The role of religion under Obama (CS Monitor)

EXCERPT:

WASHINGTON - After decades of ceding God to the GOP, at least in the public square, Democrats – with President Obama in the lead – are speaking with a fuller religious voice. The watchword? Inclusiveness.

It’s a voice that signals openness at a time when diversity in American religious life is rising.

“We know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus – and nonbelievers,” Mr. Obama said in Tuesday’s inaugural address.

Wednesday’s National Prayer Service, a tradition since George Washington’s inauguration, featured faith leaders chosen “to symbolize America’s traditions of religious tolerance and freedom,” said the 2009 Presidential Inaugural Committee. It included, for the first time, a sermon delivered by a woman.

For Obama, the broad outreach into the faith community isn’t confined to ceremonies but is emerging as a key element in his approach to coalition-building, say religious leaders who worked on the transition.

Read the full article at http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0122/p01s02-usgn.html

 

Photo from Faithbase.

BLOG: Democrats Begin Faith-filled Convention

For all practical purposes, it resembled an interfaith worship service.  In a move designed to appeal to religious voters, the Democrats opened their convention in Denver last night with prayer, a gospel song, and a Torah recitation by a rabbi. A Catholic nun, Helen Prejean, author of Dead Men Walking discussed the death penalty, and Muslim women in headscarves also made appearances.  (You may recall that Obama received some criticism when his staff asked two Muslim women wearing headscarves not to stand behind him at an appearance.)

Overall, it appears that the Democrats are reaching toward a religious audience, with the idea of inclusion rather than exclusion.  However, they appear to be targeting the coveted evangelical constituency who is likely to vote for them.

There will also be four different “faith caucuses” held during the convention.

It is hard to think that solidly Republican evangelical voters will come out in favor of Obama, but this open embrace of faith may attract voters who are religious but concerned about the emergence of theocratic rhetoric on the right.  It will also open doors for religious voters who lean toward the left on issues such as the death penalty, health care, and social welfare programs.

It will also be interesting to see how the Republicans plan to upstage this demonstration of faith next week in Minneapolis.   One thing that is certain is that religion will continue to play a central role through the election in November.

Obama Sets Off a Debate on Ties Between Religion and Government (NY Times)

On Tuesday, Senator Barack Obama did his best to reclaim for Democrats the idea of partnerships between government and grass-roots religious groups — and except for six little words he did a very smooth job.

First, he recalled his own community service in Chicago, noting that it had been church supported.

Then he reminded listeners that it was President Bill Clinton who signed landmark legislation widening the role religion-based groups could play in government-financed programs, and Al Gore who in 1999 first proposed a full-scale religion-based initiative.

. . .

“First,” he said, “if you get a federal grant, you can’t use that grant money to proselytize to the people you help, and you can’t discriminate against them — or against the people you hire — on the basis of their religion.”

That little phrase between the dashes — “or against the people you hire” — ignited a political explosion. “Fraud,” declared Bill Donohue of the Catholic League. “What Obama wants,” Mr. Donohue said, is “to secularize the religious workplace.” In its newsletter, the conservative Family Research Council called Mr. Obama’s position “a body blow to religious groups that apply for federal funds.” No less heated reactions came from the other end of the political spectrum, where the Obama proposal was denounced not for that short phrase but for what liberals saw as an abandonment of their principles and part of a suspicious move toward the center.

. . .

(Read the rest at NY Times:  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/05/us/05beliefs.html?em&ex=1215403200&en=a09309a4e26fb70c&ei=5087%0A