Karl Rove says did not ask for gay marriage fight
Karl Rove, the political operative widely credited with the electoral successes of former U.S. President George W. Bush, says in his new book that he did not choose gay marriage as a wedge issue but that circumstances thrust it his way.
Conventional wisdom, at least in some circles, has it that Rove masterminded gay marriage as an issue in the 2004 White House race in a bid to get conservative evangelicals — a key base for the Republican Party, especially during the Bush years – to the polls. There were ballot initiatives in about a dozen states that year to ban gay marriage (or, supporters of such measures would argue, to defend traditional marriage). Many political commentators have said such tactics are in keeping with the “Rovian” strategy of ginning up the base to clinch narrow victories.
Rove, in “Courage and Consequence: My Life as a Conservative in the Fight,” says the ballot initiatives made little difference to the outcome that year and that they were not his idea anyway.
“Gay marriage was an ugly fight we had not asked for but could win if we handled with care. Done right, our response to gay marriage could show it was possible to bring a courteous and caring tone to a divisive issue. The issue also revealed the nuttiness of the Left, which never saw how persistent America’s traditionalism really was. Instead, the Left seemed convinced that Bush and I engineered the issue’s emergence to drive Bush partisans to the polls. But, of course, it was a liberal supreme court that brought the issue to the fore,” he writes.
He was referring to a November 2003, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision that legalized gay marriage in that state. Rove said that development sparked the ballot initiatives and he maintains their impact in the election battle against Democrat John Kerry has been greatly exaggerated. What did matter in his view was that state court decision.
“In the end, whether a state had a marriage ballot measure didn’t affect Bush’s share of the vote: he increased his portion of the vote between 2000 and 2004 by an average of 2.7 points in the states without referenda and by an average of 2.5 points in the eleven states with defense-of-marriage initiatives on the November ballot, a statistically insignificant difference … But the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision did affect the 2004 election by motivating culturally conservative Democrats and independents who might otherwise have voted Democratic to abandon Kerry over his wobbly views on marriage.”
ACLU report details effects of terrorism finance laws on U.S. Muslims
A new report by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) details the effects it says that terror finance laws have had on American Muslims and America’s relations with the Islamic world. You can see the report, “Blocking Faith, Freezing Charity”, here.
The report says U.S. terrorism finance laws — greatly expanded after the Sept 11 attacks by the administration of former President George W. Bush — have led to the direct closure of seven U.S.-based Muslim charities. The charities were shut after they were designated as “terrorist organizations” or under investigation. Two others have been forced to close in the aftermath of the negative publicity generated by raids on their premises.
Among other things, the report says, this curtails the abilities of Muslims to give to the needy, which is one of the pillars of their faith.
“Despite the often weak nature of the evidence, when it designated Muslim charities, indicted them criminally, or raided them, the Bush administration publicly trumpeted its actions as successes and made inflammatory and unfounded or exaggerated allegations about the charitable sector’s connections to terrorism financing. The effect of these government actions is to create a general climate in which law-abiding American Muslims fear making charitable donations in accordance with their religious beliefs,” the report says.
“The government’s actions have chilled American Muslims’ free and full exercise of their religion through charitable giving, or Zakat. Zakat is one of the core “five pillars” of Islam and a religious obligation for all observant Muslims,” it says.
“Many American Muslims reported that the climate of fear has made it impossible for them to fulfill their religious obligation to give Zakat in accordance with their faith and to associate with fellow Muslims. The United States has long been regarded as a beacon of religious freedom, and yet U.S. terrorism financing laws and policies developed under the Bush administration are inhibiting American Muslims’ ability to freely and fully practice their religion.”
Americans mark National Day of Prayer
Americans who are so inclined are marking their National Day of Prayer on Thursday — and, as with any event that evokes church and state in this country, it is not without controvesy.
President Barack Obama, who is a practicing Christian, signed a proclamation to declare the National Day of Prayer on Thursday, but unlike his predecessor George W. Bush did not hold an official service at the White House.
This has predicatably angered and disappointed some of the country’s leading conservative Christians.
“While there is a long history of Presidents praying and calling the nation to prayer (dating all the way back to George Washington), a de-emphasis on prayer in this administration should not come as a surprise. What can we expect of an administration whose policies cheapen human life, increase dependence upon government and threaten religious freedoms?” said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, an influential conservative advocacy group with strong evangelical ties.
Under Bush the White House event — held on the first Thursday of May — was seen among other things as a way to shore up the Republican Party’s conservative Christian base, whose ranks included some of his most ardent supporters.
Obama opted for private prayer but by European standards his proclamation would hardly be viewed as lurch to secularism.
My friends and fellow Americans,
Our great country was estabished by prayer and our “fore fathers” never entered a single day, without “Much Prayer”. When prayer becomes a “Religon” then it is time for the “Judgement of God to fall.”
The seperation of Church and State was enacted to deny the “Religous” from messing up our Government and likewise to keep Government out of the Church. Please use the Bible (Basic Instrution Before Leaving Earth). We do not pray to be religous but to build a relationship.
Obama work week one: pleases some religious activists, angers others
U.S. President Barack Obama has pleased some religiously motivated activists in his first week in office and angered others, setting the stage for “culture war battles” to come.
Obama courted voters of faith during his election and several groups were pleased by his decision on Thursday to close Guantanamo prison and bar harsh interrogation techniques of terrorism suspects that critics said amounted to torture.
“The religious community has labored faithfully for three years to end U.S.-sponsored torture. We are grateful today for this important step,” said Linda Gustitus, president of the National Religious Campaign Against Torture.
Some of the most active critics of the detention policies of former president George W. Bush were drawn from the faith community and included centrist evangelicals, Catholics and Jewish groups.
But Friday’s move by Obama to lift restrictions on U.S. government funding for groups that provide abortion services or counseling abroad, reversing a key social policy of his Republican predecessor, has roiled religious conservatives. You can see our report here.
It is probably true that few of these conservatives voted for Obama in the first place and that the move was critical to maintain the support of a key Democratic Party base.
from Tales from the Trail:
Rhyming reverend gets last word at Obama inaugural
WASHINGTON - Rev. Joseph Lowery was back on stage with a president, but on Tuesday the civil-rights pioneer used his wry rhymes to welcome the U.S. leader, not skewer him as he did three years ago.
Lowery, who co-founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference with Martin Luther King Jr., delivered the benediction at Barack Obama's inauguration as first black U.S. president.
Lowery prayed for healing from a era of "greed and corruption," and asked, in verse, for divine help toward a new beginning of racial harmony:
"We ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right," Lowery said to laughter from the vast audience.
In 2006, speaking before then-president George W. Bush and three former presidents at the funeral of King's widow, Coretta Scott King, Lowery delivered a stern rebuke to Bush's conduct of the Iraq war and domestic policy.
"We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction over there. But Coretta knew, and we know, that there are weapons of misdirection right down here. Millions without health insurance. Poverty abounds. For war billions more, but no more for the poor," he said then.
Critics charged that the remarks were out of place at a funeral. Lowery defended them as relevant to Mrs. King's life.
Although disappointed, I was encouraged to see President Obama’s smile diminish at the reading of the “white” comment. And I’m what you’d probably refer to as a “southern white redneck”.
from Global News Journal:
Saudi king basks in praise at UN interfaith forum
The price of oil may have dropped by more than half in recent weeks but the Saudi petrodollar appears to have lost none of its allure, judging by the procession of very important visitors to the New York Palace Hotel this week and to the U.N. General Assembly. With President George W. Bush in the lead, they have all come to present their compliments to King Abdullah, the Saudi ruler, who has turned the Manhattan hotel and the world body into an extension of his court, complete, it would seem, with a Majlis to receive petitioners.
Naturally, all the VIPs visiting him are eager to congratulate his majesty on his interfaith initiative, a gathering of religious and political leaders which took place this week under the auspices of the United Nations. The meeting has attracted extravagant praise from, among others, Tony Blair, the former British Prime Minister, and Shimon Peres, the veteran Israeli president.
It is a fact that the king's initiative is unprecedented and bold, taking place despite the displeasure of many influential religious clerics at home. It is also a fact that he is the first Saudi leader to have travelled to the Vatican, opening dialogue between the two largest religions.
But some commentators have pointed out the oddity that the king, who at home shares power with clerics of the puritanical Wahhabi Islam -- which forbids any expression of other religious belief inside the kingdom, even of less austere forms of Muslim belief -- should be so keen on interfaith dialogue abroad. Even Mr Blair admits coyly, in a newspaper article to coincide with the conference, that the king is also "the leader of a nation that critics say has been slow to modernise, with fraught consequences for the rest of the world".
Critics also point out that the 15 Saudi hijackers who were among the 19 young Arab men who carried out the Sept 11, 2001 attacks against the Twin Towers and the Pentagon in the United States were partly influenced by the Wahhabi ideology.
But amid the financial turmoil sweeping international markets, the galaxy of world leaders chose to set aside their misgivings about Saudi Arabia's domestic policies and freedom record. In their sight, they had one goal:
It’s great these interfaith dialogues are going ahead. But I suspect that in more than a few cases the real reason for participating is to promote more hidden agendas. The words of President Asif Ali Zardari are concerning. What would constitute hate speech and religious discrimination? Could this be a case of offensive defense? There seems a trend to pitch some faiths as all loving and peaceful and others as full of hatred and bigotry, or at least any adherents that add an objective criticism about another. Hopefully I’m wrong!
But it appears true that truth is no longer considered, only the form of promotion that accompanies it.
-
Resident FaithWorld Expert
-
Gay marriage was barely thrust upon him. Karl Rove’s a political pornographer in denial who never met a hot-button issue he didn’t embrace, fondle, milk for all it was worth, and then some.
Compelled to read his book? Please wash your hands, you can’t be sure he did.