Neither Left nor Christian: The Politics of Barack Obama

American politics is the hot topic right now and I’m finding it devastatingly boring to watch. Sure, it does stir up emotions for me, as I watch the American civil religion express itself–full blown–through the good-for-nothing corporate media. This is “convention time”–America’s holy days–the days when people gather together to worship around the flag and to celebrate and remember all the blood shed, all the blood sacrificed, for the nation. For the American tradition, convention time is the time when we do what we do best, prepare to compete and coerce. For those who think that American democracy, the rule of the majority over the minority, is free from coercion, should think again.

In a recent post, James K. A. Smith rightly points out that Barack Obama’s politics is neither new, left, nor Christian. Rather, as Smith notes, Obama’s politics looks to be little more than Republican lite and promotes the same old civil religion and Americanism Democratics and Republicans have always been about. Referring to Obama’s acceptance speech, Smith writes, “In language that could have just as easily appeared in Bush’s second inaugural or the National Security Strategy of the Bush administration, Obama promised to ‘restore our moral standing, so that America is once again that last, best hope for all who are called to the cause of freedom, who long for lives of peace and who yearn for a better future.’”

For Obama the god who has elected America to be the savior of the world comes before the God who delivered Israel from Egypt and raised Jesus from the dead:

I love this country, and so do you, and so does John McCain. The men and women who serve in our battlefields may be Democrats and Republicans and Independents, but they have fought together and bled together and some died together under the same proud flag. They have not served a Red America or a Blue America – they have served the United States of America.

So I’ve got news for you, John McCain. We all put our country first.

Another interesting point Smith makes is that Obama invokes Scripture in a way that echoes the Religious Right. As Smith notes, scripture passages that refer to Israel or the church are transposed into a new context in order to refer to America.

Alluding to Hebrews 10:23 Obama states, “Let us keep that promise – that American promise – and in the words of scripture hold firmly, without wavering, to the hope that we confess.” ["Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised if faithful." Heb 10:23]

To quote Smith again, “The context makes it clear that this is the church‘s hope in Christ, but here Obama idolatrously transposes that to the ‘American promise.’ This is a ‘new kind of politics?’ Sounds like the same old sort of civil religion we’ve heard from the Religious Right for years–the same (idolatrous) civil religion of Americanism.”

Pat Robertson Supports Terrorism?

After hearing word that Pat Robertson endorsed Rudy Guiliani this morning, I can’t help but think of Robertson’s infamous interview of Jerry Falwell two days after September 11, 2001. In case you don’t remember, in reference to the 9/11 attacks Jerry Falwell claimed that abortionists, gays and lesbians, and feminists “helped this happen.”

In his words,

JERRY FALWELL: And, I know that I’ll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way–all of them who have tried to secularize America–I point the finger in their face and say “you helped this happen.”

In response Pat Robertson said,

“Well, I totally concur, and the problem is we have adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government. And so we’re responsible as a free society for what the top people do. And, the top people, of course, is the court system.”

Of course, Falwell and Robertson are best known by terms like the Moral Majority and the Christian Right. With Falwell dead, Robertson has become the symbol of anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, militant rhetoric of the Christian Right.

The Christian Left has always thought of the Right as approaching moral issues too narrowly. You will often hear the Left say, “Yes, abortion is wrong, but be consistent with your focus on the right to life. What about war, the death penalty?” We all know the debate. Although the Christian Right has also been known to support US military operations around the world, I think the Left thought that it was really the social conservatism that held the Christian Right together (i.e. pro-life, anti-gay marriage).

Okay, do you see the irony…the man who once agreed with Jerry Falwell that the gays and abortionists helped 9/11 to happen, has just endorsed a candidate for president that is both pro-gay and pro-choice. Why? I assume it is what Guiliani said, “He supports me because we agree on what we think are the primary issues facing Americans: dealing with Islamic terrorism, dealing with the war on terror, dealing with the out-of-control spending in Washington.” But, wait, wouldn’t endorsing Guiliani actually have the reverse effect. I mean if the gays and the abortionists are given more room to spread their agenda, doesn’t this help the terrorists – like on 9/11?

I just don’t get Robertson’s shift in foreign policy. It seems like he supports terrorism.

WWJD? …What Would Jerry (Falwell) Do?

Jesus is American