Posted on 08/21/2008 5:40:06 AM PDT by Kaslin
Journalists used to complain that George W. Bush's speechwriters slipped into his oratory phrases like America's "wonder-working power" that meant one thing to general audiences and another to evangelical supporters aware of the "wonder-working power in the blood of the Lamb." Far-fetched? Maybe, but this year Barack Obama is proving to be a master of that art.
"Economic justice" and "restoring fairness to the economy" are two of Obama's favorites. Who can oppose justice and fairness? To many Obama disciples, though, those words mandate not just equality of opportunity but a socialistic equality of result. Some in the general public would be less rhetorically transfixed if they understood the code.
Here's a more subtle example: Obama's call for nondiscrimination in religious hiring. Obama received a great press last month when he said he wanted to maintain and expand the White House faith-based initiative—except that any program receiving any federal funds could not discriminate in hiring. That sounded good to many: Who can support discrimination? To his disciples, though, the message was clear: Church-related programs will have to hire gays.
Obama acknowledged only that the requirement he proposed would be "sensitive . . . in very narrow circumstances." Narrow? A little bit of history helps here. On July 17, 2001, the House of Representatives was moving toward passage of a bill supporting the Bush faith-based initiative, but Rep. Mark Foley (who later left office after sending suggestive messages to congressional pages) proposed an amendment designed to end freedom of staffing for poverty-fighting religious groups receiving federal dollars. They would have had to hire gays, heterosexual adulterers, or others who practice what the Bible opposes.
Christian groups responded rapidly. The Family Research Council, for example, stated that "religious groups which hold certain moral beliefs—including that homosexuality is wrong—should not be forced to hire employees that don't believe that." Email alerts screamed, "CALL CONGRESS NOW." The House bill passed only after Speaker Denny Hastert said he would try later to work out a compromise. (See WORLD cover story, Aug. 7, 2001). "Later" never came, because the question of gay hiring killed the Senate bill.
Publications that are puffing Obama did not report that background. They left the impression that Obama supported a broad-based initiative. The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations asked Obama to reconsider, and the American Jewish Congress warned that his proposal put Jewish organizations at risk, but their pleas received little publicity.
A new group, the Coalition to Preserve Religious Freedom (a multi-faith alliance growing out of the Center for Public Justice), did the best job of explaining that "Obama would create an unprecedented new restriction: every faith-based organization that accepts federal funds would be stripped of its religious staffing freedom when it comes to hiring people to run the federally funded program. There has never been such a sweeping restriction in the past."
The Coalition said it was not "dragging sectarian or political considerations into a discussion that should be about human services and better addressing social needs. Senator Obama rightly calls for an 'all hands on deck' attack on poverty and social problems. For that to occur, the rules have to respect all those 'hands'—treat all those organizations with respect."
The logic is clear: Just as environmental groups do not ignore the environmental views of prospective employees, so "faith-based organizations need the same freedom to take account of convictions and mission when building their staff." But the gay lobby pumps iron, particularly in the Democratic Party.
Journalists should push Obama to drop the code and be forthright about his views concerning not only faith-based initiative groups but any organizations that receive federal benefits in any way. Should Christian colleges whose students make use of government loans be required to hire gay professors and presidents? Will churches lose their tax-exempt status if they do not submit?
Capitalism is the fairest and most ‘economically equitable’ of any system ever developed in history. It rewards those who work and ignores those who do not..............
The problem is that far too many people don't really understand the meaning of the words they use. My guess is that the best modern example of that is "racism/racist."
Mark
“...For instance, it’s discrimination that Megyn Kelly won’t marry me...”
Me too. We may have a class action suit, my FRiend!
As crazy as I am about her, I don't know that I'd EVER want to face that beautiful lady in court. I have no doubt that we'd have a fully accurate demonstration of "evisceration" of my by a lawyer. Wow, is she smart, and can she be sharp!
Mark
True enough - but I think most of us have learned long ago what is meant by “economic justice” - it’s just marxism dressed up in fancy clothes.
Code words for socialism!
“....As crazy as I am about her, I don’t know that I’d EVER want to face that beautiful lady in court. I have no doubt that we’d have a fully accurate demonstration of “evisceration” of my by a lawyer. Wow, is she smart, and can she be sharp!...”
Agreed. I would not want to have any argument with her. (I’d lose!)
Ever notice that conservative babes tend to be bright, cheerful, and gracious while lib females seem bitter, mean and petty?
She’s not the one who hosts American’s Election HQ (In John Gibson’s old time slot), is she?
Won't happen. All leftists, including journalists, understand that leftist ideology must remain hidden in order for those who want to implement it to gain the power to do so.
ooh ooh eee ahh ahh tin tang walla walla bin bang.
my friend the witch doctor - he taught me what to say.
my friend the witch doctor - he taught me what to do.
Me too. We may have a class action suit, my FRiend!
That's because she is having an affair with me and she doesn't need you two.
Holy carp, I did not know that about that fool. No wonder the RATs saw him on their gaydar and engineered the fall.
The logic is clear, all right. Take federal funds seized from productive taxpayers, and you have no right to whine about the strings attached.
We all mock nanny state, but there’s a Big Daddy in the picture too. He’s the one saying, “You’re eating at MY table, you will live by MY rules. Don’t like it? There’s the door.”
Obama says “um”, that’s code for “I need a fix”.
“Social Justice” has always been code foe socialism.
That was in a court decision years ago. So many conservatives in the Sixties were called nasty names for saying that "federal control follows federal money", but for all that, they were right, as usual.
Yer in a pretty poor state when yer being bribed with yer own money.
The siren song of the Communist Vanguard.
Keep your powder dry.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.