February 9, 2015--Equal Opportunity Offender
Somehow President Obama managed to offend nearly everyone Friday during his speech at the National Prayer Breakfast--the Chinese, Indians, Muslims, Jews, and especially Christians.
To agnostic me this suggested it was a good speech.
To offend or minimally agitate those who hold and are guided by powerful belief systems is a good thing to do every once in awhile to shake them up, especially at a time in world history when radical religious forces are roiling nations and regions.
It was a speech Obama impressively didn't paddle back from, even after the predictable chorus of outrage and criticism. These days even a few raised eyebrows will get pandering politicians to
"clarify" in the afternoon what they in the morning said about, say, the safety and efficacy of vaccinations.
But first, what is this Breakfast anyway?
It has been sponsored since 1953 by the Fellowship Foundation, otherwise known as "The Family," which is a secretive organization devoted to spreading Christian values and, through its many powerful congressional members, lobbies for legislation compatible with its mission. Many key members of Congress, mainly male conservative Republicans, are and have been active in The Family. Among many others, Jim DeMint, Sam Brownback, Strom Thurmond, Bill Nelson, and Mark (Appalachian Trail) Sanford.
In The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power, Jeff Sharlet described his experiences working for them as an intern. He provides evidence that The Family "fetishizes" power by comparing Jesus to "Lenin, Ho Chi Minh, and Bin Laden." Not that The Family or Jesus holds beliefs similar to these dictators but rather The Family takes note of and admires the ways in which they exercised power. Guided by these lessons in wielding authority, The Family also engages in below-the-radar international diplomacy, especially in the Middle East, that skirts what is permitted by law for religious-based, tax-exempt organizations.
And the Fellowship attempts to have its own version of influence on American society. They have been remarkable effective and powerful. As an example of their ability to mobilize support, since 1953 every President from Eisenhower to Obama has addressed the group at its annual Breakfast.
It was before this group last week that Obama intentionally stepped into the weeds.
His basic theme was to draw attention to how dangerous it is to use faith to justify violence. From his detractors' perspective, so far so good if he is talking exclusively about Islam. But his caution was more wide reaching than that. There's the rub. He not only indicted Muslim extremists but noted that people also "committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ." Particularly during the Crusades.
As might be imagined, that brought down a firestorm of criticism. The firebrand fringe was the first to react. Michelle Malkin, an ultra-conservative columnist said it is historically outrageous to compare ISIS with Christian Crusaders. On Twitter she wrote, "ISIS chops off heads, incinerates hostages, kills gays, enslaves girls. Obama: Blame the Crusades." Not a word about what Christian crusaders perpetrated with the sword in the name of Christ.
According to the New York Times, semi-credible responses came from commentators who actually know a little about history--they defended the Crusades, noting that they were launched as a response to earlier Muslim advances across Europe. On the other hand, the best informed historians who study this era reject that view and offer evidence that the Crusades were motivated by attempts to reclaim sacred territory (Jerusalem) not Muslim dominated lands that resulted from incursions more than 400 year earlier.
As another example the President spoke about religious strife in India. In his words, though he called India "an incredibly beautiful country," irrelevant to his larger point, he also noted that it is "a place where, in past years, religious faiths of all types have, on occasion, been targeted by other people of faith, simply due to their heritage and their beliefs--acts of intolerance that would have shocked Gandhi."
In spite of Obama noting this occurred in past years and only on occasion (some might say he was being kind considering the enmity and violence, some of it religiously-based, between millions of Indian Hindus and Muslims) Indian leaders reacted in unison and outrage. For example, the Finance Minster said that India "has a huge cultural history of tolerance. Any aberration doesn't alter history."
Obama committed another alleged faux pas at the Breakfast when he shook hands with the Dalai Lama and in his remarks noted how he is a "powerful example of what it means to practice compassion," one "who inspires us to speak up for the freedom and dignity of all human beings.
A high-ranking Chinese spokesman reacted with public fury, saying, "We oppose any country using the issue of Tibet to interfere in Chins'a internal affairs."
It might have been politically wiser for Obama to have taken a pass on so publicly acknowledging the Dalai Lama, but he did choose not to point out that Tibet is not a Chinese internal affair but rather an example of Chinese imperialism, their having conquered and occupied Tibet since 1950, including forcing the Dalai Lama into exile.
Again, instead of walking his comments back later in the day, Obama doubled-down, having a senior aide reiterate that he intended "to be provocative," wanting to connect how the brutality of ISIS is part of a sweep of global history that frequently calls forth "a sinful tendency that can pervert and distort our faith."
Our faith? Which one might that be?
That aside, one final question--
Ours is a free country, a secular country that protects our freedom to believe or not to believe, and, if religious, to worship as we choose. Since we are not a Christian nation, why then do our Presidents choose to attend this so-called National [Christian] Prayer Breakfast?
My recommendation--stay home and let former senator, Family member Jim De Mint, president of the Heritage Foundation run things.
To agnostic me this suggested it was a good speech.
To offend or minimally agitate those who hold and are guided by powerful belief systems is a good thing to do every once in awhile to shake them up, especially at a time in world history when radical religious forces are roiling nations and regions.
It was a speech Obama impressively didn't paddle back from, even after the predictable chorus of outrage and criticism. These days even a few raised eyebrows will get pandering politicians to
"clarify" in the afternoon what they in the morning said about, say, the safety and efficacy of vaccinations.
But first, what is this Breakfast anyway?
It has been sponsored since 1953 by the Fellowship Foundation, otherwise known as "The Family," which is a secretive organization devoted to spreading Christian values and, through its many powerful congressional members, lobbies for legislation compatible with its mission. Many key members of Congress, mainly male conservative Republicans, are and have been active in The Family. Among many others, Jim DeMint, Sam Brownback, Strom Thurmond, Bill Nelson, and Mark (Appalachian Trail) Sanford.
In The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power, Jeff Sharlet described his experiences working for them as an intern. He provides evidence that The Family "fetishizes" power by comparing Jesus to "Lenin, Ho Chi Minh, and Bin Laden." Not that The Family or Jesus holds beliefs similar to these dictators but rather The Family takes note of and admires the ways in which they exercised power. Guided by these lessons in wielding authority, The Family also engages in below-the-radar international diplomacy, especially in the Middle East, that skirts what is permitted by law for religious-based, tax-exempt organizations.
And the Fellowship attempts to have its own version of influence on American society. They have been remarkable effective and powerful. As an example of their ability to mobilize support, since 1953 every President from Eisenhower to Obama has addressed the group at its annual Breakfast.
It was before this group last week that Obama intentionally stepped into the weeds.
His basic theme was to draw attention to how dangerous it is to use faith to justify violence. From his detractors' perspective, so far so good if he is talking exclusively about Islam. But his caution was more wide reaching than that. There's the rub. He not only indicted Muslim extremists but noted that people also "committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ." Particularly during the Crusades.
As might be imagined, that brought down a firestorm of criticism. The firebrand fringe was the first to react. Michelle Malkin, an ultra-conservative columnist said it is historically outrageous to compare ISIS with Christian Crusaders. On Twitter she wrote, "ISIS chops off heads, incinerates hostages, kills gays, enslaves girls. Obama: Blame the Crusades." Not a word about what Christian crusaders perpetrated with the sword in the name of Christ.
According to the New York Times, semi-credible responses came from commentators who actually know a little about history--they defended the Crusades, noting that they were launched as a response to earlier Muslim advances across Europe. On the other hand, the best informed historians who study this era reject that view and offer evidence that the Crusades were motivated by attempts to reclaim sacred territory (Jerusalem) not Muslim dominated lands that resulted from incursions more than 400 year earlier.
As another example the President spoke about religious strife in India. In his words, though he called India "an incredibly beautiful country," irrelevant to his larger point, he also noted that it is "a place where, in past years, religious faiths of all types have, on occasion, been targeted by other people of faith, simply due to their heritage and their beliefs--acts of intolerance that would have shocked Gandhi."
In spite of Obama noting this occurred in past years and only on occasion (some might say he was being kind considering the enmity and violence, some of it religiously-based, between millions of Indian Hindus and Muslims) Indian leaders reacted in unison and outrage. For example, the Finance Minster said that India "has a huge cultural history of tolerance. Any aberration doesn't alter history."
Obama committed another alleged faux pas at the Breakfast when he shook hands with the Dalai Lama and in his remarks noted how he is a "powerful example of what it means to practice compassion," one "who inspires us to speak up for the freedom and dignity of all human beings.
A high-ranking Chinese spokesman reacted with public fury, saying, "We oppose any country using the issue of Tibet to interfere in Chins'a internal affairs."
It might have been politically wiser for Obama to have taken a pass on so publicly acknowledging the Dalai Lama, but he did choose not to point out that Tibet is not a Chinese internal affair but rather an example of Chinese imperialism, their having conquered and occupied Tibet since 1950, including forcing the Dalai Lama into exile.
Again, instead of walking his comments back later in the day, Obama doubled-down, having a senior aide reiterate that he intended "to be provocative," wanting to connect how the brutality of ISIS is part of a sweep of global history that frequently calls forth "a sinful tendency that can pervert and distort our faith."
Our faith? Which one might that be?
That aside, one final question--
Ours is a free country, a secular country that protects our freedom to believe or not to believe, and, if religious, to worship as we choose. Since we are not a Christian nation, why then do our Presidents choose to attend this so-called National [Christian] Prayer Breakfast?
My recommendation--stay home and let former senator, Family member Jim De Mint, president of the Heritage Foundation run things.
Labels: China, Dalai Lama, Fellowship Foundation, India, Jeff Sharlet, Jim DeMint, National Prayer Breakfast, New York Times, Orthodox Jews, President Obama, Radical Islam, Right-Wing Christians, The Family
posted by Steven Zwerling at
5:10 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home