Today, The New York Times reported: “Obama Wants to Expand the Role of Religious Groups.” I read the article, regained my composure, and then wrote a letter to the Obama campaign. It follows.
Dear Mr. Plouffe. Mr. Obama, and the hard-working volunteers and staff of the Obama Campaign,
It’s interesting that “deadline,” which you entitled the email below, has an alternate historical meaning: a line drawn around a prison beyond which prisoners were liable to be shot.
I was prepared to respond positively to your request that I boost my donation immediately to the legal (if unconstitutional) contribution limit. I was prepared to do this until I read in The New York Times today that Barack Obama has decided to pander to the evengelicals, that group of presumably Christian people whose radicals spend most of their time, money, and religious arms twisting the United States into a perverse blend of democracy and theocracy.
Mr. Obama — of all people, thanks to his history actually paying attention to Constitutional principles — should realize what a horrible and unforgivable blow to secular humanism Bush’s “faith-based” initiatives are. And let’s stop using euphemisms, shall we? Faith-based simply means religious.
Mr. Obama’s document “Partnering with Communities of Faith” (PDF) is, in short, one of the weakest and most worrying position statements to come out of his campaign. Like those who quote the convenient parts of a holy book to punctuate a narrow point, the paper cites studies by cherry-picking conclusions that are understood in better context only when held up against the conclusions that contradict their value. “Americans are a deeply religious people,” the paper boldly states. It is just as accurate to state that there is a sizable number of Americans who aren’t. It is also accurate to state that there is a sizable number of Americans who are deeply religious who do not believe that church and state should mingle. Why doesn’t the paper appreciate the fascinating intersection of these three bodies? You could argue that they are the sum of ALL Americans, which is who I thought Obama was out to inspire.
Let’s talk for a minute about what The New York Times in its article called “sizable minorities.” It used the term to describe evangelical voters, but it appears from Obama’s speech and position paper that he is now pandering to a sub-section of a sizable minority: the moderate evangelical — whatever in the world that means. Does this mean that Barack Obama is prepared to look foolish and untrustworthy before the eyes of those of us who do not believe in the sickening collusion of church and state? Does it mean that he’s spending all this time and energy on some statistical sub-unit of a sizable minority? An unsizable minority? A sizable minority majority?
I’m a classical liberal and an atheist who believes that people always shed their differences and arrive at a productive gestalt when faced collectively with a threat to their existence. Despite our religious beliefs — or lack thereof — we pour money and volunteer time into helping Chinese quake victims, Myanmar typhoon victims, genocide survivors in Darfur, refugees of wars we cause, the list goes on. We can do this without a position paper or presidential vision on the matter. Charity and altruism require no federal programs to qualify as central constituents of a moral civilization.
I’m incredibly disappointed that a Constitutional expert like Mr. Obama has allowed himself to fall — hook, line, and sinker — for the threat of a threat from the radical right. Perhaps its time someone stood up and threw down a gauntlet. One attractive feature of an Obama presidency is to clean house, take out the Bush-era garbage that has so bloated and spoiled American government. Hanging unconvincingly on to one of that era’s most mortal concessions to the religious right is absurd. Issuing a position paper that tries to hum a mainstream tune to distract us from the radicalism of that concession is also absurd.
I can not, in good conscience, continue to donate to the Obama campaign. As a person and presidential candidate, he has made me feel electric about this election season, and that probably won’t change. But I won’t contribute to a campaign that panders to evangelicals. It is also very doubtful that I can defy my instincts and vote for a man who continues to invite quasi-theocratic ideologies into the White House.
Very disappointed,
Andrew
