank for him..?!?!? And why..? Do they not care about this country at all...???

It's always interesting when liberals release their tax returns, to gauge their level of giving....typically nil. Which explains why they don't care about raising taxes on their fellow rich people to pay for "programs" to help the poor. While you and I give directly to the charity, liberals simply decide to take more from you, less from themselves, and run it thru the government...to help fulfill the age-old adage, "don't just stand there, spend something."

[Joe Guarino]

Everest, there is a great column by George Will posted today on the Real Clear Politics website. It cites research indicating that conservative households, even though they are not more wealthy, contribute 30% more to charity on average than liberal households. This seems to corroborate what you and Doug Clark are saying.

[Bubba]

"There is nothing new here. It is only a problem when evangelicals or conservative Catholics do this"

I guess that's why they call us "knuckledraggers" and "racists" on certain local blogs, isn't it?

And WE'RE the "bad guys"!

[Spag]

Good point on religion, Joe- and an observation I have made before somewhere. It is okay for the Left to mix politics and the pulpit, but if the Right does it, suddenly we risk tyranny.

Other bloggers like Cone seem to be warming up to the idea of the Left mixing religion and politics to advance Leftist positions. Meanwhile, the chastise conservatives, particularly evangelical conservatives for voting in a manner that reflects their religious values.

Somehow, evangelical conservatism is mean, but evangelical liberalism is kind hearted.

Doug makes an interesting point, but as has been mentioned above, it is conservatives, the Catholic Church above all others, that are responsible for charity in the greatest numbers.

I also think that it is fair to say that many conservatives believe they can advance their religious obligations by supporting government efforts to save lives by banning abortion.

I have policy/tactical issues with the Left and Right when it comes to politics and religion, but I cannot help but point out the blatant double standards in play.

[Joe Guarino]

You are right, Sam. Suddenly, it has been discovered that some evangelicals are OK, when they embrace progressive causes.

But overall, according to this mindset, the causes embraced by mainline Protestant denominations, most black churches, liberal Catholics who buck the church, and most Jewish synagogues are considered blameless. Other religious traditions outside these groups are likely suspect.

We have heard for years on the nation's editorial pages about the dangers of mixing church and state. Check the webpage of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and see that their activities are almost exclusively directed toward efforts by conservative Christians and Catholics.

I would argue, however, that faith traditions, churches and clergy espousing the progressive line have been favored and tolerated in the political realm for decades.

Our most obvious local example, of course, is the Pulpit Forum, of which Cardes Brown is part. The fact that this group is so consistently wrongheaded in its public pronouncements does not seem to matter. They are consistently treated as if they are paragons of truth-telling.

[Brenda Bowers]

George Will's article on the comparison of liberal and conservative charitable donations was also in Friday's N&R.

I am with you Everett, this man scares the hell out of me. I shutter to think of him meeting with "any and all world leaders" as he claims he will do. I am sure the nastier ones are sitting back waiting to "converse" with the American rube. BB