Posted on 07/01/2009 8:59:38 PM PDT by presidio9
The conventional wisdom was that George W. Bush was the most faith-based president in recent history, by a long shot. Citing Jesus as his favorite philosopher and Billy Graham as a mentor, Bush won evangelical voters in numbers not previously seen. In office, he launched a controversial office of faith-based initiatives and consulted religious leaders in developing science policy. Bush routinely opened cabinet meetings with prayer and acknowledged conferring with "a higher father" before going to war in Iraq.
How remarkable, then, that religion might be playing an even bigger role in Barack Obama's administration. While Bush invited megapastor Rick Warren to low-key White House functions, Obama had him deliver the invocation at his internationally televised inauguration. Bush encouraged White House prayer groups, but Obama begins public rallies with the recitation of a White House-commissioned prayer. Obama has quickly expanded Bush's faith-based initiatives to include an advisory council of religious leaders weighing in on matters as diverse as abortion and Middle East peace. "This administration has used faith more overtly than any other in its first hundred days," says Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "That includes Bush." But rather than appeal mostly to evangelicals as Bush did, Obama is reaching out to a broad spectrum of believers and nonbelievers.
Early decisions. He is carving out a bold new role for faith in the White House, which aides say aims to dial down the decades-old culture wars. The project may wind up drawing more religious voters into the Democratic fold. But it also threatens to alienate the Democratic base, which polls show is much less religious than the GOP's. Given the important role that religion and church-based organizing have played in Obama's own biography, though,
(Excerpt) Read more at usnews.com ...
I avoided the Tiller threads, because they seemed pointless. Personally, I’m glad the man is dead, but I wouldn’t support someone killing him.
Lincoln was a racist by today’s standards...almost everyone was then, even abolitionists.
The appropriate question is "Was Lincoln a racist by the standards of the time he lived in?" The answer is obviously no.
the left’s insistence that they are morally more righteous on racial, ethnic and religious issues than all peoples who came before them is their worst arrogance
Of course they are selective in their examples. Socrates is often held up as a pinnacle of moral virtue. Wonder if slavery was a big deal to him?
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.