« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Abortion, Obama and Christian Fundamentalists...The Back Peddling Continues
How many TPMers have ever heard of 'Relevant Magazine?'
That's the mag O granted an interview to.
It's the mag where he enunciated his latest position on abortion. That position is something like, "I don't consider mental distress of the pregnant woman an adequate justification to 3rd semester abortions."
It's part of the so-called reach-out campaign to evangelicals (or as I call it, the religious schtick) of the O election strategy.
I had never heard of this magazine, so I visited its website. From there, under What We Believe, I came away with this gem: "But we do believe. We believe that eternal life and the ONLY true freedom is found in Christ." (emphasis added by me) There are more remarks from the publishers similar in nature to this one on the site.
It's said with a smile by the twenty-somethings that publish the mag.
Does The Candidate believe the same? Do his many supporters here on TPM believe the same?
Here's the link to What We Believe from Relevant Mag:
http://www.relevantmagazine.com/misc_beliefs.php
MyBlog; http://ProteanPerspectives.blogspot.com
Comments (31)
He believes that they are Americans just as much as you are, and that a President is the President of the entire population, and not just those that share your beliefs or non beliefs. I happen to be agnostic, but just like I do not want religious people forcing me to live by their tenets, I do not want to force them to live by mine. Senator Obama has said many times that he is a Christian, and yet you are now pretending to be taken by surprise when he gives an interview to a Christian publication.
He would be stupid not to. One of their votes is equal to your's, on election day.
July 4, 2008 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
liam,
1. I DON'T PRETEND.
2. By your "reasoning," it would be appropriate for O to address a meeting of the KKK or neo-Nazis, because "they are Americans just as much as you are,..."
3. I have blogged for months about O needlessly dragging religion into the secular realm of presidential politics, regardless of what the Republicans have done in the past. Read my Blog on TPM and you will see.
4. Your comment about "forcing" beliefs on others does not have its roots anywhere in my post---that stuff's all in YOUR mind.
5. Like it or not, O is getting very close to the line of pandering to groups whose ideology is anathema to the traditions of the Democrat Party and, in my opinion, to freedom in general.
6. The entire strategy of disingenuous pandering to groups that are hopelessly out of his electoral reach may prove to be the fatal flaw in O's otherwise brilliant campaign.
July 4, 2008 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes; in your pants wetting existence everything is alway: "may" this and "may" that. Your "may" crap is just another way of you engaging in unsubstantiated guessing.
Nice of you to put the KKK on equal footing with decent normal American Christians. Do you get a large discount because you purchase so may tar brushes!
July 4, 2008 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Goodbye, liam.
Fred
July 4, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
liam, you said it better than I could have and I thank you!
July 4, 2008 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's also granted an interview to Fox News. I hardly think that means he suddenly shares their views.
July 4, 2008 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
BH,
Like it or not, I would hardly equate Fox News with Relevant Magazine. [I don't ever watch Fox News because of their bias, but their viewership numbers are beyond dispute.]
Have you ever heard of Relevant? Do you subscribe to their views?
It's a very narrow-cast decision on O's part to grant an interview to what I think you would agree is an obscure magazine.
Frankly, the only thing I am thinking I know about Barack at this point is that, like HRC, he only wants to win...and that's very disappointing.
FB
July 4, 2008 8:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've never heard of Relevant.
My point is, he gives interviews to all kinds of people he disagrees with.
July 4, 2008 8:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you suffer from a dearth of knowelege about Sen Obama or his political philosophy might I suggest that you read his books. He explains his remarkably consistent political philosphy there.
July 5, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I presume you mean backpedaling. I'm puzzled that anyone thought Obama was a far-left candidate. Every time the Dems nominate someone, the wingnuts anoint them as the most liberal in Congress, but that doesn't make it so.
July 4, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Donal,
The more I look into this, the more I think "peddling" may have been the right word afterall.
Fred
July 4, 2008 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
This whole thing had the smell of rotten fish to me, obviously.
So I did a very little research on Relevant.
It was founded by Cameron Strang, son of Stephan Strang, founder of Strang Communications, among other things.
I suggest one merely do a search, Google or otherwise, on good ole Stephan.
I'm not going to write a 3000-word article about him now and tell you what to think. You guys do the search. One tidbit: Stephan supported Mike Huckabee in the Republican Primary...but there's much, much more about him and his Christian media empire (now including his son's soft-sell Relevant, that you'll enjoy.
I'll include one link from American Prospect Magazine. It's an article on Strang, Stephan from 2007.
Enjoy. Deny. Believe. Whatever.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_christian_rights_new_man
July 4, 2008 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fred:
(1) It's third trimester not semester.
(2) Roe vs. Wade legalized most first trimester abortions, some second, and rarely third trimester abortions.
(3) Have you ever been pregnant?
July 4, 2008 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is it about Christianity that so threatens those who are not?
Obama is a Christian, never made secret of it, who has proclaimed loud and far that he derives his values from his faith. But, he is clear about not excluding those who are not of the same faith.
I would challenge that there are more Christians and Jewish Americans in the DNC than not.
Candidates give interviews to all types of publications - as well they should.
Perhaps tolerance and freedom of religion is something you might need to have as topic for your 3000 words...
P.S. Fox news and the far right do not exemplify Christian words or deeds.
God Bless.
July 4, 2008 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
You answered your first question with your PS, Aunt Sam. ;)
I'm an atheist, but I'm not concerned by most Christians. That said, those who proclaim their Christianity the loudest are often the ones to be most wary of.
July 4, 2008 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too many use such a broad brush - generalizations and lumping together people of faith, atheists, gays, hetero's, ethnicity and the list is endless.
I'm a Christian and am repelled and appalled at FOX, the 'conservative right' and all those who skew christianity to fit their judgments and personal agendas.
I try to live by 'Do unto others.....' and the 10 commandments. I'm imperfect (that's an understatement) but I try to be kind and considerate of others.
I don't judge others or embrace or rebuff them based on their beliefs/faith or lack thereof. That's not my job nor my calling.
I've been blessed to know wonderful people and consider friends - many of all persuasions,etc.
BUT, I do get riled when Christians (and other groups, even blondes) are all tarred with the same brush (whether negative or positive).
FYI - I am a staunch believer that church and state should be separate! The rights of Marriage (and in this case also rites) is not something the government should even be involved in as far as deciding who has the 'legal' option. There are other issues too, but hopefully I don't need to list them for you.
Ben, I always admire your posts and how you stand up and speak out. Thank you.
July 5, 2008 2:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why thank you, and I appreciate you being true to yourself as well. I probably should clarify what I mean by "those who proclaim their Christianity the loudest" as well. I've known some strong Christians who never back down from their faith, but this shows more in their actions than in their words (although it also shows in their words). I'm definitely not asking for Peters denying their Lord. I think you understood what I was getting at, but after I re-read what I wrote, I felt it could be taken the wrong way.
July 5, 2008 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
AS,
Right Wing Fundamentalist Christianity, just as Islamic Fundamentalism, threatens all our freedoms.
The Constitution liberated the federal government from the tyranny of religion per se. It prohibited any one religion, including but not limited to Christianity in all its manifestations, from being the official State Religion. Brilliant!
The government should stay out of religion and vice versa. Tax exemptions for religions should be abolished as well. Religions should be treated as any other entity in society is treated by the federal government.
As for Obama, I frankly do not believe his faith-statements. I think they are merely Clinton-like maneuvers he knew from early on that he would have to employ to achieve his goals. Yes, only one man's opinion.
Candidates are very selective regarding granting interviews. Those decisions are made after serious deliberations by the candidate and advisers.
Finally, I do feel threatened when ANY religion pokes its nose into politics, especially presidential politics. The threat is not Christianity, the threat is religion per se.
FB
July 4, 2008 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I endorse your last sentence. 'Organized' religion seldom aligns itself too closely with Christianity. I have issues with many of them which would no doubt make for a 'hell' of a post but would not serve any usefull purpose.
Please read my reply to Ben (above) for further clarification of my stance.
Take care.
July 5, 2008 2:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oops - thought I'd taken that second l away from useful.....
(Can we please start an uprising to get an edit option?)
July 5, 2008 3:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
If there were more Christians from the Fred Rodgers, Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama camp that use their Christianity as a motivation to help others in need and fewer from the James Dobson, Newt Gingrich, George W Bush camp that uses religion as a crudgel to whup upon others then you wold likely see fewer antitheists amongst the atheists. I have droped most of my antitheist positions because I see the sane members of Christianity taking their faith back from the demagougs. I am ready to turn back on a dime when they come to the fore again.
July 5, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
NCD,
1. Thanks for the correction.
2. I am aware of your second point.
3. Though at times (not currently) I may have looked like I was pregnant, no, I have never been so.
4. My personal opinion is that this is exclusively a private issue that should be decided by each individual woman; it should be beyond the reach of the State and males, including me!
5. My post was prompted more by O's giving legitimacy to a mag like Relevant (and what it represents) than by his position on third trimester abortion.
FB
July 4, 2008 10:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
The intolerance displayed on this (and most other political sites) is so damned depressing. As is the alacrity with which so many people love to focus on any and every little titbit that presses their buttons as opposed to the major issues that will win or lose this election and deeply impact on ordinary peoples' lives: the economy, education, health; the world - national security, overcoming neocon dogma, climate change.
Why don't you step back over the weekend and, if you have some internet time, watch Condoleezza Rice brag of how proud she is of the Iraq War; and, more importantly, use it to watch Obama's talk to his staff after winning the primary. You know, the one where he said that, if they'd lost the primary it wouldn't have mattered to the issues they care most about: but they *cannot* lose the general.
If you're still not convinced, why don't you read (or reread as the case may be) Stephen Greenhouse's Cafe post `Class Warefare and the new Gilded Age`
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/07/03/the_new_gilded_age_and_class_w/
which hopefully might concentrate your minds on who and what really matter most in this election.
ie instead of focusing constantly on what you don't like about the Democratic Candidate, on individual issues that matter to you, think about the broad canvas of what he's up against in this election, and the real consequences of not supporting him.
(And for the record, I'm a passionate atheist, one of whose favourite books is Dawkins` `The God Delusion` - and one of the things I most hold against organised religion is its bloody dogmatism and intolerance - especially inciting of intolerance; and one of the things I do very much like about Obama is his actual preaching of tolerance and his advocacy of missions among the poor. (If you have to be a Christian, at least be a useful one.)
July 4, 2008 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
pn,
Don't lecture me on how to spend my time. Don't judge for me which are important and not-important issues.
If the topic I have chosen to write about is trivial in your mind, ignore it.
In no way minimizing some of the issues you cite, Iraq in particular, the issue I am writing about transcends the momentarily important ones you are concerned with.
The issue is defending our freedoms from those who would snatch them away from us in the name of (their) God.
O can say what he pleases; it's what he does that concerns me. And what he has done by granting an interview to Relevant is given that publication and the others that it is intimately related to a legitimacy far beyond what they deserve.
(And for the record, I'm a passionate atheist, one of whose favourite books is Dawkins` `The God Delusion` - and one of the things I most hold against organised religion is its bloody dogmatism and intolerance - especially inciting of intolerance; and one of the things I do very much like about Obama is his actual preaching of tolerance and his advocacy of missions among the poor. (If you have to be a Christian, at least be a useful one.)--pn
The words above are yours.
These guys all preach "tolerance" out of one side of their mouth and hatred out of the other.
If you read my TPM Blog, you would see most of my posts praise O. That does not mean I think he is above questioning.
And on this stunt, he deserves to be questioned, vigorously.
FB
July 4, 2008 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not all christians are insincere. That is bull, many christians do good works everyday.
Fred
"He and McCain have enjoyed extroadinary favorable coverage up to now (ask Hillary)"
Are you PUMA
July 5, 2008 12:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
m,
Not even close re PUMA.
FB
July 5, 2008 1:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not all Christians are insincere. But Christians are as a rule piss poor judges of who among them is insincere. The lying bastard conman can lead his flock astray in a moment. In the pews the sincire outh number that false proclaimers. In the pulpit it is the exact oposite.
July 5, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Don't lecture me on how to spend my time. Don't judge for me which are important and not-important issues."
Sorry. You're right.
In mitigation, may I just point out that I overreacted to your post - you got the cumulative impact of reading TPM where the majority of posts seem to be criticising Obama over single issues; reading posts here and at blogs such as Daily Kos where people are talking of not donating any more, no longer going to participate in getting out the vote etc.
It's extremely depressing when it seems the only place one can any longer go to find a Democratic message is MSNBC.
July 4, 2008 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
pn,
No problem. No need for apology.
I am non-partisan; I think I mention it in my profile. So I am not as distressed by O being subject to tough questioning as you are.
He and McCain have enjoyed extraordinarily favorable coverage up to now (ask Hillary.) Both are going to be pummeled in the days to come by their pals in the media.
The Democrats have all the issues, the election is theirs to lose. Every time McCain opens his mouth, he inadvertently delivers a message beneficial to the Democrats.
Count your blessings; the Republicans could have found, perhaps, a really formidable, charismatic candidate who might have been able to transcend the disaster that has been GW Bush. But they didn't.
They settled on McCain, as feeble an opponent as Barack could have wished for.
Fred
July 4, 2008 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you think ignoring people of faith in this election is a wise move then I can tell you one very good reason why you are not the one running for President.
Rather than focusing on this one interview with this one gar, who not consider his words with regards to faith-based programs? It speaks volumes about his willingness to tame the hydra rather than engaging in a fatal battle to chop of it's head.
At stated above, a president must represent all the people, not a select few, and can't exclude groups. Your mention of the fascists is absurd. Going by that reasoning he would then also have to engage with criminals?
Maybe you feel Obama should just ignore people? Should he also ignore gay people and illegal immigrants? Is it that he should ignore only those groups who you don't like? How about ignoring groups you do like? That would also be wrong in your eyes?
The way I see it, you making the same mistake here as many people make: your candidate represents you, but he is not you. You can not and never will be able to mold him in your eyes. You must thus choose one which most closely mirrors your views, while accepting that he can't mirror them all.
Obama's stance on faith-based funding was a god send [sic] to me in that he is attempting to control that which he can't kill. It showed me that his judgment and reasoning is sound.
It showed me that he can indeed win in November.
July 5, 2008 6:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
D-UK,
Your reply addresses an issue that is to be found nowhere in my post, namely, the suggestion of "ignoring."
Otherwise, your reply is a hodge-podge of value judgments that don't refute any of the central points in my post.
FB
July 5, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment