Obama has made his final appointments to his controversial council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. Sarah Posner summarizes what that means for reproductive rights:
With his council appointments now complete, Obama has given far more seats on his council to religious leaders who are anti-choice than to ones who are openly pro-choice, even though the majority of Americans favor legal abortion. There are only two pro-choicers, and they're both Jewish. Reproductive-health advocates suggested several pro-choice Christians to the White House as worthy additions to the council. By not giving them seats, though, the administration shows that it is too afraid to challenge anti-choice evangelicals by putting their pro-choice brothers and sisters at the same table.
Frances Kissling also points out that the appointments aren't just predominantly anti-choice -- they're also mostly men. Five of the council members recently signed on to a letter asking Obama not to overturn the Bush administration's HHS policy allowing health care providers to deny services (such as contraception) based on their personal beliefs. (Planned Parenthood has a letter you can sign asking Obama to follow through and get rid of the policy!)
I agree with folks who argue that religious groups can be providers of essential services without proselytizing or stepping on the rights of others. But Bush's legacy is strong. He primarily used "Faith-Based Initiatives" as a way to pander to his
base politically -- not to actually provide more services to more
people in need. And he supported many of these faith-based groups' decisions to only hire people of their religion or to maintain discriminatory policies toward LGBTQ people. Obama's actions are looking all too familiar.
Obama's appointments to the council, much like his other partnerships with religious leaders, have been disturbingly Bush-like. By and large, the appointees are not people with a proven record of providing services without blurring the church/state boundary. They are political choices to signal that Obama is willing to "reach across the aisle" on issues like repro rights. As Posner and Kissling both note, Obama clearly sees the council as a opportunity to prove he's a centrist. Posner says,
The effort has largely been a bust, though, as those centrists now say they are dismayed by his policies. They can express disappointment, but they should not have been surprised by his reversal of the global gag rule, the Bush midnight-hour "provider conscience" rule, and the ban on federal funding for stem-cell research. Obama was clear on his views on these issues during the campaign, and he won anyway.He's stacking the council with anti-choice men (and failing to challenge screwed-up Bush-era policies) as a political gesture, but that gesture isn't appeasing any right-wingers. So why bother? I *know* there are faith leaders out there who are serious about providing services to those in need, and who aren't anti-woman or anti-gay -- why didn't Obama make them the majority of his appointments? If he wanted to make a point about maintaining a dialogue with those he disagrees with, he still could have appointed one or two fundamentalists. But the conservative-dominated council as it stands now is pretty damn annoying, to say the least.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Obama's "faith-based" FAIL.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/12947
I'm pretty sure it means diddly squat in terms of abortion policy. If no one's noticed, Obama's religious tact is, well, lacking. And not to diminish the issue, but there is more to look at when appointing people than their ideology. They might be people who get stuff done (I don't know, I'm not knowledgeable on the various religious communities).
Obama was always very centrist on religion during the campaign as well-- he preferred figures in that community more for their charisma than their preferences (see Captain Saddleback).
Religion should be BANNED from politics, period! They should NOT have the right to have a say in American politics. Religion should only be practiced inside the home and not outside on the streets. God, what the f--k.
Agreed. I never had religion, ever in my life. I didn't understand the controversy with marriage until this year, because I didn't understand that the marriage in a church and by a justice of the peace are different. I didn't know a church official had to be ordained by the government in order to perform ceremonies. The whole thing is fucked up.
http://stuffqueerpeopleneedtoknow.wordpress.com/
OT, but... people can get to your blog by clicking on your name. You don't need to paste the url at the end of each post.
I understand your frustration -- but you've overstepped quite significantly. You have no right to demand that the devout limit their religious activities to "inside the home", nor do you have the right to limit the political voice of the religious.
Why would this be any more acceptable than Christians saying, "I don't mind if you're gay -- but keep it inside the home"? They have no right to control the behavior of homosexuals, and we have no right to control the behavior of the religious.
They (actually as a Christian, I should say "we" -- but as a rare Christian feminist, I don't want to confuse the pronouns) have the right to religious free expression.
kbz
I think what is being said is more of asking them to leave their religion out of politics because of the way it affects other people. Some woman half across the country having an abortion doesn't affect the person who thinks abortion is bad and needs to be outlawed. However, the person who is on whatever law making board and is making abortion illegal or near impossible to obtain is putting that woman at risk by limiting her options.
Let's say some gay couple got married, it doesn't affect that person who is against it. Sure they are going to be annoyed that something happened that is against their religious doctrine or personal beliefs, but they're just going to go back to eating their breakfast and likely forget about it a couple of days later.
Perhaps -- though I think the marriage analogy works better than the abortion one. If one truly believes abortion is the murder of an infant (which I do not), it doesn't make much sense to say, "Some woman half across the country having an abortion doesn't affect the person who thinks abortion is bad." The rape of a woman half-way across the country doesn't have any realized effects on my life -- but it would be against my beliefs to ignore it simply because I am personally unaffected. In both cases, it would be an individual standing up against a percieved injustice against an innocent victim.
In either case, I do not think it is fair to demand that religious individuals ignore their religious convictions the minute politics enters the discussion. A religious conviction is fundamentally no different than a personal conviction that we have here -- and both have a place in politics.
kbz
The only place they have in politics is if you want to take them into the voting booth with you. No one can really stop that. But if YOU become the elected official you have to leave your religious beliefs at the door.
I disagree. I don't think an elected official is required to abandon relgious convictions any more than an elected feminist should abandon her/his feminist convictions. The voters elected the WHOLE person, religious/feminist convictions and all. They may not violate the law or the Constitution -- but they may consider their convictions (religious or otherwise) before taking action.
The fact is -- we haven't the power to tell individuals, elected or otherwise, where they can and cannot consider their religious convictions. If we don't like their convictions, we may vote against them -- but if they're elected, their convictions (again, religious, feminist, or otherwise) are elected along with them.
kbz
Separation of church and state. Their is no separation of feminism and state.
There is a significant distinction between religious intrusion into government, and allowing religious convictions to guide the behavior of a government official.
We cannot outlaw personal convicitions, even of elected officials, based on the source of the inspiration (religious or otherwise).
kbz
True, it's actually been held unconstitutional to prevent clergy members from serving in the legislature. The law in question was passed on the theory that it would better keep a separation of church and state. It was overturned because it infringed on free exercise. Gotta keep a balance between the two concepts.
Actually, I think that we have EVERY right to say that religion should have NO place in politics. ZERO.
You can have your wonderful faith-based groups and go on missions to other countries and do whatever you feel that your faith and conscience dictates you should but it should *not* under ANY circumstances receive tax payer dollars from the federal government.
I have no problem with the government establishing non-religious programs and groups and setting aside money to help fund them but religious programs and groups should never receive federal funding because this is not a theocracy and the government should not ever be involved in religion and vice versa.
You may not like it, but religious organizations are the only functioning institutions with community credibility in a lot of the neediest communities in the United States. As such, efforts to improve life for people in these communities have to engage them in some way.
I think that's a really important point.
I disagree, not all religious organizations are like that. Many of them just want to convert as many people as possible and so all they really want from their members is money so that they will not be silenced. Republicans do not like to care for the poor and yet the most religious people tend to vote republican. Obviously issues like gay marriage and abortion take p residence over taking care of their poorer members of the church.
You mean the most conservative Christians, not "the most religious people," don't you?
Well, many sects of christianity and other religions as well but yea I am aware that there are very liberal religious communities. However, Christianity is the biggest world religion and so it basically holds the most power in comparison to others.
COMPLETELY AGREE. No matter what anyone says, religion is and always has been a hinder to society in terms of progress and even when religion tries to compromise itself, it still will not let go of certain long-held beliefs. It boggles my mind how we could be letting it invade our political minds for so long and how the same thing is still going on today...the fact of the matter is that religion may have some nice little things about it, but it is mostly very dangerous in our politics. It should not be allowed to hold any merit when it comes to social progress.
Politician.
perhaps this is naive, but is seems to me that obama may have (inadvertently?) done a good thing here by putting these people, whose constituencies' support he wants, in a nice little "faith-based and neighborhood partnership" where they won't really be dictating policy. he gets to look like he is working with the conservative evangelicals, hopefully maintaining support in a few swing states, while deflecting conservative criticism of his policies, which certainly have been supportive of reproductive rights. i guess we probably should learn more about what actual powers this council will have.
but what i cannot understand for the life of me, is why we need a "faith-based and neighborhood partnership" from the government in the first place. echoing previous commentors, what happened to separation of church and state? what real purpose does this council serve?
I agree with your point that this could be politically very savvy...
Done right, faith based partnerships--and let's remember Obama's very first job was as a community organizer for a faith based partnership--can be a more effective, efficient and humane way of funneling aid to poor communities. Most state welfare offices are run with the efficiency of the Post Office and the heart of the IRS. No offense to the social workers who support them, but that's just the nature of bureaucracy and government.
Wait, I'm confused about one thing. You give us a link to ask us to ask Obama to follow through in getting rid of that right of conscious bullcrap law but I thought that was already done...did I miss something? That's still allowed? I thought that was one of the first things he overturned in office.
As far as religion mucking around with politics...blah. I have no problem with religion, except when it wants to mix in with politics. The two should remain separate.
Also if anyone wants to read a really interesting book on how damaging religion can be (in politics and just in general) I recommend The End of Faith by Sam Harris. I'm reading it now and it's really interesting. I don't agree with everything he writes, but it opens your eyes up to a lot of interesting points about religion.
He has said he would scrap the policy, and has "taken steps" in that direction, but has yet to finish the process. Hence the Planned Parenthood letter asking him to finish the job.
Okay I see, thanks for clarifying!
The way I understand it, to overturn the Bush rule, Obama had to write a new rule that, just like the Bush rule, must undergo a period of public review during which people can voice their opinions. The 30 day period of public review ends tomorrow, April 9th. Then, the acting Health and Human Services Secretary will take action.
If you are interested in commenting during the review period, you can go to this link from Advocates for Youth or this link from Planned Parenthood Action Fund.
No religion here either, thank you very much! The continuation of the Office of Faith-Based Hoo-hah seems to be a sop to the religious loonies in the audience and should have zero impact on federal abortion policy, as the White House has a pro-choice policy plank. I doubt that these appointments will ultimately mean s**t to a tree. That being said, Pres. Obama's apparent desire to be all things to all people is disturbingly Clinton-esque. Mr. Obama should realize that he's never going to get the right-wing religious zealots on his side; instead, he should focus on his core constituencies, the center and the left.
He understands that he's not going to win evangelicals, nor does he have to in order to win. But he has to win at least SOME of them. Little known fact, both BO & Clinton won ~1/3 of the evangelical vote & the majority of the Catholic vote. Neither Gore nor Kerry won more than 28% of the evangelical vote & Kerry lost the Catholic vote outright.
5 percentage points with these groups can swing entire elections.
This seems to be a rebel without a cause moment...Notre Dame wants to ban BO from campus because of his pro-choice policies ("most pro-choice President in the history of America") and you're suggesting that we send him complaint mail?
Also, he overturned all the Bush pro-life policies he could, from the global gag rule, to the denial of care "conscience rule", to stem cell research. What more can he do through executive order????? Sounds pretty pro-choice to me.
Notre Dame doesn't want to ban him - the ultra-conservative and marginal Cardinal Newman Society does.
It's true that Obama has a fantastic pro-choice record, even in the short period of time he's been in office. One of the many reasons I voted for him! :) BUT, I think it's fair to say that not only is the creation of a faith-based office at the federal level unsettling to many, it's also fair to criticize the fact that liberal, pro-choice religious voices were excluded. There are many examples of this - Rev. Carlton Veazy of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice comes to mind. I also think that the number of women, particularly women representing religious groups, should have been more equal.
To me the issue goes well beyond abortion. He has created this Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, and it's not a diverse counsel. Instead, it's heavily skewed very conservative. And very male. Very pro-choice. Very anti-gay. If this council actually does anything, it will be unfortunate because it's very conservative. And if it doesn't do anything, it's useless. A council that had represented many liberal faiths and that was actually useful would be great.
Hi, I would like to speak up as someone who is a queer, progressive, pro-choice person of faith who also was very disappointed by Obama'a selection of mostly white, male, anti-choice people of faith on the Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships council. While I don't believe that any one religion should have the authority to create federal laws and that there should be a separation of church and state, the fact is that many people who come to the table in Congress, the Presidency, the Judiciary bench, or your local non-profit are motivated towards the work they do by religious conviction or spiritual beliefs. Therefore it is appropriate that there is a recognition of the good work that a coalition of religiously minded folks can accomplish as symbolized by this council.
The disappointing thing about Obama's council appointees is that they continue to reinforce the stereotype that people of faith are largely against any progressive social justice issues. It is frustrating because, as a minister, I spend a lot of time de-bunking the myth that faith and progressive values are incompatible and feel that my work around that issue is only increased by Obama's choices for that council since he failed to appoint people for whom that is a reality.
WORD.
faith and humanism go hand in hand for me.
but could we change it up just a bit? get some differing perspectives?
(however, i don't really know much about these people's backgrounds. they could be quite qualified. and their ideology doesn't seem to matter much in this post.)
Mmm. I'm with you on that. One of my students last semester actually wrote a paper about some religious organizations (can't remember the affiliation, but I believe Unitarian or Presbyterian) campaigning for comprehensive sex ed. I was like ... that's brilliant.
Obama on religion is THE reason I didn't like him during the primaries and the main issue I have had with him over these last few years.
I disagree SO PASSIONATELY that the government should fund ANY KIND of faith-based initiatives. Honestly, I feel that it should be illegal for the government to spend tax dollars on programs that are officially recognized as being religious.
There is no reason that religious individuals couldn't get involved in a program to provide aid and help without the religious banner. I've volunteered with "faith based" projects (as an anti-theist) because I wanted to help and there seems to always be that underlying tone of evangelism that I think is so shameful.
People deserve help and aid without being proselytized to.
I don't think that faith-based and progressive values have to be at odds... but I think its appalling for the government to fund religious-based programs, period.
I like how he has handled things, you can never please or appease the zealots on either side of the issue. And they all squeal like pigs when they aren't catered to. I know this in many communities the churches (hate them as you will) are the ones serving the people.
I am very glad to the the cool-aid of Obama love is not total on this site, at least not with Ann. Good post. Now it is fun to watch the readers backflip to overlook this, but I must remind that Obama picked Tim Kaine (anti-choice dude) to lead the party whose platform is choice.
Femisex has been railing about his since day one. (just yesterday they took
yet another dig at Kaine/Obama.)
I hope the women on this site will start to understand that Obama is a democrat and HAD to rescind the Gag Rule, no option. Stem cell rules only go so far and Congress, both sides of the aisle loves the stem cells. What Obama does and did with Kaine is continue to hold out women's wombs as political offerings when is is expedient for him and when he can get away with it. I really think it is not helpful to defend this or any other of Obama's uterine olive branches. Obama is one rude dude when it comes to screwing over women for his own gain. Get wise kids. He ain't the daddy you so wished for.
Well, I'm not going to be as harsh on Obama as you yet. I'll give him more time to see what he'll do.
But I've read both of his autobiographies, and he doesn't seem to have a strong feminist perspective. And from reading them, I didn't get the impression that he'll be big on pushing for gay rights. :(
This is a purely theoretical argument. You're basically saying, "He may do this" or "He may do that", but substantively you can't point to single thing he's done to restrict or prevent abortion rights. In fact he's only "the most pro-choice President" America's ever had...btw, this theoretical conspiracy theory is a pure wingnut tactic. Check out Fox News & all you'll is hear is how Obama wants to do this, or wants to do that...You're reading tea leaves.
You know... I have just as much of a problem as anyone with the right-wing zealots who dominate the political discourse from the religious perspective... but as a person brought up in faith (I now consider myself more spiritual than anything, but find myself strongly drawn to progressive communities of faith and, accordingly, am active in one such progressive community), I find the dismissiveness displayed by some of the commenters here dismaying, to say the least. When you start reacting against anything labeled "faith-based" or "religious" -- and trust me, as someone who's worked *within* the church for change, I "get," I totally and completely get, the warning bells that go off in your head when you hear or read those words -- and calling for its wholesale removal from the public sphere, don't you see what you're doing? You're proving the religious wingnuts right!! Fundies and zealots will use scare tactics to derail progress any way they can -- one particularly popular tactic is to bring on the melodramatics about how this or that progressive change will bring on the End Of Religion As We Know It (TM)! Which of course it won't. Taking prayer out of schools has hardly led to the destruction of the church. Gay marriage has not led to the collapse of families and the end of religious freedom. Etc., etc. But progressives like AlecMc and me have to put up with enough of this bullshit in religious communities without those of you *who are supposed to be on our side* fanning the flames!!!
And if you are actually so actively opposed to freedom of religion, I draw your attention to this pesky little thing called the First Amendment. Sorry, but it's not going anywhere soon (and thank God it isn't -- no pun intended).
So could you all please try to be a little more respectful of those of us who haven't decided to throw the baby out with the bathwater? Yes, many religious sects have caused a LOT of harm and stand in the way of progress. But religion doesn't exist in a vacuum, anymore than family, or marriage, or anything else does. A religious community surrounded by a sexist culture is likely going to be sexist -- but that doesn't mean religion CAUSES sexism, and to presume it does is a logical fallacy of the highest order.
I suspect that most reasonable people can agree that, as far as public religion goes, when it comes to making policy, decisions must be grounded in reason -- that is to say, if you, as a political representative, make decisions that are defensible ONLY under a certain religious regime, then those decisions are rightly suspect. If, on the other hand, your religious convictions lead you to make a decision that is also defensible on grounds a non-religious person could agree with, those decisions are more likely legitimate. I think this is a pretty fair and sensible rule -- but, unfortunately, it doesn't make as handy a soundbite as "keep religion out of politics!"
But I take it that as progressives, we're more concerned with substance than soundbites.
"You're proving the religious wingnuts right!!"
I don't think it's fair to expect people to modify their behavior in response to the wingnuts. And we shouldn't give them that power over us.
This.
As a non-religious person who wholeheartedly objects to the censure or silencing of anyone's beliefs (even beliefs to which I am opposed), I wish that I could click "liked" on your comment multiple times.
once again....WORD.
thanks so much for this.
Loved your comment.
I'm an atheist and pretty anti-religion but believe passionately in the right of everyone to believe what they want to believe. Most of my problems with religion stem from their propensity to push their beliefs onto everyone but that is a whole other discussion!
I have no problem with programs provided by churches that help people and don't proselytise - although it is a hard thing to police that last part of course. Also I do think that there are access issues for people of different faiths or no faith when those people know a Christian church, for example, is providing the service. However none of those difficulties are reasons to ban faith-based programs entirely.
I will say I think that if religions are going to form political lobbies (and it is unreasonable to suggest they wouldn't or that people shouldn't form lobby groups around their convictions) then they should lose their tax exempt status. Charities should stay tax exempt but then again charities often have restrictions placed on their participation in politics and that is how it should be.
Finally if a program is going to get Government funding then it has to be accessible to all and non-discriminatory in hiring practices etc.
Anyway that's my two cents worth.
Yours are some of the most well put comments I have ever read on such a hot button issue. Thank you for adding your 2 cents.
I find this issue troubling on so many levels. As a woman raised in the church, I understand the value and comfort to be found there, and support the right of everyone to choose their own path - whether or not it includes a faith.
However, when one group begins to encroach on the right of others to such basic care I am offended deeply, and to the core. So, I also understand the vitriol. It is hard not to be bitter when someone discounts your ability to make life choices, and attempts to decide for you. Women are not fully in control of their own lives, unless they also control their reproductive choices.
Could have swore we elected a Democrat. Hmm...
Well the administration is what it is. It's certainly an improvement over Bush.
What I am doing for 2010 is focusing on state and local races, more feminist candidates. I like Kirsten Gillibrand, who sponsored the Paycheck Fairness Act. It's not just MORE Democrats. It's also BETTER Democrats.
This seems an example of Obama's centrist goals, making friends with the enemy, and encouraging discussion. His first, or at least most public, example was his choice of Rev. Rick Warren to make invocation at the inauguration. Yes, Warren's totally gross, but I see Obama's goal (or maybe I'm just wishing for the best).
While I absolutely support the separation of church and state, I think that's a lofty ideal at this point in our history, especially after the last 8 years. If Obama acts a foe to religious groups as president, which he has not done in his political life so far, that may open the door for the crazies like Sarah Palin in 8 years from now.
God forbid.
It's disheartening - to say the least - that only a handful of the people on this list have ever worked on sexual justice issues (reducing unintended pregnancies and teenage pregnancy, and promoting the responsibilities of fatherhood). And it's not because the Obama administration didn't know who to pick from -- I know that several women's organizations provided the names of many women candidates, including women clergy, (yes, including me) to choose from.
They surely will have intense discussions, although compromise statements beyond encouraging teens to wait to have intercourse and services for pregnant women and incentives for fathers to be involved seem unlikely.
I suppose I can pray to be surprised.
Rev. Debra Haffner
http://debrahaffner.blogspot.com/
Reading this thread, I'm surprised that no-one has yet made the point that the main reason why church and state should be separate is the fact that there is no evidence for the existence of a god, and that those in power, who are apparently the country's brightest and best, should exercise rational thought and set an example to people. If people want to be so credulous as to believe in fairy stories and in a supernatural being for which there is no evidence, then they are free in a democratic society to do so, but under no circumstances should such beliefs enter into policy making or any other aspect of government.
People may wish to draw distinctions between Obama and the right-wing fundamentalists but ultimately their core religious beliefs are the same - god, soul, afterlife, heaven, hell, sin, and so forth. This is presumably why he sees common ground with these people he's appointed. If he were an atheist there would be no such pandering to the religious right. (But then, if he were an atheist I doubt very much whether he would have got elected, sadly.)
Strong belief in unsubstantiated ideas about the world is called delusion - and delusion is one of the symptoms of mental illness. I find it very frightening that people with delusions are running the country.