If you’re like me, you weren’t too excited when candidate Obama announced his plans to continue the Bush-era “White House Office of Faith-Based Initiatives.” After all, it’s hard to get too jazzed about needlessly blurring the line between church and state, and frankly disappointing to watch a Democratic President bless what was, at the time, a sweeping overreach of the executive’s power to legislate. Repeat after me: in domestic affairs, executive orders aren’t a substitute for congressional debate & approval.
Thankfully, like many of Obama’s rightward moves, this one is proving more complex, interesting, and favorable than first expected: Obama’s Christian appointee to the faith-based “advisory council” is none other than Harry Knox, the progressive gay-rights activist who prominently criticized Obama for inviting anti-gay right-winger Rick Warren to speak at inauguration. Judging by the degree to which right-wing sites are flipping out, Knox is a good pick. Aside from being politically left of center, Knox actively questions the authenticity and moral authority of Pauline notions of “the family” – one guy, one gal, no exceptions – bringing a modern, realistic outlook on faith to the table.
This is overdue. Surely “the word of the Lord endureth forever,” but in what manner it endures, and through which documents, remains a judgment of fallible, historical Man. If Obama can use the right’s own institutions to push Americans on the question of religion and its role in public policymaking, more power to him. For the sake of this poetic justice alone, Obama’s decision to preserve WHOFBI is well taken.
If Obama can use the right’s own institutions to push Americans on the question of religion and its role in public policymaking, more power to him. For the sake of this poetic justice alone, Obama’s decision to preserve WHOFBI is well taken.
So I’m going to try and understand the liberal logic here: You applaud the appontment of Knox because you think he is going to force Americans to think about the question of ‘religion and it’s role in public policy-making’? Rather than help administer a governmental office that is meant to funnel money into non-secular charities and provide oversight, the liberal preference is that Obama install a trojan horse that will force a conversation on religion? Talk about overreaching analysis.
Here’s another theory: Obama has seen how important churches are in some communities, especially the poor black communities like those he worked in back in Chicago. He honestly believes that the government can spend money well by giving it to these groups, provided they aren’t using it to try and win converts. He appointed Knox because he thinks he will help with that goal. Is that just too boring an idea for the Left?
What appears to me is that the only way the Left can stomach the notion of Obama continuing the WHOFBI is if they think he is secretly trying to use it to further a liberal agenda towards religion. Kind of disappointing really.
Posted by Mike at The Big Stick | April 9, 2009, 8:52 amNah, I do prefer your perspective, Mike. Obama thinks churches are valuable parts of communities, and simply he decided to head the program with a liberal instead of an evangelical. Makes sense to me.
I don’t know exactly how the WHOFBI program differs from what we had before (I don’t think religious institutions couldn’t receive any money to do secular work, but I could be wrong), but even I don’t think the fundamental idea behind the WHOFBI is fundamentally flawed. Like you said, “provided they aren’t using it to try and win converts,” then I’m happy. I just haven’t been sure that isn’t happening.
Posted by Kris | April 9, 2009, 10:05 amThe whole reason that the WHOFBI was established was to provide oversight. I think that there were a lot of missteps under Bush and Obama is sincere about wanting to fix them. If as a conservative I am willing to accept Obama’s motivations as well-intentioned, it boggles my mind that anyone on the Left would actually want to believe Knox’s appointment was a Machivelian ploy.
Posted by Mike at The Big Stick | April 9, 2009, 10:36 amExactly Mike. Conspiracy theories can go both ways; let’s try not to imagine too much beyond the facts. Also: Occam’s Razor.
Posted by Kris | April 9, 2009, 11:29 amMy intent was not to impure some Machiavellian intent to Obama. Rather, the idea is that while the organization continues to function as is, its putative leadership signals that homophobic evangelism is not the only American Christian voice. That’s a valuable message to send to the public: bigots are by no means the plurality of theists in America, and they’ve had the government’s megaphone and pulpit for far too long.
Posted by ACG | April 9, 2009, 12:05 pmYes Ames, but a majority of Americans, not just ‘homophobic evangelicals’ come from faith traditions that condemn homosexuality as sinful. At the end of the day, Knox still only represents a minority viewpoint and I really don’t see the WHOFBI as a large enough stage to change that fact.
And you should also know that the mere existence of counter-views is rarely a strong enough force to change things within a denomination. Theology is stubborn that way. If counter-opinions and social pressures made that much of an impact then Catholic priests could marry and Baptists could drink at weddings.
Posted by Mike at The Big Stick | April 9, 2009, 1:19 pm