Obama Received Well By Evangelicals At Saddleback Church Event
The first reports are in from Barack Obama's appearance at Pastor Rick Warren's AIDS summit — and it appears that despite sticking to the liberal positions that had engendered resistance from many conservatives, Obama got a warm reception from the Evangelical crowd. Key excerpts from the AP's coverage:
"It's not a question of either treatment or prevention or even what kind of prevention," the Illinois Democrat said to applause during the Global Summit on AIDS at the church."It is all of them. It is not an issue of either science or values, it's both," said Obama, who is considering a run for the White House in 2008.
Obama said faith-based organizations and church ministries like the one at Saddleback have crucial roles to play in the prevention effort.
"I also believe that we can't ignore the fact that abstinence and fidelity, while ideal, may not always be the reality," he said. "We're dealing with flesh and blood men and women, not abstractions."
Obama said his faith led him to the belief that providing condoms to those at risk for AIDS was critical, despite the fact that some may be having premarital sex or being unfaithful to their spouses."I don't accept the notion that those who make mistakes in their lives should be given an effective death sentence," he said to more applause.
As reported earlier, President Bush's 2004 pollster, Matthew Dowd, told today's Chicago Tribune that Obama or other Dems can appeal to voters who attend mega-churches like Saddleback by explaining controversial positions within the context of faith, hence gaining "support for taking a principled stand." Which is exactly what Obama did.
If you didn't hear already, James Dobson's Focus on the Family today attempted to condemn thousands of Africans to a death sentence from HIV/AIDS. Upset over the slice of the Global Fund pie going to religious groups attempting to fight the epidemic disease with abstinence programs (and no mentions of condoms), these petty and vindictive leaders want "the government to eliminate all spending on the Global Fund's HIV programs because it is not providing sufficient money to faith groups and has given little support to abstinence messages."
Setting aside the obvious efficacy arguments, these people obviously have no grip on Christian values if they think the lack of money flowing to Christian groups requires the program to be cancelled, leading inevitably to thousands and thousands of unnecessary deaths from HIV/AIDS.
From the Boston Globe:
"But the Global Fund, which works closely with foreign governments, is not nearly as popular among conservative Christians in the United States. Some take issue with the Global Fund's policies, which include buying clean needles for drug users, and many are furious that just 6 percent of its program dollars goes to faith-based groups.
"There's cancer in the fund," said Peter L. Brandt, senior director of government and public policy at the Christian group Focus on the Family. "It does such an unbelievable job in discriminating against faith-based organizations."
Fund officials, worried about the religious right's influence in Congress, are pledging to try to give more money to religious charities. The executive director of the fund, Richard G.A. Feachem , yesterday told 2,000 people at an AIDS conference organized by the influential Saddleback Church in Lake Forest that the battle against the virus "will only succeed if the great faiths of the world become totally mobilized."
Feachem, in an interview, said the fund "wants to see many more programs" run by faith groups, though most funding decisions are made by local boards.
Feachem's visit to the church-organized conference occurred as the Senate is considering a proposal to more than double the Bush administration's $300 million budget request for the fund, to $700 million next year; the House wants to spend $445 million. This year, Congress sent $545 million to the fund, $245 million more than Bush requested.
Nonetheless, Brandt said he wants the government to eliminate all spending on the Global Fund's HIV programs because it is not providing sufficient money to faith groups and has given little support to abstinence messages. Brandt said the government could continue to support the fund's tuberculosis and malaria programs."
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/12/01/faith_groups_urge_cuts_to_aids_fund/
Anyone have any idea whether there are varying degrees of permissibility of contraception among the various evangelical groups? Either doctrinal or among the laypeople?
Obviously the Catholic Church has a strict stance, and so do some of these groups, but I'm wondering about the differences in emphasis. Supposedly even the Vatican was considering relaxing the rules for monogamous married couples when one spouse has AIDS.
December 1, 2006 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
As much as I admire Obama's mixture of principles and pragmatism, I'm a bit put off by this speech. Is he really a strict christian to the point where he considers sex before marriage as a "mistake"? Or did he exaggerate a bit for the sake of the occasion? (Sorry for my ignorance -- I'm european and only follow US politics from afar)
December 3, 2006 9:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think what he is inferring is that pre-marital sex is often times impulsive without forethought or planning. However, for those who do plan and who would act sexually responsible they need to have the information. BC and/or condoms available that will prevent conception or the transmission of HIV. When individuals make the 'mistake' of not planning to prevent conception or acquire an STD their consequence should not be a death sentence.
In short engaging in pre-marital sex, is not a 'moral mistake/sin' that merits death.
December 3, 2006 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink