Yesterday Barack Obama gave a speech that has been widely talked and thought about. This ought to be another turning-point in his campaign, as he has now transcended the political system he is entering. For a well-written opinion see the NY Times. If you have not read or seen the speech yet, it is imperative you do so (barackobama.com).

And among those writing about this was the Family Research Council, a conservative Evangelical Christian political group founded by James Dobson. They have concerned themselves with the general issues that much of the Religious Right likes so much - ending abortion, abstinence-only sex education, Intelligent Design, et cetera.

However, they seem to have focused themselves on a narrow view of both politics in religion. Among other things, they have likened Al Gore to Chicken Little: “The sky is warming!“, calling him “a prophet of doom”, and stating “the proposed cure is more intrusive government”.

It is in this vein that they responded to Obama’s speech:

“Barack Obama just gave an eloquent speech, but one that does not address the underlying nature of Senator Obama’s beliefs. Rev. Jeremiah Wright, like Mr. Obama, believes in a state-centered 21st century form of big-government socialism. This 21st century form of socialism is at the heart of the Liberation Theology Rev. Wright preaches from the pulpit. Today, Mr. Obama again made it clear, with all his eloquence, that he still embraces these beliefs that would require dismantling the free-market system that has made our country’s economy the most prosperous in all of human history.”

Firstly, the social issues Obama spoke about were education, healthcare, and job outsourcing; he said nothing about dismantling “the free-market system”. Secondly, why should a religious lobby group take such an issue to “big-government socialism”, and value so highly economic prosperity?

“In contrast to Liberation Theology, the Christian orthodoxy teaches about the nature of God, the nature of man, the relationship between the two in this life, and about the hereafter. Liberation Theology, on the other hand, is a belief system about political agendas, socialistic economic policy, and redistribution of wealth. Proponents of Liberation Theology, like Rev. Wright, teach that God commands us to form a government that will supervise our economy to create government-subsidized jobs under central-government planning; guarantee healthcare and education by having government control both; and achieve “economic equality” by redistributing wealth through massive taxes on the affluent and massive government entitlements for the poor. And it advocates replacing governments that do not embrace this socialistic agenda.”

This is more than a bit hypocritical. If the “Christian orthodoxy” has nothing to do with “political agendas, economic policy, and redistribution of wealth”, why did they just argue an anti-socialism, pro-free-market agenda, economic policy, and distribution of wealth in the previous paragraph? Also, it can be noticed that nowhere does the FRC say that Obama is a “proponent of Liberation Theology”, just Rev. Wright. This is the very behaviour Obama spoke out against in his speech:

“We can play Reverend Wright’s sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words.”

Did the FRC even read the speech?

“Those are the beliefs of Liberation Theology. Those are the offensive root beliefs underlying many of Rev. Wright’s sermons. And though Barack Obama does not embrace Mr. Wright’s offensive language, he does embrace this government-solves-everything-through-socialism worldview.

His speech was magnificent in its elegance and rhetoric, but today Mr. Obama reminded me yet again of his worldview that embraces, among other things, partial-birth abortion, military weakness, and economic socialism.” –Ken Blackwell

The progression (Liberation Theology > Offensive Rev. Wright > Obama > socialism > abortion, “military weakness”, “economic socialism”) is logically troubling at just about every step. While I may agree that abortion is immoral, and that Obama’s foreign policy may not be strong enough, I cannot see how this has anything to do with yesterday’s speech.

I appreciate dialogue from all sides, but if any group decides to issue material like this, I cannot take them seriously. Although I support Obama and think socialism is closer to ideal economic policy than the current consumeristic capitalism, I have no qualm respecting more conservative views. However, when a group goes out of its way to issue inflammatory material, contradicting themselves on which views are important, and taking offense in principle to different ideas without considering what their merits might be, I cannot help but see their views as irrelevant.

And I think many others feel the same way. Conservative causes can be presented in a well-reasoned, neatly-considered manner. Perhaps this is done by some people, and I would like to listen to them. But some higher-profile groups and people, have presented propaganda-like material like this. And it is because of things like this that Christianity is having an image problem [time.com].