Bono's letter to President-elect Obama

[coemgen]

It can be found here: God's Politics: A Blog by Jim Wallis & Friends

Bono and Jim Wallis, founder of Sojourners, are good friends. Bono endorsed Jim's last two books, "God's Politics: How the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It," and "The Great Awakening: Reviving Faith and Politics in a Post Religious-Right America." Jim mentions Bono in both books, including some stuff I hadn't heard before. They're both great, great reads.

 

[Utoo]

Kind of an odd piece of writing, though I guess it seems more like a "Hey, we've talked about this stuff and you were for it--don't forget about it" sort of piece.


I'm concerned that all of the drive and progress toward aid, debt relief, etc. will fall by the wayside as long as the global economy continues to tank. I'm worried that people will look out only for their own pocketbooks and that providing aid, education, and infrastructure for others is a wonderful means for protecting one's own economic and national security.

 

[ramblin rose]

I wonder if Obama will listen to this person.

Message for Obama on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

 

[Varitek]

^

 

[JCOSTER]

Well said by Bono once again. Hope Obama's ears were open!

 

[last unicorn]

I wonder if Obama will listen to this person.

Message for Obama on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

I think it's rather hard to ignore Bono, especially if you're the president.

Nice try, though.

 

[anitram]

I think it's rather hard to ignore Bono, especially if you're the president.

I'd think it would be pretty easy, actually.

Sort of like how the Canadian PM told him to basically take a hike.

 

[indra]

I wonder if Obama will listen to this person.

Message for Obama on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

This is a bit off the subject, but the woman who uploaded that has taken some remarkable photos. Well worth browsing through her Flickr page.

 

[toscano]

Kind of an odd piece of writing, though I guess it seems more like a "Hey, we've talked about this stuff and you were for it--don't forget about it" sort of piece.


I'm concerned that all of the drive and progress toward aid, debt relief, etc. will fall by the wayside as long as the global economy continues to tank. I'm worried that people will look out only for their own pocketbooks and that providing aid, education, and infrastructure for others is a wonderful means for protecting one's own economic and national security.

Bono is probably the least of Obama's concerns right now, asking for money right now isn't likely to get a huge positive response with so many other pressing issues at hand.

 

[Jeannieco]

Ya, saving the US economy is issue 1 on his agenda because doing so saves the rest of the world. We are all connected.
I know that President Obama will do right by the rest of the world, as much as financial limitations allow, but there are so many issues here at home that need to be addressed first.
As a proud member of the ONE Campaign I would gladly tell Bono to take a number and get in line. In the most loving way possible ofcourse and I think Bono understands that. It's like an emergency on an airplane.....when you are a parent with small children, you must take care of yourself and your oxygen first otherwise, you can't help your children or anyone at all.
Makes sense to me. But, yes ofcourse President Obama ( love saying that) has the best interest of Africa and the world at heart. I know this to be true in my gut. His conscience and spirit are totally there, the money will follow.

 

[sue4u2]

Bono is probably the least of Obama's concerns right now, asking for money right now isn't likely to get a huge positive response with so many other pressing issues at hand.

Maybe so, but I've yet to underestimate Barack Obama, and I've yet to underestimate Bono's ability to keep reminding him what's at stake.

 

[toscano]

Maybe so, but I've yet to underestimate Barack Obama, and I've yet to underestimate Bono's ability to keep reminding him what's at stake.

I haven't seen Obama govern yet, I just hope he gives Bono the appropriate priority.....

 

[anitram]

I haven't seen Obama govern yet, I just hope he gives Bono the appropriate priority.....

I'm going to agree, probably not to popular support around here.

 

[last unicorn]

^ I also fear that it will be difficult for Bono in times like these, but I hope his issues won't be forgotten.

 

[Carek1230]

Bono's letter should have been addressed to "President-Elect Obama". The new Presidency does not *officially* begin until inauguration Jan 20th.

I read Jim Wallis' book "God's Politics: How the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn't Get It," and I would recommend it highly. An excellent read.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I take issue with progressive evangelism and the growing influence of the religious left, especially over the president elect, the injection of faith into public policy and the support for religious groups with taxpayers funds is wrong in principle, not because it is being done by conservatives or liberals.

I especially dislike Wallace's division between the Religious Right and the Secular Left, and attacking secularism with strawman arguments. Leftist secularists have done so much to protect the domain of government from unwarranted religious interference, it shouldn't be dumped to curry favour with faith based communities.

This nice quote from God's Politics sums it up quite nicely

"attack all political figures who dare to speak from their religious convictions. From the Anti-Defamation League, to Americans United for Separation of Church and State, to the ACLU and some of the political Left's most religion fearing publications, a cry of alarm has gone up in response to anyone who has the audacity to be religious in public. These secular skeptics often display amazing lapse of historical memory when they suggest that religious language in politics is contrary to the "American Ideal."

If this was coming from a Falwell or a mormon FYM would be unanimous in condemnation, but because it is a trendy leftist with Bono's celebrity stamp of approval this gets ignored at best or embraced.

Faith based erosion of secularism doesn't always come from religious conservatives, because these evangelicals have progressive rhetoric renders that agenda invisible to people who should know better. The posturing from both political sides to claim divine right for their message seems to always be set in opposition to "secularists".

There isn't an obligation to ignore Obama's religious connections, he has been elected, I would love to see more Americans look up after 8 years of religiously influenced compassionate conservatism and say that its time to get faith out of politics, and to have the courage to say it when its your man in the White House, progressive religion in government may be the lesser of two evils, but that doesn't make it good.

My apparently wrong secularist convictions are that the state has no role in promoting or persecuting religious faith, it shouldn't give public funds or allow policy to promote religious organisations and that as much space should be carved out for freedom of belief and freedom of expression. Reprehensible I know, but I think those are ideals worth promoting, they protect everybody.

 

[anitram]

This nice quote from God's Politics sums it up quite nicelyIf this was coming from a Falwell or a mormon FYM would be unanimous in condemnation, but because it is a trendy leftist with Bono's celebrity stamp of approval this gets ignored at best or embraced.

I have no huge love for Wallis.

I read his book and felt like he was passing me an edible dog pill. What I mean is this - when your dog is sick, you put a pill in the middle of a chunk of cheese or meat because he won't eat it otherwise. That's how I felt about his language and his focus in the book. There's still a pill inside that I don't care to swallow.

But then I also don't care what Bono thinks about pretty much anything and don't understand how so many adults can resort to this appeal to authority line of argument by invoking his name constantly.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Oh come now, I know you don't feel sick

 

[anitram]

In the words of Bill Maher "I'm not HUNGRY!"

 

[coemgen]

A_Wanderer, Wallis isn't against secularism. He often talks about how the Church doesn't have a monopoly on morality and has no problem working with people with no faith to get things done that benefit society. All he's talking about is those of us who have faith have every right to speak about it publicly, including in the political arena.

 

[coemgen]

But then I also don't care what Bono thinks about pretty much anything and don't understand how so many adults can resort to this appeal to authority line of argument by invoking his name constantly.

I'm not making an argument though, just sharing something. Many Christ followers, myself included, are excited about where the faith is going and how it's changing, and Wallis and Bono are at the forefront of that. Especially here in the U.S., the Religious Right is on its death bed and something new is emerging. That's fine if you don't agree with it, but it's still exciting to those of us who've been waiting for something different for some time now.

Also, this does happen to be a U2 fan site . . .

 

[coemgen]

Also, A_Wanderer — progressive Christianity doesn't really have a "growing" influence on Obama, he's been in the camp for sometime. Wallis and Obama have been good friends for 10 years, and Obama's faith is deep and genuine.

 

[anitram]

I'm not making an argument though, just sharing something. Many Christ followers, myself included, are excited about where the faith is going and how it's changing, and Wallis and Bono are at the forefront of that. Especially here in the U.S., the Religious Right is on its death bed and something new is emerging.

I wasn't at all talking about Bono in this context. I meant more that he only pretty much interests me for the music and his political and personal views are pretty irrelevant to me. You just see it a lot on FYM, out of the blue some statement about how Bono would or wouldn't agree with this or that as if it somehow matters.

 

[coemgen]

Gotcha. You're right, he's not an authority. I think people share where he may stand on an issue or whatever because it matters to them though, and, being a U2 site, it likely could matter to others to some degree. But of course, he's just another person like anyone else. It's OK to disagree with him.

 

[Vincent Vega]

Gotcha. You're right, he's not an authority. I think people share where he may stand on an issue or whatever because it matters to them though, and, being a U2 site, it likely could matter to others to some degree. But of course, he's just another person like anyone else. It's OK to disagree with him.

Blasphemist!

 

[A_Wanderer]

A_Wanderer, Wallis isn't against secularism. He often talks about how the Church doesn't have a monopoly on morality and has no problem working with people with no faith to get things done that benefit society. All he's talking about is those of us who have faith have every right to speak about it publicly, including in the political arena.

The political arena shouldn't be burdened with religiousity in policy decisions. It isn't a question of having your moral majority being willing to work with unbelievers, it is at the principle of governing on behalf of all citizens and not using public money for religious campaigns or charities. These agendas are justifiable on secular terms, it may not have the same base but it would be more honest.

Also, A_Wanderer — progressive Christianity doesn't really have a "growing" influence on Obama, he's been in the camp for sometime. Wallis and Obama have been good friends for 10 years, and Obama's faith is deep and genuine.

You say his faith is deep and genuine like it is inherently a good thing. He is keeping the faith-based programs that Bush introduced, programs which liberals on this site called wrong at the time, are they so bereft of principles that they become acceptable when Obama supports them? Obviously some, like anitram, oppose them, but it really seems like others are happy that a big pot of federal money will now be going to the right religious organisations

I'm not making an argument though, just sharing something. Many Christ followers, myself included, are excited about where the faith is going and how it's changing, and Wallis and Bono are at the forefront of that. Especially here in the U.S., the Religious Right is on its death bed and something new is emerging. That's fine if you don't agree with it, but it's still exciting to those of us who've been waiting for something different for some time now.

Also, this does happen to be a U2 fan site . . .

The social positions may be more liberal, but the religiously influenced politics of the left mirror those of the right. I have no issue with people publicly professing a religious belief, I have a very strong issue with policy being made on the basis of that religious belief (gay marriage bans, subsidies to churches, faith based initiatives, creationism in public schools etc.). If both sides of politics compromise their secular credentials for religious votes society is in a very dangerous place.

 

[anitram]

I'll be honest, I'm a pragmatist when it comes to faith based programs. It's undeniable that they do in fact save us a considerable amount of tax dollars. Religious institutions are capable of delivering SOME programs better - by that I mean more efficiently and more frugally. This is an obvious result of having a large number of volunteers deliver these services. It's simply not feasible to run a governmental department and staff it with unpaid people. So purely from a fiscal POV, I think that some of these programs do have their function and should not be removed.

However, I have a problem with a good majority of them, so the question is where to draw the line.

 

[A_Wanderer]

It don't think it will be surprising the groups that get money under the next administration or that funds will be used for the same practical politics, after all how many of Wallace's followers or the congregation of Trinity United vote Republican.

As far as the efficiency of the charities it seems irrelevant to questions of the state favoring certain religious groups with money. A clean cut with no support may not produce the best outcomes, but it guarantees protection against the worst.

 

[coemgen]

The political arena shouldn't be burdened with religiousity in policy decisions. It isn't a question of having your moral majority being willing to work with unbelievers, it is at the principle of governing on behalf of all citizens and not using public money for religious campaigns or charities. These agendas are justifiable on secular terms, it may not have the same base but it would be more honest.

I disagree with the suggestion that government should only work on behalf of the people based on the common denominators they share. Why not work on behalf of the people based on the differences they share and the things in which they find their identity? Plus, if it’s the people’s government and the majority of the people have a faith in God, why not work with that? I think that’s the beauty of Obama’s vision for politics — he wants to work with people and groups of people as they are, not take a common citizen approach.

You say his faith is deep and genuine like it is inherently a good thing. He is keeping the faith-based programs that Bush introduced, programs which liberals on this site called wrong at the time, are they so bereft of principles that they become acceptable when Obama supports them? Obviously some, like anitram, oppose them, but it really seems like others are happy that a big pot of federal money will now be going to the right religious organizations

Well, of course I do. It’s better than having a fraud up there. Aside from that, that wasn’t my point. My point was that his faith isn’t being influenced as much as it is influencing. Obama, Bono and Wallis are, in many ways to me at least, among the new faces of faith (even though their faces aren’t new). As Wallis says, “The monologue of the Religious Right is over. A new dialogue has begun.”

The social positions may be more liberal, but the religiously influenced politics of the left mirror those of the right. I have no issue with people publicly professing a religious belief, I have a very strong issue with policy being made on the basis of that religious belief (gay marriage bans, subsidies to churches, faith based initiatives, creationism in public schools etc.). If both sides of politics compromise their secular credentials for religious votes society is in a very dangerous place.

In terms of wanting to influence politics, yes, progressive Christians want to. Who doesn’t? We live in a Democracy, everyone wants a voice based on their identity. I would argue that progressive Christianity will go about things very differently and, in fact, already is. The election is a perfect case study of this. For instance, I think it’s fair to say the fear mongering and bullying from the Religious Right is over. As hard as it tried, these tactics couldn’t put McCain into the White House — even when up against a relatively young minority man with the middle name of Hussein.

As far as some of your concerns with Obama’s support of faith-based initiatives, you should read this interview with Relevant magazine. It even touches on the concern of proselytizing.

RELEVANT MAGAZINE :: Covering God, Life and Progressive Culture

 

[A_Wanderer]

Would a Church of Satan delivering social support in a very effective manner that met the guidelines get state support?

What about Mormons?

Or Muslims?

Or Neo-Pagans?

Or Scientologists?

Or Westboro Baptist Church?

Do you see the dilemma, that for all your evangelical vigor the very act of giving public money to religious groups will create a situation where some religions are given money more readily. That those different levels of support are effectively the state respecting an establishment of religion. That becomes unconstitutional.

Public money should not be channeled to religious groups, keeping the system secular is the only way to prevent religious discrimination by the state.

You are arguing for a soft-theocracy in a fashion no different than the most hardline conservative millennialist. They will often champion the injection of religion into government with democratic arguments, that the will of the majority supports their position, entirely forgetting the protections on liberty guaranteed by the constitution. By making the same types of arguments and seeking to establish a system where religion in America gets public subsidies you are setting the stage for greater abuses. Holding true to the principles of the constitution and keeping America secular is the only way to protect religious pluralism and a government representative of all the population (or at least those that own major corporations).

My arguments are more consistent than yours, my principles don't change with an election and I think that Mormons deserve just as much respect as other Christians.