Obama at National Prayer Breakfast-Corrected
“My mother, whose parents were Baptist and Methodist, grew up with a certain skepticism about organized religion, and she usually only took me to church on Easter and Christmas — sometimes. And yet my mother was also one of the most spiritual people that I ever knew. She was somebody who was instinctively guided by the Golden Rule and who nagged me constantly about the homespun values of her Kansas upbringing, values like honesty and hard work and kindness and fair play.
And it’s because of her that I came to understand the equal worth of all men and all women, and the imperatives of an ethical life and the necessity to act on your beliefs. And it’s because of her example and guidance that despite the absence of a formal religious upbringing my earliest inspirations for a life of service ended up being the faith leaders of the civil rights movement.”
He sounds like a Unitarian-Universalist! This was a popular homily theme from my childhood fellowhsip.
Cathy, I’m not sure if you meant to post the 2009 Prayer Breakfast address, but the 2011 version from this week is here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/02/03/remarks-president-national-prayer-breakfast
I wrote up a piece on it here:
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2011/02/03/obamas-faith-based-presidency-help-the-needy-walk-with-god/
One of many interesting aspects of this year’s was how confessional it was, in many senses — personal and Christian. I thought it was a very fine speech, and also clearly addressing critics.
Apart from the clear effort to set out his beliefs and dispel the suspicions about his faith, I thought it was also interesting for how it demonstrated not only the way his Christianity informs his public service and policies, but the way he was drawn into the church through public service and social justice.
In light of the efforts to keep 20-something Catholics in the fold, or attract them, I think Obama’s example is instructive because it is fairly common, and effective.
It also contrasts, I think, with the experience of George W. Bush — the conversion story born of personal despair. It seems to me those two personal experiences of finding faith — both classic, in their way — inform their two views of faith and governing, one that sees government as part of the solution, and one that stresses personal charity and individual efforts and “compassionate conservatism.”
Both seem to be valid and constant strands in the Christian experience, but always in some tension.
Oops! No I didn’t! I am trying to do too much, too fast. Since I like the old bit, I’ll put it here, and put up a new bit in the main box–Thanks, David!
“But no matter what we choose to believe, let us remember that there is no religion whose central tenet is hate. There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being. This much we know.
We know too that whatever our differences, there is one law that binds all great religions together. Jesus told us to “love thy neighbor as thyself.” The Torah commands, “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow.” In Islam, there is a hadith that reads “None of you truly believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.” And the same is true for Buddhists and Hindus; for followers of Confucius and for humanists. It is, of course, the Golden Rule – the call to love one another; to understand one another; to treat with dignity and respect those with whom we share a brief moment on this Earth.
It is an ancient rule; a simple rule; but also one of the most challenging. For it asks each of us to take some measure of responsibility for the well-being of people we may not know or worship with or agree with on every issue. Sometimes, it asks us to reconcile with bitter enemies or resolve ancient hatreds. And that requires a living, breathing, active faith. It requires us not only to believe, but to do – to give something of ourselves for the benefit of others and the betterment of our world.”
President Obama at the 2009-Prayer Breakfast
I agree with you about the personal and confessional nature of the talk, David–and if you read the 2009 prayer breakfast talk, the contrast in style is rather sharp.
David –
Thanks for the talk. To tell the truth, I had wondered whether or not his faith was a typically Christian one with a belief in a personal God. But this talk persuades me, anyway, that he does share that belief very strongly.
He makes an interesting point about humility — he equates it with uncertainty. Hmm. Uncertainty can make one humble, and seeing one’s own limitations certainly does shake one’s certainty about oneself. No wonder we avoid it so. And isn’t it lovely that a President of the United States is preaching to us all about humility. The more I see of him the more I like him :-)
Michael Scherer at Time gets the pattern of each year’s address down, noting that each has served a different purpose and so has a different content:
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011/02/03/the-political-subtext-in-obamas-national-prayer-breakfast-address/
“Let us remember that there is no religion whose central tenet is hate. There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being.”
Hmm, has he ever read the Old Testament? And parts of the New, for that matter?
To Benjamin,
The Gospels have never condoned hatred. Jesus’ command (which is a summary of the 10 commandments) states that the first commandment is to Love God—with everything that one has and the second commandment is like it, Love your nightbor as yourself.
Love was a central key of the New Testament.
Even the Old Testament addresses the Israelite community to ‘welcome and treat fairly the alien who is in your midst—remembering that you were once aliens yourselves.’
The Decalogue is not about hatred—but about a written and proclaimed code that already existed in the hearts of humans.
I think that civic religiosity, and the POTUS’ participation therein, is counterproductive to religious belief in general.
As any of the ever-increasing percentage of Americans who call themselves, atheists, agnostics, non-Christians and “none of the above” what they think of THEIR leader participating in partisan religiosity.
“There was, of course, Martin Luther King and the Baptist leaders, the ways in which they helped those who had been subjugated to make a way out of no way, and transform a nation through the force of love. But there were also Catholic leaders like Father Theodore Heshburg, and Jewish leaders like Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, Muslim leaders and Hindu leaders. Their call to fix what was broken in our world, a call rooted in faith, is what led me just a few years out of college to sign up as a community organizer for a group of churches on the Southside of Chicago. And it was through that experience working with pastors and laypeople trying to heal the wounds of hurting neighborhoods that I came to know Jesus Christ for myself and embrace Him as my lord and savior. (Applause.)”
Does anyone think that even a battalion of sincere Obamas (as described by Obama himself) could have “healed” black Chicago?
I love how the official White House record makes sure to include the “(Applause.)” A truly great address would require no prompts.
The men (always men) who call for a civic religion are the greatest advertisements AGAINST not only a common civic religion but all religion in general. Human spirituality would do better to align itself with emancipatory politics. Ironically, human religion has showed itself to be the polar opposite of human spirituality.
The religious powers-that-be equate the drying-up donations with the end of civilization. No more needs be said.
“In light of the efforts to keep 20-something Catholics in the fold, or attract them, I think Obama’s example is instructive because it is fairly common, and effective.”
Yep, totally agree.
“Does anyone think that even a battalion of sincere Obamas (as described by Obama himself) could have “healed” black Chicago?”
Brian – if it can’t, then there is no hope.
I happen to think that acts of love and service can heal black Chicago, white Chicago, Latino Chicago and the rest of the world.
Dear Little Bear,
If you want to deny any teaching of hatred in the OT or NT just based on the Gospels and the Decalogue, read the rest of the Bible.
Even Aquinas had to jump through hoops to resolve those inconsistencies in the Bible, because they are there.