Obama turns to religion to press health agenda (Conference call with religious leaders)

Source: The Hill

President Barack Obama on Wednesday tried to retake the upper ground in this month's healthcare debate by casting reform as a "moral conviction" in a conference call with religious leaders.

"The one thing that you all share is a moral conviction," Obama said. "This debate over healthcare goes to the heart of who we are as American people... This is part of an ethical and moral obligation that we look out for one another.
"In the wealthiest nation on Earth, we are neglecting to live out that call," the president said.

Obama asked religious leaders to help him "spread the truth" about reform, and also took the opportunity to push back against critics. He accused insurance companies of spreading "misinformation," dismissed the idea that the legislation would create "death panels" as "just an extraordinary lie," and rejected as a "fabrication" the claim that abortions would become government-funded. "Not true," Obama said.

.....

More than 30 religious groups have banded together to support the Democratic-led reform efforts, including the progressive group Catholics United, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the National Baptist Convention U.S.A., the National Council of Churches in Christ and the United Church of Christ. The group sponsored Wednesday's call and describes itself on its Web site as "an effort from the faith community to make clear to Congress that quality, affordable health care for every American family is a moral priority for millions of people of faith."

Read more: http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/obama-turns-to-religion-to-press-health-agenda-2009-08-19.html

---

This is a very good strategy. Truth will win in the end.

Ed Schultz has been asking very pointedly, "Where are the religious leaders in this battle? Why aren't they speaking out about health care for all of our citizens as a MORAL ISSUE?"

A basic tenet of most faiths is to care for those in need.

White House holds health care conference call with progressive faith activists

http://www.mydd.com/story/2009/8/19/184726/928

But I often agree with you. :hug:

most of the great social movements in this country have been successful largely because of their religious backing. Abolition and the Civil Rights marches are great examples. Obviously a huge exception is marriage rights for gays and lesbians.

rather than what is determined as right or wrong in any specific religion. :shrug:

What I said is that religious based movements have been very important forces for social justice in this country before.

once you accept that religious leaders have a place in government, and religious doctrines may influence government policy you can't merely switch it off when they support something you don't like.

So if you want religious support for healthcare, education, and welfare reform then be prepared to accept their opposition to stem cells and gay marriage. And those stances will no be legitimized by the federal government.

Bad move and a sign of desperation.

It has to do with morality. Religions are one of the parts of our society concerned with moral issues. Thus, it is just as important to include religious leaders in a discussion of this and other moral issues as it is to include unions, educators and business leaders.

when they insist on being given a voice in the whitehouse next time abortion comes up, or gay marriage, or stem cells, or gays in the military, or . . .

Gays getting married doesn't deal with any particular religion, but with morality in general. The catholic church happens to be one part of our society concerned with moral issues, why shouldn't they get a voice?

And so on for any other thing mentioned. Trust me. The argument will be made.

Remember the outrage when bush tried to include religious leaders in discussions on education reform? Not a strictly religious topic, but rather a moral and societal one. Still there was outrage.

You aren't going to get religious leaders to go along with this for political reasons, and not expect to be rewarded in some other way. They are a special interest lobby group like any other, with as much or more money at stake as many other ones.

Where there is politics and money there is corruption. Combine that with faith, and well, it isn't pretty.

I'm looking forward to it.

religious leaders will be.

Just like average smokers don't really benefit from tobacco lobbyists, but someone sure as hell is.

the pres held today. So, wonderin' when that reward gets here.

and certainly everyone going is doing so for only saintly reasons, and definitely not political ones.

Because no leader has ever attempted to use a personal meeting with the president for his own means.

Nope, that has never happened.

Just like when the health insurance has lobbyists in the whitehouse, they aren't there to influence the president or win favors, no no they just want to honestly inform him of the situation and allow him to make an informed and fair decision for the country.

Mixing religion and politics is a good thing (note, this does not apply if a republican retakes the whitehouse, then it's a sign of looming fascism).

Selfish bastard.

inviting a panel of religious leaders in at one time, to discuss one issue.

Martin luther king was one man, whose life goal was civil rights, not just a generic black religious leader. Not really a valid comparison.

that the Poor People's Campaign was a different issue than civil rights. He spoke against the Vietnam War. And he was part of a group of clergy who worked on these issues, from a variety of faiths.

was he on, where he was invited along with many other religious leaders, to the whitehouse to help set policy?

You're equating the two, so surely that happened at some point.

that happened to have a religious basis.

They were included on the grounds that they were an influential civil rights group, the religious basis was secondary.

It wasn't merely a general collection of religious leaders, but rather of civil rights groups who also happened to be religious leaders.

If these people were experts in healthcare, who also happened to head churches that would be a different issue.

accurately interpreted to communities. The important thing isn't that accurate information get out. The important thing is that groups you don't like be excluded.

We will likely have a government for more than just this year. I would rather we not establish close ties between the government and religion for future debates.

I guess we have different priorities.

democracy takes back seat to that.

Personally if a theocracy were proposed that promised national health care, higher minimum wage, an improvement in social security and so on, I'd have to say no thanks. The whole theocracy thing turns me off, but that's just my opinion.

Out of curiosity, what would you trade secular rule for?

inviting religious leaders in to the whitehouse, to get them on the side of the government, repeating what the government wants them to say, is a step in that direction.

from some pretty serious paranoia. I was invited to the call. I assume you were not. I can assure you there was no discussion of establishing a theocracy.

I don't continue conversations with irrational people. So, I'll be ignoring you.

the idea of the slippery slope has no legitimacy.

Merging religion and politics is a good idea, and has never had negative repercussions. So we really shouldn't be on guard for that at all, just sort of let it happen. Yep.


But of course, it would be foolish on my part to assume that religious leaders would voluntarily limit their influence over politics any more than any other group would.

You mentioned that you were invited to this, so can I assume that you are a religious leader of some kind?

sure? And it's a guaranty that, if they do get involved, poor people will in fact get health care? Are you sure?

Wait, no it isn't. Any advocate for the poor to get health care is a good advocate for the poor to get health care.

that health care thing he said he staked his Presidency on and, well, you know, one hand washes the other and all that, so could he just...... for you.

now, i'm sure you won't do that, but bet your bottom dollar someone will.

and this is the man who did what Grassley asked him to do.

abortion, gay marriage, etc. That is just the way it is.

Fortunately, even the most staid, conservative churches change their judgments on moral issues. The Catholic Church has changed its stances on many, many things. And its stance on birth control is not respected by most Catholics. It is just one more voice.

the Buddhists, the Native Americans, the Islamics, the Muslims, the Druids, the Taoists, the Yogas and all the rest of the Pagans of the world and even the Atheists will be getting their invitations to have their say any day now.

Being religious does not make one moral. I see the "morals" of most xtians, especially the fundies, as being very, very poor.

you don't know anything about the morals of most Christians in this country. There are a lot fewer atheists in this country than there are Christians and I don't know the morals of most atheists. Neither do you.

As far as fundies, that word gets misused here a lot. It means that a person sticks to the fundamentals of their religion. It does not mean you have to believe that Jesus had a dinosaur pony or that you have to stone gays. Those things are a particular interpretation of the bible not shared by most Christians.

Stereotypes are odious, no matter which group they bash (or praise, for that matter).

That being religious does not automatically mean your have good morals.

a person of faith,we must support any and everything to sustain life.

I do have a problem with the government being guided by faith on this and any other issue however. God told us to invade iraq, remember? Maybe we should get god out of the whitehouse, as he has shown some poor judgment in the past.

George Bush didn't! Your not hitten many balls here! Mostly strike outs.

I believe homeruns is what you were going for, hitting balls is not really a good thing, unless you get four in a row.

And I do love the mentality; it's ok when our guy does it, because he's good and decent, it's only evil when the other guy does it because he's, well, evil. I imagine the exact same logic is being applied on freerepublic right now, only the inverse of the conclusions drawn here.

Yes, by all means legitimize religious involvement in the government. Because obama will certainly be president forever, a republican will never retake the whitehouse. Nope, obama, the perfectly moral politician, will live forever, repeal the 22nd amendment and remain president for as long as the country exists, so we don't ever have to worry about the precedent this sets.

Could you be any more ambiguous?

I do believe it was Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference ........right? Think before you speak, that's all we ask! I'm pretty sure he was a Baptist Minister ...:sarcasm: Oh, and he did it NON VIOLENTLY...no guns, no nazi signs, no joker signs!!! Stop and remember people, please for all of our sakes.

and all other religious leaders of note, invited to the whitehouse to discuss the issue of civil rights?

As I recall he did most of his work outside the government, that is organizing people for civil rights marches and demonstrations and such.

No one has stated religious leaders have no role in politics, merely that they shouldn't be invited as advisers to the whitehouse, in an eleventh hour attempt to save a likely dead bill, by pandering to the religious right.

Do you really think they aren't going to expect anything in return for this?

Well I certainly hope gay marriage isn't an issue to you, because that's definitely out the window for the remainder of this term, and if he serves another, likely that one as well.

as part of the organizing effort, to counter the crap that's being propagated by the right.
Or didn't you get that from the invitation?

so religious leaders being invited by a sitting president to spread his word.

I wonder, if bush had done the same, to "spread the truth" regarding the war in iraq, ie inviting religious leaders to give them their talking points so they could sell it to their congregations, would that have been ok? Or would it have been a sign of creeping fascism?

Call me old fashioned, but I favor a clear separation between religion and government.

But hey, if you want the Religious Right doing all the talking, be my guest.

are you saying you were?

But bush is not currently president, so arguing against past acts is slightly less meaningful than arguing against present acts.

For instance: Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, therefore you are ok if a future president behaved likewise?

whether you like it or not.

Because he did, whether you like it or not.

And I have issues with both.

I don't like the whole mentality that: it's ok when we do it, evil when they do it.

NT!

If I'm not mistaken, it was a conference call??? In addition, gay marraige does mean something to me. My girl friends in MA. just got married after having been together for 30 plus years. One of them, a Congregational Minister, presided over two of my daughter's weddings. I have EVERY FAITH that Pres. Obama will deal with this before his first year is up!! What else ya got???

reaching out to the President, not the other way around.

in our Democracy. :shrug:

Personally, I'm glad to see some religious voices counter the (every man for himself Christian movement) with biblical quotes about healing the sick and feeding the poor.

have a voice in government, just like any other people.

And when they can be called on to realize their beliefs are supposed to mean caring for the least among us - the poor, the sick, the hungry, the outcast - that's a good thing all around.

have no such obstruction to their health.

The UCC has been marrying gays and lesbians for a very long time, for instance. Other more mainstream churches are either already doing that, or about to.

It's important to remember that religious voices are not soley the province of the right-wing.

don't get the religious folks involved in this.

I didn't like it when bush invited the clergy to his policy making sessions and I don't like this.

campaign have been defending him or his policies against even the most extreme lies and slanders. Rick Warren, no where to be seen. McClurkin? Absent. And as for the rest of them, they had to be asked, called, cajoled, and that says so much about the worth and impact of their religions. They are a generation of vipers, and they should not be involved in government.

The Methodists and Unitarians have issued statements supporting reform.

others were included. I'm UCC and was invited. I know Episcopalians and UUs were.

from the bishop in her state. Methodists are not all that conservative.

My family members do what they can on that account. It's absurd for people to read the Bible as anti-gay. Gays are not mentioned in the Bible although Jesus speaks about celibacy as a reason never to marry and mentions "eunuchs." I heard an expert on the Bible speak who stated that "eunuch" was a broad term that included gay people.

Matthew 19:12

For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

http://bible.cc/matthew/19-12.htm

New International Version. Quote from Jesus.


The first non-Christian to be converted to Christianity after Jesus' death was, it is believed, a eunuch. Obviously Jesus differentiates between eunuchs who were castrated and eunuchs who were born, I would say, gay. He certainly does not express disapproval of any of them. In fact, if you read the whole thing, you may agree with me that he was kind of ridiculing those who asked him about divorce. His disciples had asked him how can we avoid getting divorced and the repercussions of that, so he talks about eunuchs. I think it's funny, actually and shows the witty, human side of Jesus. Others disagree with me.

In fact, this notion supports the idea of gays as effeminate, not really men, and not sexual in a legitimate way. Gay men are NOT eunuchs!

And what kind of person is born a eunuch? Gay men are not eunuchs if you understand those terms in today's language. But the language of the Bible used the same word for each of the situations that excerpt mentions. Jesus differentiates between those who are born eunuchs, those who are made eunuchs (castrated men) and those who choose celibacy or the state of being a eunuch for religious or spiritual reasons.

NT. I think you may have heard that Jesus never mentions gays, which is correct.

I have no idea why you are bringing Eunuchs into it, though.

seminary who explained that he had been asked to research the topic of homosexuality and the Bible. He stated that the term eunuch as used in the Bible based on his research meant homosexual.

The Old Testament speaks to Gay sex in Leviticus - men anyway, I guess Lesbians hadn't broken through on their radar screen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Leviticus) as well as Sodom and Gomorrah (in Genisus)

It was an interfaith conference, with a variety of religions present.

And most UUs are not Christian.

Your prejudice is showing.

that was invited besides UU?
And just so you know...I do believe Christ was the child of God..I also believe you are too.

I see three there so that is at least a good start.

church in which I heard a minister advocating from the pulput for including gays in the clergy was a Methodist Church in Boston.

On edit: That was 1993.

The official position of the United Methodist Church is that "the practice of homosexuality is incompatible with the Christian faith". By maintaining membership in the UMC, Mtehodists give their assent to such hate speech. This is the exact position of the Southern Baptist Convention. I've never understood how it's a progressive position when held by Methodists, but an ultra-conservative position when held by Baptists.

Open hearts, open minds, open doors....unless you're gay.

preach from the pulpit about including gays in the Methodist clergy. So, again, as I said, it may depend upon the minister or the part of the country.

It's inherent within the very concept of religion. Accepting as fact things for which there is zero evidence (or, indeed, contrary evidence) because a religious leader or "holy" book says so is the definition of it.

to do what other bodies in the denomination ask, let alone require them to do. This is true of both the United Church of Christ and the Unitarian Universalist traditions. No one body in those traditions speaks for other bodies--there's no canon law, no jurisprudence, no excommunication. Just groups of people who share common interests and values and have come together for mutual support.

as in all normal universal healthcare systems. You cannot EXCEPT abortions on religious grounds from a government run system unless you disrespect the separation of Church and State.

how likely do you think that will be?

I think you'd have a better chance getting them to support abortions as part of national healthcare if you could first identify, and then test for, a "gay gene".

Otherwise, probably no.

is a good thing if it helps those who need it. Not the rethugs, but some people with morals.

Ugh. You're bitter.

that's why they were included from the beginning, when there was a lot of momentum behind this, and not thrown in at the end when it seems to be stalling.

for years, not that anyone's been listening.

no one was listening, until obama needed a boost for a stalling bill.

know, the only one that's excluded.

NT!

He is actually a TRUE Christian.

everybody access to to care - not pushing a plan where the first priority is to protect private profits.

He probably knows the Bible as well as he does Constitutional law. If they fight against a public plan, they'll have to justify it to the uninsured, poor and otherwise disadvantaged members of their respective flocks.

Obama won't have to fabricate a web of lies to convince actual Christians that Jesus would approve of Universal Health Care as the Christian thing to do.

Why are our phones and internet still tapped?

Why is he considering indefinitely holding prisoners who have been acquitted?

The theory of the Unitary Executive is Unconstitutional and illegal. Please stop looking to the President for all the answers. Things are moving along as they should via the Congress, FBI, DOJ and all of the other branches and departments. It takes time to build a case correctly.

As more and more information comes out about what BushCo* did, the crimes they committed, etc... the critical mass continues to grow. Besides, Dick and Dumbya and their enablers are already sweating like Bayou whores, can you imagine the drinking and drugging they're doing to deal with the stress?

Just because they're not on the dock in Federal Court doesn't mean they're not being punished. They know what they did (and we're finding out) and know they have far less cover under a Democratic Congress and President than they'd have enjoyed with an (R) in the WH.

Obviously, there are many (sadly, too many) christians who do in fact want to protect obscene corporate profits that kill people.

the tares, Christians are not supposed to decide who is a Christian or who isn't. Jesus said that is for only God to do. I guess because only God can possibly know. The rest of us can be fooled.

That's the nature of any unproven mythology that can be cherry-picked at will to say anything you want it to.

Obama tells religious leaders put up or shut up. But if he can use them to talk sense to their ilk then be my guest.

I'm more angry with him for his lack of support for real reform than he has a right to be with me.

would Jesus deny?

(Or so easy a caveman could figure it out, haha.)

I'm glad President Obama is turning to the most logical (and powerful) of allies in this most important (and necessary) of battles.

You know, the chick that was all duhhh, till the miracle worker showed up and knocked some smarts into her.

:eyes:

clerks II.

when moderate religious leaders began adding their voices to the fray. Before they started getting into the whole stewardship of the land thing, concern about the environment was only for granola eating hippies.

I'm an atheist and about as anti-religion-in-public-affairs as you can get, but if we can find obvious common ground, as we can here, we might as well take advantage of it.

in taking dominion over it. I'm fairly certain that he environmentalists are a minority among evangelicals.

Matthew 25:35-36 (New International Version)
35For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'


(bolded mine)

with atheists and agnostics scheduled? Didn't think so.

It's important to note that these religious groups organized and sponsored the call, not the White House.

Here are the groups:

List of conference call sponsors (as of 8.12.09)


African Methodist Episcopal Church (AME)
Catholics In Alliance for the Common Good
Catholics United
Christian Community Development Association
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
Faithful America
Faithful Reform in Health Care
Faith in Public Life
Gamaliel Foundation
Islamic Society of North America
Jewish Council for Public Affairs
National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc.
National Council of Churches in Christ
Network, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby
PICO National Network
Progressive National Baptist Convention
Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism
Samuel Dewitt Proctor Conference
Sisters of Mercy of The Americas
Sojourners
The Episcopal Church
The Latino Leadership Circle
The New Evangelicals
Unitarian Universalist Association
United Church of Christ
United Methodist Church General Board of Church And Society
United Methodist Church, Washington Office of Women's Division, General Board of Global Ministries

church and state issue. Churches are not directing government, nor is government directing churches. If he puts agents in the churches to see if they are helping him out or not, I'd have a huge problem, though, so this is borderline, IMO.

Obama's doing it.

My priest had a sermon on the importance of adequate healthcare. After all, it is in the teachings of Jesus to LOOK OUT for your fellow man.

Great strategy.

Not saying it's a bad thing. I wish he would start having the same balls Bush had, but push progressive legislation with it.

Jesus, that was that other guy...