Why Do Gingrich and Obama Agree on the Supreme Court?

Last week, after three days of tough argument before the Supreme Court, the President created a stir when he said that it would be “unprecedented” for the Supreme Court to overturn his national healthcare plan. Obama further questioned the legitimacy of “unelected” and “activist” judges.

Conservatives went crazy! How could the President criticize the authority of the Supreme Court?

On December 18, 2011, Republican candidate Newt Gingrich lost significant momentum when he told the nation on Face the Nation that judges, at least in some circumstances, should be called to account for their decisions that ignore the public will, either by being brought before Congress or in some cases by being removed from office. In fact, Gingrich had written a 54-page position paper on the topic, specifically pointing to the 1958 anti-segregation ruling in Cooper v. Aaron. In Cooper, the Supreme Court asserted that the Court’s opinion on the Constitution was more important than the interpretations of Congress or the Executive Branch.

Liberals went crazy! How could an aspiring President criticize the authority of the Supreme Court?

It is a running joke that any decision that the Supreme Court makes that one disagrees with is made by “activist,” “unelected” judges. If your side doesn’t win, blame the Court! And in the past few years, decisions have gone both ways as the Court, comprised of justices presently appointed over the course of 24 years ranging from Antonin Scalia, appointed in 1986 to Elena Kagan, appointed in 2010.

The reality is, if Newt Gingrich is right then Barack Obama is also right. Obama can simply read off Gingrich’s paper and make the same arguments. The sitting President, empowered by a sympathetic Congress can do whatever it wants and the Supreme Court can simply stand by and wring its hands. The Patriot Act can continue to exist without challenge as can ObamaCare.

Perhaps this is one thing that Gingrich and Obama can agree on – that the President and Congress has electable, kingly authority. In reality, the only way either one of them would be happy with the proposed arrangement is if their party is in control. Otherwise, the minority party would have no judicial recourse or appeal.

If anything, when politicians think in two- and four-year increments, the Court has perhaps become too political, with justices appointed who are expected to carry forward particular agendas rather than providing long-term Constitutional interpretations. Electing justices would only make things worse. There is a process for changing the Court, but as with changes to the Constitution itself, they take place slowly.

In times like this, we would do well to remember the words of Lord Acton, that “power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” and seek to preserve the integrity and role of the Supreme Court.

###

No Compromise: The Story of Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani

Note: Since this was written, we have received news that the Iranian Judiciary has issued orders that Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani be executed by hanging.  Today, February 23, 2012, the White House issued the following Statement:

“The United States condemns in the strongest possible terms reports that Iranian authorities’ reaffirmed a death sentence for Iranian Pastor Youcef Nadarkhani for the sole reason of his refusal to recant his Christian faith.  This action is yet another shocking breach of Iran’s international obligations, its own constitution, and stated religious values.  The United States stands in solidarity with Pastor Nadarkhani, his family, and all those who seek to practice their religion without fear of persecution—a fundamental and universal human right.  The trial and sentencing process for Pastor Nadarkhani demonstrates the Iranian government’s total disregard for religious freedom, and further demonstrates Iran’s continuing violation of the universal rights of its citizens.  The United States calls upon the Iranian authorities to immediately lift the sentence, release Pastor Nadarkhani, and demonstrate a commitment to basic, universal human rights, including freedom of religion.  The United States renews its calls for people of conscience and governments around the world to reach out to Iranian authorities and demand Pastor Nadarkhani’s immediate release.”

——————-

It is difficult to argue for separation of church and state when you are living in a “theocracy.” Iranian pastor Youcef Nadarkhani, 34, learned this fact when he was arrested in October 2009 soon after refusing to allow his children to participate in government-mandated readings of the Quran. Nadarkhani had argued that Iranian law allowed children to be raised in the faith of their parents.

Nadarkhani remained incarcerated and in September 2010, a Gilan Province court ordered him to hang for “convert(ing) to Christianity” and “encourag(ing) other Muslims to convert to Christianity.”

The court did provide an opportunity for Nadarkhani to easily escape the gallows – all he had to do was verbally renounce Christianity. Since then, as of this writing, Nadarkhani has had the choice whether to live or die – just say the words and his freedom will be restored. Yet he refuses and remains behind walls at the Lakan prison.

The court asked him, “Do you believe in the elements of Islam which are the unity of God, resurrection of the dead and the prophethood of great Mohammad?”

Nadarkhani replied, “I believe in the unity of God and the resurrection of the dead but not the prophethood of great Mohammad.”

On June 10, 2010, Nadarkhani’s wife, Fatemah Pasindedih was arrested under charges of apostasy and imprisoned at Lakan. The authorities threatened to take away their children and give them to a Muslim family. Nadarkhani continued to refuse to convert and his wife was tried without an attorney and sentenced to life imprisonment. An attorney was then retained and that decision was appealed and the sentence was overturned and she was released.

Nadarkhani’s death sentence was appealed to the Iranian Supreme Court in December 2010 and on June 28, 2011 the verdict was handed down. He was to be “executed by being hung somehow until his soul is taken from him.” The Court ruled that there was some question as to whether Nadarkhani had previously been a practicing Muslim “from the beginning of puberty” onward and therefore whether he had actually committed apostasy. The lower court was ordered to determine whether he had been a practicing Muslim between the ages of 15 and 19. If he had been a Muslim during that time, then the court could execute him after giving him an additional opportunity to recant.

The lower court held its re-trial between September 25 and 28, 2011. Before the trial even began, he was asked to renounce his faith. Under Islamic Sharia law[i], an apostate is given three days to recant. The court then asked Nadarkhani to renounce his Christianity and “return to the faith of your ancestors.”

As the case progressed, the story caught fire on the Internet and soon news agencies around the world were spreading the story of a young pastor facing death for refusing to renounce his faith. In an attempt to sway attention away from the story, the Iranian state-supported media outlet, Fars News Agency, dismissed claims that the court had passed down the death sentence because of apostasy, and that Nadarkhani had actually been charged with “rape, corruption, and security-related crimes including extortion.”[ii]

The Fars story added that Nadarkhani was a “Zionist” who ran a “corruption” house like a brothel or “opium house.” The alleged charges were not clear as to what Nadarkani had allegedly done.

In response, Nadarkhani’s attorney, Mohammed Ali Dadkhah told told the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, “If he is under trial in another court on other charges, I am not aware. But we only defended him against the death sentence in the case of his charge of apostasy. The charge the court staff announced that I defended during several different court sessions was apostasy and no other charge.”[iii]

Dadkhah, a Iranian Muslim represents Nadarkhani at great personal risk – he himself appealing a sentence of nine years in prison for “actions and propaganda against the Islamic regime,” which is what the government calls his legal human rights work.

Iran’s secret service officials have reportedly given Nadarkhani a book on Islamic literature, and told him that they will return to discuss it with him. The book, entitled “Beshaarat-eh Ahdein,” claims that Christianity is false. If Nadarkhani later discusses the book with authorities and claims that he disagrees with it, this may be a basis for a later charge of blasphemy. As a result, Nadarkhani’s attorneys have advised him to remain silent on the book as any statements he makes could be used against him.

Hillary Clinton, the U.S. Secretary of State released a statement on September 30, 2011 expressing concern about the case and persecution against Zoroastrians, Sufis, and Baha’is. Clinton wrote, “The United States stands with the international community and all Iranians against the Iranian government’s hypocritical statements and actions, and we continue to call for a government that respects the human rights and freedom of all those living in Iran.”

U.S. House Speaker John Boehner said that the prospects for the execution of Nadarkhani, “unless he disavows his Christian faith are distressing for people of every country and creed.”

Today, there are about 300,000 Christians living in Iran – one-half of one percent of the population. Of those, the majority are ethnic Armenians. There are 73 registered individual Christian churches, and almost all Christian activity is illegal. Those who conduct evangelistic activities including publishing pamphlets in Persian languages are harshly punished.

During the early 1990s, religious persecution increased in Iran. In 1993, Pastor Mehdi Dibaj, an Islamic convert was sentenced to die after ten years of imprisonment. Later that year, church leaders were asked to sign a declaration stating that they would not allow Muslims or Muslim converts into their churches. Only two church leaders refused to sign, including Haik Hovsepian who was the Superintendent of the Assemblies of God churches in Iran.

Instead, Hovsepian called the world’s attention to the plight of Iranian Christians. With an increase in international pressure, Dibadj was released from prison on January 19, 1994, only days before he was scheduled to die.[iv]

That same day, Hovsepian vanished from the streets of Tehran, and his body was later found with 26 stab wounds in the chest. Dibadj and three other pastors disappeared and their bodies were later discovered.

Throughout history, it seems that people of most faiths have had some period of persecution and martyrdom for no crime other than telling others what they have chosen to believe. Those who dared to think differently were dangerous to the status quo and they either had to publicly change their mind or face torture or death.

When it comes to church and state issues, Americans have become used to “epic” battles over Nativity scenes, prayers in public schools, or the occasional crucifix in a government office. But in other nations of the world, making the basic choice to believe a certain way can quickly become a matter of life and death.

There is still hope that the sentence will not be carried out.

To Take Action, visit http://dynamic.csw.org.uk/article.asp?t=news&id=1142

Obama’s Olive Branch Doctrine: Religion & the Path of Democratic Reform in the Arab-Muslim World (PART I)

By Gregory W. Hamilton, President

Northwest Religious Liberty Association (NRLA)
March 15, 2011

President Barack Obama came to Cairo in 2009 with the purpose of announcing to the Arab-Muslim world that he was not following his predecessor’s “Democracy Project” as a matter of U.S. Middle East policy. One could call this Obama’s “Olive Branch Doctrine”: the message that interfaith tolerance & unity, rather than the insistence of religious freedom and democracy, would be the foreign policy model pursued by his Administration. In a stroke of illusory foreign policy realism,¹ he was communicating to Arab Muslims that it was not the purpose of the United States to convert anyone to its way of thinking, politically or religiously.

In the midst of an astonishing Twitter and Facebook Revolution² that has unleashed a frantic generational demand for democracy and regime change in many countries of the Middle East, including North Africa, the Arab-Muslim world has become a strategic chess match for ideological and political hegemony between the United States and the Mullah-ruled country of Iran. At stake is President Barack Obama’s overall foreign policy approach involving democratic reform, and the political vehicle being used to successfully propagate it—the Administration’s Internet Freedom Agenda.³

But directly connected to it is his international religious freedom policy; and when tied to his overall approach to foreign policy one discovers an emerging “Obama Doctrine”—what I call “Obama’s Olive Branch Doctrine”—which relies on calculated notions of interfaith understanding and tolerance as the best components toward achieving democratic reform in today’s world, and specifically in the Arab-Muslim world.

Pundits claim that President Obama does not have a specifically enunciated foreign policy “doctrine,” per se, but it seems clear that one is emerging. To understand the religious aspect of Mr. Obama’s nascent, yet struggling, foreign policy, one must first understand it in context of the current political and revolutionary fervor sweeping the Arab world.

The Stakes Are High

Four days after Egypt’s bold revolutionary success, this chivalrous chess match became more vivid when our country’s President sharply contrasted Egypt’s reasonably peaceful revolution with Iran’s violent repression of its own protestors who have been calling for the overthrow of its clerical regime. He said, “I find it ironic that you’ve got the Iranian regime pretending to celebrate what happened in Egypt, when in fact they have acted in direct contrast to what happened in Egypt by gunning down and beating people who were trying to express themselves peacefully.”⁴ The same day, the Iranian Parliament, from direct pressure by the country’s clerical rulers, called for the immediate execution of all opposition leaders.⁵ So much for freedom!

Siding with the United States in an effort to keep a strategic check on Iran are the autocratic monarchical rulers of Saudi Arabia and most of the Arab League, which makes up all the Gulf States, North Africa, and the Mediterranean corridor. Iran’s Persian-speaking Shias do not rub shoulders easily with the Sunni Arabs of the southern Mediterranean, whom they regard as their cultural inferiors. For now, Arab unrest appears to be enriching Iran’s power and influence over the chief Sunni proponent, Saudi Arabia.⁶

Yet Saudi Arabia, while clearly nervous, acts cocksure that it will survive the current unrest. Saudi Arabia’s Interior Minister, Prince Nayef bin Abdel Aziz, boasted recently that “Saudi Arabia is immune to the protests because it is guided by religious law that its citizens will not question.”⁷ In addition, King Abdullah, upon his return from surgery in the United States, made available $37 billion dollars in assistance for those seeking to buy their first home, and other needs badly wanted by the people, as a gesture that he is willing to make major economic concessions in order to keep the peace and thus ensure the people’s loyalty to his monarchical rule.

But when the dust settles who will the real winner be? Iran? Or the young people of the Middle East, who have the opportunity to at last be free of their autocratic rulers, which is due in large part to the fast-paced technology coming from the West? Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, proclaimed that Islam and Islamic values was the winner in Egypt, proclaiming that an “Islamic Awakening” had occurred. For him it was an Allah-inspired beginning.

The editors of Economist magazine wryly noted that while Iran’s revolution of 1978-79 was Islamic to the core, Egypt’s was not – “or not yet.” This is because Mr. Khamenei believes that “the fall of Mr. Mubarak can only usher in a government less friendly to Israel and less of a ‘servant’ of the United States—a government more after Iran’s own revolutionary heart.” And he may be right, because the potential of “an alliance between revolutionary Iran and Islamist elements in a new Egyptian government” – or Tunisian, Moroccan, Yemeni, Omani, Saudi, Bahraini, Kuwaiti, Libyan, Syrian, Iraqi and Jordanian governments – is not farfetched.⁸ This is clearly the concern of Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah who—to the chagrin of the Obama administration—recently ordered 1,000 troops into neighboring Bahrain to quell the revolutionary unrest that is mostly led by Shiite Muslims. The King is sending the clear signal that he does not believe Mr. Obama is doing enough to back Bahrain’s royal family, and as David Sanger of The New York Times put it, has “little patience with American messages about embracing what Mr. Obama calls ‘universal values,’ including peaceful protests.”⁹

Economist summed up the situation pretty well with this sobering description: “Iran already enjoys great influence in Lebanon through its proxy there, Hezbollah, and has warm relations with Hamas (itself an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood) in Israel’s Gaza Strip. If Iran were able to make high-placed friends in Egypt, where Mr. Ahmadinejad is popular for defying the West, Israel’s sense of encirclement by its most formidable adversary would be almost complete.”¹⁰ Add to that mix Iranian influence with the predominantly Shiite countries of Bahrain and Yemen, and the potentially cascading unrest of Shiites in Saudi Arabia.

Scenario One

In this chess match, there are two overarching scenarios being bandied about by foreign policy experts. One optimistic scenario is that the widespread revolutionary movement of young protestors to overthrow and replace their countries’ autocratic regimes with freely elected and “friendly” democratic governments, will succeed, and in turn spill over and overtake Iran’s theocratic regime.

Scenario Two

Another scenario is that with Iran’s supreme leader calling the current revolutionary storm an “Islamic Awakening,” this movement will lead to similar theocratically governed regimes all throughout the Middle East, with Sharia law becoming the radical anti-secular constitutional foundation. (In Tunisia, these demands are already being heard in mass protests, where, even though 98 percent of the population is Muslim, the culture is socially liberal and pervaded by Western lifestyles.)¹¹ The strategic purpose outlined in this argument is that the Middle East will eventually be made up of mostly Islamist-ruled countries surrounding Israel on all sides.¹²

Fareed Zakaria—more of a proponent of the first scenario described above—believes that this second scenario is unlikely because most Sunni and Shia Muslims located outside of Iran (with the exception of Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon) do not want Iran’s thug-like theocratic government. They want, he said, what Turkey has and what Indonesia has – mixing together secular forms of democracy with laws enforcing strong Islamic moral values emanating from Sharia law, which claims to practice religious and ethnic tolerance in compliance with the United Nations Charter on Human Rights. (But do they? See part two of this article.)¹³

Zakaria’s viewpoint, however salient, is easily offset. For example, the Wall Street Journal reported that at the outset of the revolutionary eruption in Tunisia, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton “blasted Arab governments for stalled political change, warning that extremists were exploiting a lack of democracy to promote radical agendas across the Middle East.” Filling the vacuum, she said, are “extremist elements, terrorist groups and others who would prey off desperation and poverty.” Clinton warned that “the region’s foundations are sinking into the sand.”¹⁴

Islamist groups have typically proven to be politically and socially more well organized and in a position to take advantage of democratic processes and changes that result from the peoples’ revolutionary demands. This puts them in a position to fill the void when dictators are overthrown and empowers them to hijack the sincere intentions of the revolutionaries and the revolution itself. How does this happen? As Elliot Abrams, former deputy national security advisor for President George W. Bush explains it, dictators “leave behind a civic culture that has been drastically weakened and moderate parties that are disorganized, impoverished, and without recognizable leaders.” Abrams observes: “For 30 years, President Hosni Mubarak told us to stick with him, or the opposition Muslim Brotherhood would grow stronger. Well, we stuck with him, and the Muslim Brotherhood grew stronger. As he crushed the political center and left, the Brotherhood became the main forum for opposition to his regime.” This, he argues, is what will allow the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt to play a powerful role in whatever civilian government is elected once elections are actually held there.¹⁵ In addition, Iran is notoriously successful in supplying political and economic resources to its favored Islamist party in order to ensure electoral outcomes that favor their strategic gambit in the Middle East.

Israel is very concerned about this second possible scenario due to the fact that it has recently witnessed the seizing of the reins of government in Lebanon by Hezbollah, Iran’s well-funded and militarily supplied political apostle. This realistic fear of encirclement provoked Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak to state that “even though its quiet and deterrence exists—Hezbollah remembers the heavy beating they suffered from us in 2006—but it is not forever.” We “may have to re-enter Lebanon,” he said.¹⁶

For historian and former Newsweek editor Jon Meacham, the stakes are higher when talking about a nuclear Iran, which, he observes, may mean that we are heading down the path toward nuclear “Armageddon.” Meacham argues that nuclear proliferation throughout the Middle East could become more pronounced and globally destabilizing: “The more people with access to nuclear weapons increases the risk that irrationality will enter the equation; which is a polite way of saying that human forces—pride, ambition, fanaticism—will always confound the most elegant of geopolitical calculations.”¹⁷ “Armageddon” talk is not uncommon these days. Israel’s Defense Minister, Ehud Barak, believes that “if Iran gets nuclear weapons, the Middle East will look like hell.”¹⁸

Scenario Three

Of course, a third and less dire scenario postures that some autocratic rulers, like the Abdullah’s in Saudi Arabia and Jordan, might successfully convince protestors in their country that they will institute democratic and economic reforms, along with increased human rights provisions, and actually follow through. This explains why the Obama Administration has been strongly encouraging Arab rulers to listen to the protestors in their call for democratic reform and to refrain from violence in the attempt to restore order.

The question of who will win is also tied to Mr. Obama’s apparent break with the traditional U.S. policy of propping up autocratic regimes for the sake of preserving international security and the flow of oil in a terrorist charged world. For example, there has been evident tension between Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah and Barack Obama over Obama’s handling of Hosni Mubarak’s standing in Egypt during the Egyptian revolt.¹⁹

The United States is definitely in a tough spot. Mr. Obama admonished autocratic leaders, both “friend and foe alike,” to “get out ahead of change” because “the world is changing.” He said that advances in freedom of communication through smart phones, Facebook and Twitter were forcing governments to act with the consent of the people, and that they could not afford to be “behind the curve.”²⁰ Admittedly, however, the swiftness of the current unrest in the Middle East has also caught Mr. Obama off guard; this, even despite Mr. Obama’s foresight in August of 2010 to assign a special commission to study all of the best innovative approaches to democratically reform the Arab-Muslim world.²¹

But that is not how he began his presidency in 2009.

Cairo & the Emergence of the “Olive Branch Doctrine”

It was in Turkey, and then Cairo, barely five months into the first full year of his presidency, that Mr. Obama confidently launched his foreign policy legacy and his diplomatic push for democratic reform in the Arab-Muslim Middle East, using Turkey and Indonesia as models of democracy – “road maps” that the predominantly Muslim countries of the Middle East, including Egypt, should emulate.²²

On June 4, 2009, in a speech before Egypt’s government, military and religious leaders titled “A New Beginning,” Mr. Obama put forward his policy goals affecting this volatile region. In it, he stressed political, civil, and economic freedom: “I have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from people; the freedom to live as you choose.”²³ The primary purpose of the speech was to address the matter of religious freedom and tolerance. (As we shall see, he frequently interchanged these terms to meet the Arab-Muslim community half-way.)

Yet, in a bit of historical irony, Mr. Obama came to Cairo in 2009 with the purpose of announcing to the Arab-Muslim world that during his presidency he was not following his predecessor’s “Democracy Project” as a matter of U.S. Middle East policy. One could call this Obama’s “Olive Branch” doctrine. The message was that religious tolerance, rather than the insistence of religious freedom and democracy, would be the foreign policy model pursued by the Obama Administration. By “religious tolerance” was meant that Mr. Obama, in a stroke of supposed foreign policy realism—as opposed to President George W. Bush’s and Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice’s idealism²⁴ —was communicating to Egyptians and all of the Arab-Muslim world that it was not the purpose of the United States to try to convert anyone to its way of thinking, politically or religiously.

Egypt’s President, Hosni Mubarak, praised President Obama’s speech, saying that it demonstrated that Obama understood the complexities that existed between freedom and tolerance in the Arab-Muslim world, and that he was an American president that Arab leaders could trust. He said, “Under the past administration there was a feeling that the Islamic world was a group of terrorists, Islam was hated and Muslims should be watched and that the previous administration was scared of any Muslim.” “But,” he observed, “Obama came and said, ‘We will not fight Muslims and Islam.’” He said that this was because “He is a sympathetic man” who believes that “Islam is a heavenly religion.” Mubarak concluded that Mr. Obama’s attempt to reach out to the Arab-Muslim world placed the United States in a more positive light in the eyes of individual Muslims, and not just with Arab leaders.²⁵ Mubarak’s words were uncannily predictive of something to come, something that included him and the country he governed for nearly 30 years.

On one hand, by reversing course and disavowing President Bush’s idealistic approach of promoting through force, if necessary, the American constitutional ideal of religious freedom and human rights, and the American democratic way of life, the Muslim peoples of the Arab-Muslim Middle East have seen a political opening to take things into their own hands. In a shared cause of resistance to Western leaders who have been perceived – however erroneously – as wanting (since the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq) to supplant Islam and their way of life, the people no longer see the need of continuing to harness their “strong horse” dictators whom Western leaders have propped up for years in the name of regional stability and security.²⁶

On the other hand, by trying to avoid the failed U.S. democratic projects of the past that brought a militant Islamic Hamas and Hezbollah to the borders of Israel, it created a political wedge, forcing the hands of U.S. policymakers to choose between the Arab-Muslim people’s quest for political and religious autonomy to direct their own path, and their autocratic rulers, who have been valued by the U.S. as their most strategic ally against Muslim extremists and terrorists. By communicating caution and patience in the midst of the revolutionary demands of the people,²⁷ this “safe” approach initially caused many of the protesters in Egypt to accuse Mr. Obama and the United States, including European leaders, of hypocrisy. To be sure, the strategic chess game that Mr. Obama is playing is full of unanticipated choices and dicey moves, but this placed Barack Obama and his administration in the untenable position of being perceived as “Johnny-come-lately” champions of the people’s revolution.²⁸ Admittedly, while it was a nearly impossible balancing act not inconsistent with the administrative approaches and experiences of past U.S. presidents, including Ronald Reagan,²⁹ this confusing and unsteady pattern (i.e., “bungling” to his critiques) – whether real or perceived – risks having the Carteresque effect of permanently shaping a key part of Mr. Obama’s presidential legacy and making whatever foreign policy influence remains seem fairly weak in the eyes of his electoral opposition in the U.S., including world leaders and the international community.

Paul Wolfowitz, former U.S. Ambassador to Indonesia, recently observed in an exclusive interview on CNN with Fareed Zakaria that Mr. Obama and his administration must get away from an apologetic, “hand-wringing,” approach to U.S. foreign policy, and in particular his “hands-off” posture of neutrality in the Middle East which was the essence of his “A New Beginning” speech in Cairo in 2009, the foundational framework for Mr. Obama’s foreign policy in the Muslim world. He said that the president should move full tilt toward reviving some version of former President Bush’s “Project Democracy,” and to quit trying to pick winners – Royal Monarchies like Bahrain, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, as opposed to Presidents like in Egypt and Yemen – in a new Middle East. ³⁰ He argued that if Mr. Obama does not do this, the void left in a transformed Arab-Muslim world is one which the Mullah’s of Iran will exploit to their natural electoral advantage. Wolfowitz stressed that “the United States must be there” to compete with Iran’s proven ability to insert itself into the affairs of other countries of the Arab-Muslim Middle East (Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Palestine, and the Shiite majority in Iraq) where they have the potential to reshape it in its own radical image.³¹ For Wolfowitz, this is also true of Al Qaeda in a potentially chaotic aftermath in Libya unless the United States, with the international community, inserts itself into the equation in both humanitarian and military ways.³²

Obama’s Interfaith Vision

President Obama appears to have a foreign policy objective in mind toward advancing democracy and democratic reform throughout the world, and particularly in the Arab-Muslim Middle East, but not exactly in the way that Mr. Wolfowitz had in mind. If there is one move President Obama seems to be counting on, it is the promise he sees in both Indonesia and Turkey as models for bringing both the East and West together, no matter how inferior it is to the American ideal, and it is the basis for the “Obama Doctrine.” It represents a subtle yet distinct shift toward religious “tolerance,” away from the ideal of “freedom” – or somewhere in-between – as the national and international norm.

It is a rather optimistic model that is rarely recognized or understood by pundits, foreign policy scholars, and the media – left, right, and center. It is a grand strategy that quietly sails through the criticism in a steady and self-convinced manner, representing Obama’s clear affinity with the young protestors – not only for their yearning for freedom and democracy, but risking even dumping a century’s worth of U.S. support for Arab dictators, their oil (i.e., think alternative energy), and global stability – to support his and their shared yearning to engineer an interfaith approach to solving the world’s religious and political conflicts. Mr. Obama sees it as the best possible means toward achieving world peace—the one last ray of hope in Mr. Obama’s heart and mind, a hope that matches what an Obama biographer, Stephen Mansfield, described in The Faith of Barack Obama as the “eclectic” multi-faith experience that is Mr. Obama based on his upbringing and personal life’s journey.³³

According to Mansfield, the President’s foreign and domestic policy strategies appear irreversibly connected to his pluralistic religious experiences—Catholic, Islamic, Atheistic, and Pentecostal—and his years of doing community and social work. This in turn informs his intellect, his decision-making and communication style, and more specifically his Kumbaya togetherness or collective interfaith approach to foreign policy: the all-too-familiar “let’s just get along” appeal.³⁴ This is evidenced by Mr. Obama’s Cairo speech emphasizing “A New Beginning”:

I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly to each other the things we hold in our hearts and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran tells us, ‘Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.’ (Applause.) That is what I will try to do today – to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.³⁵

Ideally speaking, this interfaith approach that he hopes will appeal to a new and vibrant generation of young people in the Middle East and around the globe, presumes to bring most people of faith together in the quest for shared democratic and economic values (i.e., world peace), with the affect of forming the most vocal and powerful political force the world has ever seen.

According to a CBS News column published by The Washington Post, President Obama is “preparing for the prospect that Islamist governments will take hold in North Africa and the Middle East, acknowledging that the popular revolutions there will bring a more religious cast to the region’s politics.” This includes “distinguishing between various movements in the region that promote Islamic law in government.” One senior administration official stated that “We shouldn’t be afraid of Islam in the politics of these countries. It’s the behavior of political parties and government that we will judge them on, not their relationship with Islam.”³⁶ Harvard Professor Tarek Masoud believes that “if Muslims” in Egypt actually “got into power, if they go into parliament, they’d try to make some laws that conform with their vision of what Islam requires,” but “they would not,” in keeping with Sunni Muslim religious and political tradition, “try to have the clerics be in charge,” which he says is opposite from the Shiite model in Iran.³⁷

But in President Obama’s overarching argument for a “new beginning” with Islam, “is the clear suggestion that Islamic belief and democratic politics are not incompatible.” After disavowing Bush’s democracy promotion in his June 2009 address at Cairo University, President Obama gave sanction to this sentiment when he said that Bush’s approach did not “lessen my commitment to governments that reflect the will of the people,” adding that “each nation gives life to the principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people.”³⁸ This demonstrates, to a certain degree, that Obama realizes that the Shiite model of governing in Iran – a cleric controlled government – is not acceptable in a democratic world. In addition, it seems clear that this is Obama’s way of trying an untried approach to bridge the chasm in today’s “Clash of Civilizations” between the Christian West and the Muslim East.

But this approach is alarming to European Union and NATO leaders, as well as Israel, because of the inevitability that “religious law will undercut democratic reforms and other Western values.” Both liberal and conservative foreign policy pragmatists warn that the President’s approach “fails to take into consideration the methodological approach many such [Islamist] parties adopt toward gradually transforming secular nations into Islamic states at odds with U.S. [and European] policy goals.” Again, think Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine.³⁹ That is why Hillary Clinton warned in Geneva, that if Islamist parties seek to participate in the region’s future elections, “Political participation must be open to all people across the spectrum who reject violence, uphold equality and agree to play by the rules of democracy.”⁴⁰ Playing by the rules of democracy, that is the big test. It is a test that has never been met by any Arab Muslim nation in the Middle East.

Finally, President Obama’s approach is one that will continue to dog him as he bumps up against the ideal of American exceptionalism in his own country. In the end, Obama’s foreign policy approach to the Arab-Muslim world will either end up backfiring against his intended hopes and desires, or as few believe, a wave of interfaith harmony among Sunni and Shiite Muslims will occur in their seeming quest for democracy and western democratic values. This latter scenario is not realistic or likely. Stay tuned for Part Two of this article series titled: “Obama’s Olive Branch Doctrine: Interfaith Tolerance and the Reshaping of U.S. Foreign Policy.”

Gregory W. Hamilton is President of the Northwest Religious Liberty Association (NRLA). NRLA is a non-partisan government relations and legal mediation services program that champions religious freedom and human rights for all people and institutions of faith in the legislative, civic, judicial, academic, interfaith and corporate arenas in the states of Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington.

Read also: Obama’s Olive Branch Doctrine (PART II): Interfaith Tolerance & the Reshaping of U.S. Foreign Policy

The End of the Community Action Program?

By Monte Sahlin -

One of the items on the hit list of the new majority in the House of Representatives to “balance the budget” is the Community Action Program (CAP) or what is currently labeled Community Service Block Grants. This is a program begun in the 1960s in the Lyndon Johnson administration. It is a nearly unique program in that it empowers local, grass-roots organizations made up of partnerships of citizens and local elected officials. It is perplexing that the same party that wants to encourage solutions outside of government bureaucracy also wants to do away with one of the few examples of this kind of strategy actually being implemented.

I have personal knowledge of CAP because I worked in it for 18 months in 1971-72 while in graduate school. It was launched with the idea that it would help local citizen groups reduce or end poverty in their communities and it never really provided much that is in the self-interest of politicians or political parties. Over the years it has been weakened by every administration and both parties. Yet there are hundreds of local Community Action Agencies (CAA) that continue to work as best they can.

There are those that argue that CAP is a government program, despite the fact that each of the CAA are locally controlled and almost all of them are incorporated as nonprofits with 501c3 tax-exempt charity status. The law originally required that the majority of the board members be people living below the poverty line and some CAA still follow that guideline. The Federal funding is simply a catalyst, not the major source of the budgets for most CAA.

The savings to the Federal budget from cutting these funds is miniscule. It cannot make any difference in the deficit or repaying the debt. This is actually a good example of how budget cuts are often just a cover story for getting rid of things for other reasons. In fact, both parties have already agreed to not cut the items that are necessary if anything significant is going to be done about budget deficits or the national debt.

There are three kinds of opponents to the Community Action Program:

(1) Those who do not believe in doing anything about poverty. These are often people who believe that the economy will take care of itself and if no one helps the poor they will get jobs and take care of themselves. In my opinion, this view can only be sustained out of ignorance, even if it is willful ignorance. Any significant experience with entrenched poverty reveals that intervention is necessary to overcome it.

(2) Those who think private nonprofit organizations can fight poverty more cheaply than government. This category includes people who really do not care about the poor, but feel that civilization demands that something be done about poverty and want the cheapest possible solution. They choose to ignore the fact that the cheapest solution is not always the best solution.

(3) Those who think private nonprofit organizations can fight poverty more effectively than government. It is tragic that there are people who want to defund CAP on the basis of this logic. This is the very purpose for CAP. The inventors of CAP believed this precisely and designed the CAA on this basis. The Federal funding is simply a catalyst and the CAA are weak enough (especially at this moment in our economic history) that without the catalyst the whole structure could collapse in many communities where it is most needed.

In 1927 the great Mississippi flood demonstrated to Americans that the country had become too large and complex to continue a policy of non-involvement by the Federal government in issues related to disaster response, unemployment and poverty. It is unfortunate that most Americans have such a limited knowledge of history that we seem fated to relearn important lessons every 80 years or so.

—————

Monte Sahlin is chairman of the board for the Center for Creative Ministry, a research organization and resource center helping pastors, congregations and other organizations understand new generations and how to engage with them. He is also chairman of the board for the Center for Metropolitan Ministry, a “think tank” and training organization based on the campus of Washington Adventist University in Washington, DC, as well as an adjunct faculty member at the Campolo Graduate School at Eastern University in Philadelphia and in the DMin program at Andrews University. In addition, he serves on the steering committee of the Cooperative Congregational Studies Partnership, a coalition of researchers from more than 40 denominations and faiths who produce the Faith Community Today (FACT) research.

Sahlin is an ordained pastor in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, currently serving in the Ohio Conference of the denomination.  He is the author of 20 books, 56 research monographs and hundreds of magazine articles. His most recent book is entitled “Mission in Metropolis.” Others currently available are “Ministries of Compassion,” “One Minute Witness,” “Understanding Your Community,” “Trends, Attitudes and Opinions” and “Adventist Congregations Today.” In 2005, he coauthored with Harold Lee, “Brad: Visionary, Spiritual Leadership,” a history and evaluation of the career of Charles Bradford, the first African American to serve as president of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in North America.

This article was originally posted on his blog at MonteSahlin.com.

VIDEO: President Obama on Church and State

Obama on Church and State

Obama explains the importance of church-state separation in a variety of ways. What it comes down to is; In a diverse democratic society, any proposed policy must justify itself via the benefits we ALL see, rather than via arguments that only hold true to people who have one certain religious worldview.

Mau-Mauing the Mosque: The dispute over the “Ground Zero mosque” is an object lesson in how not to resist intolerance. (Slate)

By Christopher Hitchens

Read the full article here: http://www.slate.com/id/2263334

EXCERPTS:

The dispute over the construction of an Islamic center at “Ground Zero” in Lower Manhattan has now sunk to a level of stupidity that really does shame the memory and the victims of that terrible day in September 2001. One might think that a mosque or madrassa was being proposed in the place of the fallen towers themselves or atop the atomized ingredients of what was once a mass grave.

…

Take, for example, the widely publicized opinion of Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League. Supporting those relatives of the 9/11 victims who have opposed Cordoba House, he drew a crass analogy with the Final Solution and said that, like Holocaust survivors, “their anguish entitles them to positions that others would categorize as irrational or bigoted.” This cracked tune has been taken up by Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin, who additionally claim to be ventriloquizing the emotions of millions of Americans who did not suffer bereavement. It has also infected the editorial pages of the normally tougher-mindedWeekly Standard, which called on President Obama to denounce the Cordoba House on the grounds that a 3-to-1 majority of Americans allegedly find it “offensive.”

…

Nothing could be more foreign to the spirit and letter of the First Amendment or the principle of the “wall of separation.” In his incoherent statement, Foxman made the suggestion that it might be all right if the Cordoba House was built “a mile away.” He appears to be unaware that an old building at the site is already housing overflow from the nearby Masjid al-Farah mosque.

Read the full article:  http://www.slate.com/id/2263334

OPINION: When Did “Conservative” Become Anarchist?

By Monte Sahlin –

What planet am I living on? I have grown up with the idea that conservatives were those who value tradition and defend the status quo ante; who support the institutions of our society. But now it seems that “conservatives” believe that it is wrong for the president of the United States to talk to the nation’s school children despite the fact that Ronald Reagan did so; that it is OK to carry an automatic weapon to a public meeting with elected officials; that un-fact-checked statementscirculated by unknown bloggers and radio entertainers are to be believed over independent newspapers with long histories of factual reporting.

Part of the problem is simply ignorance combined with complex issues and the do-it-yourself value that leads people to think they can determine the facts for themselves without any expert help. For example, a reporter told me this morning of an Email from a woman who told him to look at a specific page in one of the health reform bills in Congress. She told him that there was proof on that page that if the bill were voted, it would mean that every citizen must have a card with an account number or they could not get any health care. When the reporter read the page and the section that it was in, he discovered that it was a list of information that health insurance plans would be required to place on their ID cards so that hospitals and doctor’s offices would not have to phone or Fax and get the basic information they need in order to treat a patient, thus saving time and money.

The distrust of government has become so pervasive and so extreme that I cannot help but think what would happen if America faced another 9/11 type emergency. Would people and their children die because they refuse to believe official announcements to take cover or boil water, etc.? Part of this is political manipulation by unethical people who are willing to use widely-believed lies to their advantage, but underlying that is a sector of our society so fearful of “socialism” or “liberals” (or perhaps people of color) that they are (probably unwittingly) sliding into anarchist positions. It is the combined effect of the assasinations of the 1960s, Watergate, terrorism and the popular culture of grand conspiracies such as The DaVinci Code, the Left Behind series and the 

This breakdown of trust could be a significant danger signal for America. Increasingly the polarized elements of our democracy define the world so differently that they really do live on different planets. This has some potential, over time, of drifting into the kind of situation that existed in America in the years of “bleeding Kansas” and “the wild West.” It is my prayer that those who value our Bill of Rights will see that they have a patriotic duty to give greater emphasis to shared values than political differences.

 

Reposted with the permission of the author.  Originally posted by Monte Sahlin on his blog, Faith in Context, a commentary on religion, values, and contemporary issues.

Faith in Context: President Obama & Faith-based Initiatives

By Monte Sahlin – As he said he would during the campaign last year, President Obama has retained the “faith-based initiatives” emphasis at the White House, but restructured the organization that he inherited from President Bush. The new unit consists of two parts, where Bush’s White House had only one: An Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships and a President’s Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. The council is make its final recommendations in February next year (2010), so it appears that further changes may yet surface. At the same time it is clear that Obama is committed to some kind of working relationship with the nonprofit sector, including the large part of it that is related to religious constituencies.

The key staff person in the White House for this activity is Joshua DuBois, a 27-year-old Evangelical activist who served as Obama’s liaison with the religious community during the campaign last year. DuBois was a student at Boston University and associate pastor at the Calvary Praise and Worship Center in Cambridge. This is a neighborhood that I am personally familiar with because in the 1970s, I planted a congregation there and worked in Boston as a community organizer. The congregation is small, not affiliated with any denomination, but Pentecostal in orientation, made up largely of African Americans and for a while, at least, shared space with two other Protestant congregations in Faith Lutheran Church. Pastor DuBois got the church involved with the Ten-Point Coalition, an effort by African American churches in the Boston area to prevent teen violence and gangs run by the National Ten-point Foundation, also located in Boston. DuBois maintains a mentoring relationship with a teen in Boston even as he takes on the very busy schedule of a White House staffer. He chairs the advisory council as part of his job. The other members include:

• Diane Baillargeon, CEO of Seedco, a New York nonprofit involved in economic development projects. She is a self-described secular member of the council.
• Anju Bhargava, president of Asian Indian Women in America, an immigrant women’s advocacy and help group. She is also a Hindu priest.
• Charles E. Blake, presiding bishop of the Church of God in Christ (COGIC), one of the largest historically African American denominations in America.
• Noel Castellanos, CEO of the Christian Community Development Association (CCDA) and a well-known Evangelical leader.
• Arturo Chavez, president of the Mexican American Catholic College and a former prison chaplain who has worked as a community organizer and teacher. He is Catholic.
• Peg Chemberlin, executive director of the Minnesota Council of Churches and president-elect of the National Council of Churches and a minister in the Moravian Church.
• Fred Davie, an ordained Presbyterian minister and senior staff member at the Arcus Foundation.
• Nathan Diament, director of public policy for the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations and a key player in the interfaith coalition that has pushed for religious liberty legislation.
• Joel Hunter, senior pastor of Northland Church, a nondenominational megachurch near Orlando, and a board member for the National Association of Evangelicals (NEA).
• Harry Knox, a former Methodist pastor who is liaison with religious leaders for the Human Rights Campaign, a lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender advocacy group.
• Vashti McKenzie, presiding prelate of the African Methodist Episcopal Church (AME) in Tennessee and Kentucky.
• Dalia Mogahed, director of the Gallup Poll’s Center for Muslim Studies. She was born in Egypt and is a practicing Muslim.
• Otis Moss, a long-time civil rights leader, retired pastor of a Baptist church in Cleveland and a board member for both the M.L. King Centerand Morehouse College.
• Frank S. Page, past president of the Southern Baptist Convention and pastor of Taylors First Baptist Church in South Carolina.
• Eboo Patel, founder of Interfaith Youth Core, a nonprofit that recruits young people to participate in interfaith community service. He is a Muslim born in India.
• Anthony Picarello, general counsel for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, an attorney and Catholic lay leader.
• Nancy Ratzan, president of the National Council of Jewish Women, an attorney and president of Reform Jewish congregation in Miami.
• Melissa Rogers, director of the Wake Forest University School of Divinity Center for Religion and Public Affairs. She is a lawyer and teaches courses on church-state relations.
• David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, and both a rabbi and an attorney.
• William J. Shaw, president of the National Baptist Convention, the largest historically black Protestant denomination, and pastor of White Rock Baptist Church in Philadelphia.
• Larry J. Snyder, a priest and president of Catholic Charities, one of the largest nonprofit social service agencies in America.
• Richard Stearns, president of World Vision; an Evangelical lay leaders with a long background in business before he joined the Christian humanitarian agency.
• Judith Vredenburgh, CEO of Big Brothers/Sisters of America, the largest youth mentoring nonprofit, and a self-described secular member of the advisory council.
• Jim Wallis, founder and president of Sojourners, and one of the best-known Evangelical social action leaders.
• Sharon Watkins, president of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) Protestant denomination.

The president has asked the council to focus on four priorities: (1) connecting faith-based and community groups to economic recovery, (2) promoting interfaith dialog and cooperation in the arena of community service, (3) encouraging responsible fatherhood and healthy families, and (4) reducing unintended pregnancies and the need for abortions, strengthening maternal and child health, and encouraging adoptions.

What does this mean?

President Obama hopes to avoid some of the mistakes of the previous administration, such as trampling long-held notions about the proper line between religion and government, and overly politicizing the involvement of people of faith, while continuing the necessary cooperation between government entities and religious charities which has been a key part of America from its founding. In many ways it is a return to the ideas that Colin Powell presided over in the 1990s in the aftermath of the Presidents’ Summit on Community Service. In a time of need in a democracy, elected officials are always going to challenge religious leaders to mobilize their adherents to help out simply because religion advertises itself as being about compassion, love and charity.

 

—–

Reprinted from http://msahlin.typepad.com/faith_in_context/ with the author’s permission. 

Monte Sahlin has worked to understand contemporary trends in our society and to help congregations and faith-based organizations make innovations since he organized ACT while in college at La Sierra University, Riverside, California, in the 1960s. ACT was a student volunteer organization that served in inner city neighborhoods and with suburban teenagers.

He is currently chairman of the board for the Center for Creative Ministry, a research organization and resource center helping pastors, congregations and other organizations understand new generations and how to engage with them. He is also chairman of the executive committee of the Center for Metropolitan Ministry, a “think tank” and training organization based on the campus of Columbia Union College in Washington, DC, as well as an adjunct faculty member at the Campolo School for Social Change at Eastern University in Philadelphia and in the DMin program at Andrews University. In addition, he serves on the steering committee of the Cooperative Congregational Studies Partnership, a coalition of researchers from more than 40 denominations and faiths who produce the Faith Community Today (FACT) research.

Sahlin is an ordained pastor in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, currently serving in the Ohio Conference of the denomination. He served for 12 years at the denomination’s North American headquarters with responsibilites for church ministries, media projects, social needs and issues, and research and development. He then served eight years as a regional vice president. He has pastored small and large congregations in major metropolitan areas and Appalachia.

He is the author of several books, scores of research studies and hundreds of magazine articles. His most recent book is entitled “Mission in Metropolis.” Others currently available are “Ministries of Compassion,” “One Minute Witness,” “Understanding Your Community,” “Trends, Attitudes and Opinions” and “Adventist Congregations Today.” In 2005, he coauthored with Harold Lee, “Brad: Visionary, Spiritual Leadership,” a history and evaluation of the career of Charles Bradford, the first African American to serve as president of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in North America.

Sahlin has worked as director, board chairman or strategic consultant with more than 100 innovative, community-based ministries, church plants and nonprofit organizations over the last four decades. In 1994 he was awarded an Outstand Public Service Award by the United States government and in 1996 he participated in the Presidents’ Summit on Volunteerism as well as the prepatory gathering of 50 representatives of the nonprofit sector at the White House.

Supreme Court nominee Sotomayor’s rulings on religious issues

University of Toledo law professor Howard M. Friedman has compiled a list of Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s rulings on religion clause issues at his blog, Religion Clause.   Sotomayor has served on the Second Circuit since 1998. She served as a federal district court judge in the Southern District of New York from 1992 to 1998.

Friedman lists a couple of Second Circuit decisions involving religion where Sotomayor joined the panel majority, but his list of Sotomayor’s Southern District decisions is most helpful:

• Mehdi v. United States Postal Service, 988 F. Supp. 721 (1997) [LEXIS link] (rejecting claim by Muslim plaintiffs that post offices must include crescent and star along with Christmas and Hanukkah decorations);
• Moore v. Kennedy, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11474 (1996) (prisoner free exercise);
• Miller v. New York State Department of Labor, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11067 (1996) (employment discrimination);
• Utkor v. McElroy, 930 F. Supp. 881 (1996) [LEXIS link] (immigration asylum);
• DiNapoli v. DiNapoli, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13778 (1995) (accusations against sibling, member of religious order, growing out of estate administration).
• Rodriguez v. Coughlin, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5832 (1994) and Campos v. Coughlin, 854 F. Supp. 194 (1994) [LEXIS link] (preliminary injunction allowing Santeria prisoners to wear religious beads).
• Flamer v. City of White Plains, 841 F. Supp. 1365 (1993) [LEXIS link] (enjoining city from preventing rabbi’s placing of menorah in city park during Hanukkah).

Read the full article at http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2009/05/sotomayor-is-high-court-pick-here-are.html

Obama puts believers and non-believers on the same footing in speeches (WSJ)

The Wall Street Journal has published an interesting take on Barack Obama by Laura Meckler.  Obama has managed to be even more religious than George W. Bush in his speech, but also reaches out equally to non-believers.   Meckler’s  article discusses whether Obama can reach out to one end of the spectrum without alienating the other.  

EXCERPT:

 

Mr. Obama speaks easily about his own faith. White House events, even those without a religious theme, often begin with a prayer. And the president said he would expand President George W. Bush’s outreach to faith-based organizations.

At the same time, he has taken a series of policy steps that are troubling to religious conservatives, and pledged that decisions in his administration would be governed by science. He reversed Bush policies on funding for international family-planning groups and stem-cell research, and he has moved to rescind regulations that allow health-care workers to opt out of duties that offend their beliefs.

But even when taking these stands, which would be expected of a Democratic president, he often makes a point to say that he understands the other side.

That stance could win him respect from both sides, but it will be difficult to pull off. “Showing respect and being inclusive will only take the president so far,” said John C. Green, senior fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

Read the full article at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123785559998620329.html

 

Next Page »