Strike Three: Open Letter to Barack Obama

Rating: 5 after 4 votes

Posted by Rod on July 2, 2008 at 3:42am

Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.

-- George Washington, Letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792 --

Senator Obama:

On a hot, summer day, a scorpion has just finished traversing the desert, seeking greener pastures. When he finally saw what he was seeking, he was dismayed that, in order to reach his destination, he would have to find a way to cross a river. As he walked by the shore, he came across a crocodile, contentedly basking in the sun.

"Crocodile, sir," the Scorpion said.

"What do you want, Scorpion?" the Crocodile replied.

"I was wondering if you would be kind enough," the Scorpion continued, "to allow me to climb on your back and grant me passage to the other side of the river. I have traveled a long way in search of greener pastures, and I would be deeply grateful if you granted me this favor."

"Do you think me a fool?" the Crocodile mused, laughing at the audacity of the Scorpion's request. "What would stop you from stinging me while I cross the waters? Why in the world would I take such a chance?"

"You have no reason to fear, sir. I would not do such a thing, for it would entail not only your death but mine. Because I do not wish to die, you have my word that I won't do such thing."

The Crocodile, trusting enough of the Scorpion's word, allowed the smaller animal to climb on his back, and he began swimming across the river. Half-way to the shore, the Crocodile felt a sharp pain on his back. Shortly after, he felt his entire body stiffen up as a board, and his pain intensified. With what little strength he could muster as his body began to sink, he turned his head to the Scorpion.

"Why would you so such a thing?" the Crocodile said in agony, knowing his life would soon end at the bottom of the river. "You gave me your word!"

"I'm sorry, sir," the Scorpion replied. "I couldn't help myself."

Perhaps you're familiar with this story, in any of its many iterations. I happen to know it as the Israeli fable of the Scorpion and the Crocodile. I mention it because its moral is somewhat cynical in comparison to other fables. Alas, your actions in the past few weeks have given me enough pause to actually give credence to its notion.

Strike one: When you openly rejected public finance despite your opponent's best efforts to paint you into a financial corner, I decided to give you a pass. After all, you had given your word that if your opponent(s) accepted public financing you would do the same, I understood that Mr. McCain had indeed used the process to unfairly paint you as a flip-flopper. Furthermore, I understood your argument in stating that you were going to private financing because your campaign had finally found the Holy Grail of funding: a grassroots movement, willing and able to share in its decreasing wealth, desperate for a change.

Strike two: When you openly said that you would vote for the new FISA bill, I decided to give you a qualified pass. I did so because I hoped you would would have the sense to follow Keith Olbermann's suggestion to either: a) vote for the amendment to the bill, vote for the bill, and then prosecute the telecoms and/or members of the Bush Administration for their role in illegal surveillance, or b) vote for the amendment and against the bill. Being that you have been a constitutional lecturer, I was under the impression that, of all people, you would understand how this ill-written bill continues to be a technological slap to the Fourth Amendment.

Notwithstanding these gaffes, I decided to pause and, all instincts be damned, to give you the benefit of the doubt. But yesterday, regardless of the greatest of precedents--that of the father of our nation finally admitting to himself that religion was too divisive to have a place in government--you have crossed the clearest of lines by committing to provide government funding to religious entities. I'm aware that it is your intent to create an oversight mechanism aimed at policing the activities of said entities, and to prevent them from proselytizing. But, as conventional wisdom has it, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Expecting the religious not to proselytize is like expecting a scorpion not to sting, or--for that matter--a politician not to break his word. In breaking your word to keep your beliefs separate from your candidacy and potential administration, Senator, you are setting a potentially dangerous precedent. After all, if you take into consideration that anywhere from 1 in 5 to 1 in 3 American voters--depending on which poll you read--considers him/herself a Christian Evangelical, your actions are offering a toehold to the inoculation of religion into the government sector. In doing so, your assertion that religion must be allowed to have a place in the public square--as if it wasn't already ubiquitous enough--is, at best, disingenuous, and at worst, naive.

Do you really think that, with such colossal numbers, you will actually find oversight personnel who will, unlike you, choose to set their religious beliefs aside in order to enforce your vision?

Thanks to your declaration yesterday, you are now beholden to the very constituency that brought America to its knees. A constituency of which 77.8 percent of voters deliberately pushed aside all reasoning, and then blindly followed pastors suggesting to the only acceptable vote to the Almighty in 2004 would for the incompetent, born-again Christian incumbent. A constituency which, thanks to its similar campaign efforts in 2000, its inability to admit its electoral mistakes, and its outright refusal to use its numbers and power with equal zeal to demand the impeachment of the President and the Vice President for their crimes against the American people and humanity, continues to have undue influence in the electoral process. A constituency which, knowing that the present Administration duped them twice into voting in their favor, only to ignore its agenda as soon as they were in office, will not be as accommodating to you should you fail to follow its agenda to the letter.

In creating this groundswell of enthusiasm for the political process, you had a responsibility to the electorate to campaign for an office where you will take an oath to obey and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America. By giving legitimacy to religion having a limited role in government, you are not only reinforcing the present administration's contempt for said document, but are already derelict in your duty. Should you win, you will not only lay the path for a one-term presidency, but you will have firmly established a toehold for the likes of Huckabee, Brownback, and Romney in 2012. Should you lose, making what was once unthinkable a notion worthy of entertaining will speed the process even further.

I have been patient with you, Senator. But enough is enough.

Strike three. As far as I'm concerned, you're out.

Tags: separation of church and state, public financing, christian evangelicals, religion, barack obama, fourth amendment, fisa

6 Comments

Comment by Paul Davison on July 2, 2008 at 6:44am: Bold post, Rod, and it is difficult to argue with your reasons for dropping Obama. I was disappointed by this as well, remembering that the support of these faith-based initiatives was one of the first things I recall being upset at GWB about (whom I am not proud to say I voted for way back when in 2000) early in his first term.
Obviously he is pandering to the religious right here and herein lies the flaw of our two-party system, out of a need to become "centrist" to win the election, candidates often veer away from the base they wined and dined during the primaries, not realizing it was his bold progressive vision that enamored so many of us.
Obama hasn't lost my vote yet, but my vote, and the votes of many other progressives, should not be taken for granted.

Comment by Katie on July 2, 2008 at 7:55pm: Rod, you wrote the piece I wish I could have written, and wanted to take a stab at. Thank you. I definitely couldn't have done it as well as you did. However, I’m still saving my uniquely clever title and list of grievances in case I still want to have at it.

I could not agree more, but I'm not willing to dump him just yet. I guess what the adults of America said was true, that if we build up our hope too much, it'll all just come crashing down.

I really hate the positions he's taken in recent weeks that you write about. I especially hate the one that bothers you the most, the expansion of Bush's faith-based initiative program. The increased role of religion in politics/government that we've seen during the Bush years as unquestionably been damaging. My first thought upon hearing about his faith-based initiate plan was “What? Noooooooooo, what are you doing?!@?!?!”

He better not keep this conventional wisdom line towing up, or I might just…oh, what am I saying? I’d probably vote for him anyway. If the race is close, I’d just feel guilty voting for Nader.

Comment by Katie on July 2, 2008 at 8:05pm: Very appropriate - Arianna Huffington: Seven Things Barack Obama Should Do to Keep from Blowing It

Comment by Rod on July 3, 2008 at 12:31am: Paul - Hey, Ranger. Thanks for chipping in your two cents, brother, and always in eloquent and measured fashion. I agree with your argument about the inherent inadequacy of a two-party system. The more I see this campaign devolve--who in the hell thinks it's evolving?--the more I see how this eitherorness is stealing America's future. Having said that, I disagree with the notion that a candidate with firm convictions and somewhat pure intent needs to run to the middle. Al Gore did the Macarena in 2000, and although he won the electoral vote, he was not the man ultimately appointed to the Presidency. John Kerry dumbed down his approach. Ned Lamont let his handlers take charge, only to see his lead disappear and the greatest of Judas', Joe Lieberman, take Connecticut. And I don't even have to go into the Hillary campaign. Running to the middle doesn't work. It has to be a balancing act between balls to the wall, humanizing yourself, and not appearing to be an extremist.

Katie - Bring on your piece, dear. Compel your anger to leave you, and let it rest on paper by letting your pen be a conduit, or, in this case, speak your mind online. As for what adults think, it is symptomatic of our great national malaise: low expectations. There's a reason why the man attached the word "audacity" to the word "hope." Oh, yeah...I almost forgot! Thanks for the Huffington link. She's so right about all of this...

Razor - Hey, compadre. I agree with your assessment that our national ~~electoral~~ ~~civic~~ ~~ah, the hell with it~~ IQ is less than ideal. As to how I would tackle this problem, the answer might already be in use, although in a less than ideal medium. Both campaigns have already set up websites for the sole purpose of debunking the multitude of rumors being spread. But by failing to acknowledge that the majority of voters either have no access to or no trust in the Internet, both candidates are failing to use the most effective medium of all: paper. I firmly believe that if either candidate printed brochures with FAQ's, and sent them in discreet fashion to voters, they would spend much less money, and have a greater effect. After all, the very middle you speak about tends to believe what is written, not what is said. As for your home boy, there's a reason why they say that we campaign in verse, but govern in prose. Obama's oratory is beyond compare, and all he needed to do to keep reaching people was to: a) fill in the details necessary to compliment his lofty speeches, and b) engaged McCain in his own ground. He was jiujitsuing the status quo. Now he's aikidoing it. The former entails controlling the opponent, and is offensive in nature. The latter entails not harming the opponent, and it is neutral in nature. In hindsight, we cannot allow ourselves, as a people, to respond neutrally to the abuses of this Administration. If our leader is neutral, we cease to be a movement, and we become a stagnant mob. By the way, thanks for the kudos...

Comment by Barry Wynn on July 7, 2008 at 2:57pm: What Razor said about the writing. To notch.

From a practical standpoint, what Obama is proposing is a lot of signifying nothing. He agrees "in theory" from what I've read. Which means he will deliver little, if anything (something his critics have harped on in the past). And really what "Faith Based Inititiatives" boil down to is boilerplating a nice name onto practices that have been going on for decades. Paid for a whole lot of basketballs and baseball gloves back in the 70's. I have the same heart burn over injecting religion into politics.

It sullies religion.

I have a lot more problems with his stance on FISA. A lot more (hoping Razor will help me out of the darkness on that one). But the religion thing is for the grandmas who have a problem with his middle name.

And again, you've got writing chops to spare bruh.

Comment by Rod on July 8, 2008 at 1:13am: Barry - Thanks for the props, Bruh. What hurts the most is that Paul, Katie and Razor are still right: Obama is still the best chance we've got. Missing from this argument are many economic and demographic pressures that are about to come to a head around the end of the first term of whomever gets elected. In a nutshell, we have less than four years left before we drown in--and I hope Katie forgives me for this overused term--a perfect storm. I will address these subjects in a post later this week.

As for religion, we have a diametrically different perspective. While you definitely hit the nail on the head by saying that injecting religion into politics sullies religion (let's face it...politics is the art of compromise, and compromise is the art of the Devil), my concerns are more for the increasing erosion of secularism in government. As a Pantheist--i.e., I believe that All is God and God is All, and--thus--I don't believe in the personhood of God--I believe that Religion--i.e., a spiritual reconnection--most definitely has a place in the public square. What keeps me up at night is how agents of extreme views are overtly attempting to inject religiosity into the rule of law, and Mr. Obama's proposed refinement of Mr. Bush's unconstitutional measures regarding this subject are leaving a door I believed Mesrs. Washington and Jefferson had clearly locked and labeled "DO NOT ENTER" clearly ajar. It's my profound hope that if Mr. Obama indeed goes forth with his idea, that it works out for the better within the umbrella of a truly united Union.

Thanks again for joining the debate.