Special Report
Obama and FDR: Rallying the Churches
Liberal Christians have a long history of supporting New Deals during economic crisis.
(Page 2 of 2)
The FCC was thankfully not sympathetic to Hitler, despite the foolishness from Nuelsen. But neither was the FCC prepared to surrender its post-World War I pacifism. “Unless the churches put an end to war they might as well close their doors,” one FCC official disclaimed. “For war is the enemy of every human interest and especially the enemy of the moral and spiritual welfare of mankind.”
FDR had supported the recent repeal of Prohibition, and the FCC declined specifically to criticize him for it. But one delegate did grouse that FDR’s stance had contributed to a “moral sag” in the nation. Commerce Secretary Henry Wallace, a Methodist, told the FCC that he was “appalled” by the “great amount of social drinking in Washington among extraordinarily decent people,” which he had never seen before.
Today’s National Council of Churches, as the FCC’s successor, is not likely to chide the Obama Administration for any social drinking. But the church council, and other liberal religionists, will certainly give enthusiastic support, until the new President fails to live up to exalted expectations.
About the Author
Mark Tooley is president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy in Washington, D.C. and author of Methodism and Politics in the Twentieth Century. You can follow him on Twitter @markdtooley.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (41) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Mark Tooley
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/02/20/obama-and-fdr-rallying-the-chu
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Pingback| 2.20.09 @ 7:36AM
Topics about Christian life and Bible readings » Archive » Obama and FDR: Rallying th links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 2.20.09 @ 8:02AM
President Obama » Obama and FDR: Rallying the Churches links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Ryan| 2.20.09 @ 8:45AM
Faulty principles from a faulty core theology. The left-leaning churches, while some of their actions may lean with good intentions, still start out with a bad premise: that I am a victim of sin rather than a perpetrator of it.
Their churches are dwindling because they've somehow forgotten the basic Gospel message (which, sadly, is creeping into some more right-leaning megachurches) - that Christ came to save lost sinners, to bring them back into a right relationship with a Holy Father who cannot - and does not - tolerate sin.
Doctor Right| 2.20.09 @ 10:02AM
Unfortunately, many who identify themselves as as Christians, even as "devout" Christians, are completely ignorant of both history and politics. For this reason, the Leftist "pseudo-churches" are very successful in manipulating their emotions.
As an example, there are many members of my own Church who voted for Obama BECAUSE they thought his policies were socialist, and they falsely believe that Christianity IS socialist by nature.
I've tried telling them that Socialism is the antithesis of Christianity; that Socialism ultimately spreads misery, not joy; that the most glaring examples of socilaism (Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Communist China, Cambodia) were expressly atheist, and openly HOSTILE to religion...
...But they don't hear me. All they hear is "Hope and Change...Hope and Change..Hope and Change..."
It's pathetic how easily emotions over-ride reason.
Appleby| 2.20.09 @ 11:18AM
"The churches, while they remain wholly free from even the suggestion of interference in Government, can at the same time teach their millions of followers that they have the right to demand of the Government of their own choosing, the maintenance and furtherance of a 'more abundant life.'
There is the terrifying socialist whine embodied in the Leftist churches and in the putative souls of the Generation Whiners, in all its glory. Boiled down to its essence it cries YOU OWE ME! to the world and the world beyond.
These crybabies are already hearing the rumbling of the chariot wheels from the State, which has issued way more cheques than it can cash ... and sooner than they think, they will hear the same thing from the Church. The real Church, that is. Actions DO have consequences, and we DO NOT owe you a thing.
MX336| 2.20.09 @ 11:41AM
What do all these "Liberal Christians" believe ? Like Nancy Pelosi kissing the Pope's glove and figuring she's headed for the Holy Land, Leaving in her wake millions of abortions and shattered lives. "Liberal Christian" is a contradiction in terms.
Michigan-Matt| 2.20.09 @ 12:57PM
Not to be contrarian, but I think if Jesus were on Earth today, he'd likely be a very liberal Christian who would preach as often against assisted suicide and the death penalty as He would against abortion. He'd call you all to work to relieve the plight of the poor, the imprisoned, the downtrodden and the marginalized in society --and let Ceasar worry about what is Ceasar's.
And I think the very first "tables" he'd overturn are in the soc-con MegaChurches where the "money lenders" have now taken center stage to preach a new gospel of self-promotion, egoism and the goodness of greed.
Jesus would probably be less worried about NancyPelosi kissing the Pope's ring than in the concentration of wealth in Rome for the luxury of the Primate and his red-hatted pals. And my hunch is Jesus would gladly bypass those allegedly holymen to reach out to the victims of sexual abuse by Church leaders.
I've always thought it ironic that some of the most egregious conservative Christians are the ones who have left far behind the message of Jesus' gospels and teachings in the quest for validating their own selfishly centered version of Christianity. And they're usually the ones sporting WWJD bracelets like a talisman against bad investment moves or using their "religious-osity" as a badge for promotion and public display of their moral superiority.
I may not like it politically, but I think the liberal Western Christian churches are far closer to God's and Jesus' and Mohammed's vision for leading a just life than all the soc-con Bible-thumping pastors and priestly syncophants of our current age... especially the ones using TV to amass personal fortunes and power "in the name of God, Almighty".
Liberal church leaders will naturally associate with liberal political leaders. It isn't an indictment; it ought to be a reminder that conservatives have a long way to go before they can answer the question "WWJD".
J Jo| 2.20.09 @ 1:57PM
As a Christian, it is MY responsibility to care for the poor and to help my neighbor or a person in need. It is NOT the government's responsibility. I deeply resent the govt telling me who and who not to help.
Notice that Jesus told the tax collectors they were stealing.
Ryan| 2.20.09 @ 4:44PM
MI-Matt, you're only partly right.
Christ - nor any of the apostles - ever (in writing, implicitly or explicitly) denied the right of the state to enact the death penalty as punishment for violating its laws - even upon themselves.
That being said, you're partly right about the megachurch movement, which has been aptly described as promoting "personal therapeutic deism" over the true Gospel.
I don't think Christ would be found in the liberal churches, however, because they more or less deny the existence of sin and man's responsibility for it.
It's the smaller communities that express the need for the Gospel and follow through with the works that prove their faith...as well as those places where "sinners" frequent, because that's exactly what He did.
Tom Black| 2.20.09 @ 6:23PM
Dr. Right, I couldn't agree with you more. Liberals generally allow emotion and feelings to trump rational thought, history, and logic.
One of the more annoying statements I've heard liberals state in recent years, something they use to assert their supposed superiority (a friend of mine tried to influence me with this) is the inane statement that "Jesus was a liberal."
Well, I'm not going to comment on the absurdity of assigning an ideological preference to the deity. But I will say this: One could conclude that Jesus was either a liberal OR a conservative by being a "grocery store" or "cafeteria" Christian — i.e., picking and choosing what you like and disregarding the rest.
Jesus said even if a man has lustful thoughts about a woman in his mind, he's committed adultery in his heart. (Not a standard most heterosexual men — liberal OR conservative — can live up to!). Jesus overturned the tables of the money changers in the temple because he was outraged at their disrespect toward the house of worship. He also talked about turning the other cheek if an enemy slaps you on the face. These are not standards many people of any political persuasion can live up to.
Granted, liberals could probably make a convincing case that Jesus would reject conservative "values." So the debate goes on.
We can disagree on ideologies. history, politics, fiscal and foreign policies. I can deal with that. But one thing I cannot and will not tolerate, is when someone who voted differently than me tries to look down his nose with a smug, superior attitiude, as if he's enlightened and I am a part of the great unwashed.
It's the attitudes (too often based on ignorance of history and ecomomics) that tick me off these days.
That's why I don't spend as much time as I used to reading and responding to political blogs. Life is too short to get worked up about politics and walk around angry all of the time.
But frankly, American Spectator just has too much compelling material for me to ignore it! This article included.
CKA in Red State USA| 2.20.09 @ 9:29PM
The National Council on Churches, a misnomer if ere one existed, won't criticize Obama for anything. If they can turn their hearts from the Christ's Gospel and remain passive as the Abortionist-in-Chief goes his merry, blood-stained-hands way, what will they criticize?
Of course: Social injustices, not being green enough, or not being sufficiently dysfunctional.
Alan Brooks| 2.21.09 @ 11:45PM
dont you want to join the church of the Get-Down-To-It, Let It All Hang Out Groove-Thang?
topless Go Go dancers on sunday morning at 9:30 AM
be there or be square
Jeremiah| 2.22.09 @ 8:44PM
Interesting to read so-called Christians presuming to say who is and who is not a "true Christian."
You all ought to read a little Kierkegaard, then go for a long walk. Do something, anything, other than listen to the nonsense they're evidently preaching to you in your churches.
Now, it's true Jesus never spoke on the issue of capital punishment. He never spoke on capital gains, either, or how old you should have to be before you're allowed a driver's license.
Fact is, some of these things we have to work out for ourselves, and I'm not soon going to vote in the Stone the Hooker Law just because they did it in the Bible.
The closest thing we get in the Gospel to anything touching the death penalty, other than Jesus himself being executed by the state, is -- to the best of my recollection -- Jesus preventing an execution of a woman caught in sin.
Let's agree that maybe the Bible is not the best place to derive civil law from, though. Or else what do we do with the person who fails to pluck out his eye though it offend him?
Jeremiah| 2.22.09 @ 9:00PM
Doctor Right,
You need a refresher in basic political science. Let me help you out.
Generally, socialism is not considered to be the same as totalitarian communism.
The Soviet Union, China, N. Korea, Cuba, and the awful communist government in Cambodia during the 1970s called themselves "socialist" as a means of covering up what they really are and were: repressive, militaristic communist dictatorships.
Sweden, Denmark, and for many decades England and France had basically socialist governments that were nothing like those regimes mentioned above.
As for Nazi Germany, they also called themselves "socialist," but they were in name only. They were a fascist government, which is structurally entirely different from either communism or socialism, primarily because fascist governments use corporate capitalism as a means of driving there militaristic adventures (sound at all familiar?).
Socialist governments are liberal, like ours (where "liberal" does NOT mean what you take it to mean, but rather simply means "rights based").
In essence, the fascist regime is on the opposite end of the political spectrum from the communist: in the fascist regime, all rights (so the theory goes) are assumed by one man who represents the polity. The communist regime doesn't acknowledge "rights" per se but (so the theory goes) locates the legitimate use of power in the collective.
Thus, a pretty good idea of the spectrum of political systems looks something like this (moving from left to right):
Com. -- Soc. -- Liberal -- Progressive -- Reaction -- Fasc.
Alan Brooks| 2.22.09 @ 9:19PM
"reactionary" is just a put-down for conservative, you pedantic twit.
how i wish to God you would leave AS, you and that tw*t (we cant use the 'c' word) Daphne are cluttering up AS.
Nick| 2.22.09 @ 10:54PM
Jeremiah,
Can't you do any better than to regurgitate the lame socialist agitprop you were spoon fed by stinking liberal professors? You are as simplistic as you are obtuse.
Fascism/National Socialism and Communism/World Socialism are two sides of the same coin, dolt. Commies claimed they wanted the workers of the world to unite. In reality Lenin, once he obtained control, decided you had to get his imprimatur to be a true socialist. You had to take your orders from Moscow.
Try learning something about Mussolini, the guy who coined the term "fascist". His father raised him on Marx and Engels. He left the communists because they weren't radical enough for him. He also didn't want to take orders from Moscow. Hitler didn't either.
All you socialists have one thing in common, you covet power above all else.
So the real political spectrum goes like this:
Fasc./Comm.--Left--Liberal--C. Left/Libertarian/C.Right--Cons.
I'm wasting my time trying to educate a bleeding heart like yourself, I'm sure.
Did you ever read the study by the 2 UCLA economists who showed FDR prolonged the depression? Or were you lying when you said you read any "reputable" source that had such proof?
Nick| 2.22.09 @ 10:58PM
That should be: "Or were you lying when you said you WOULD read..."
Alan Brooks| 2.22.09 @ 11:07PM
calling a conservative 'reactionary' just means you don't like him.
'fascist' doesn't really mean much either. Mussolini, Antonescu and Horthy were nuns compared to Stalin. Franco was one of the most decent dictators who ever lived.
Nick| 2.23.09 @ 12:33AM
Jeremiah,
I thought your ignorance of history and politics were your biggest flaws. But that was before I read your vacuous opinions on the law and Christianity.
Christ was the Word made flesh. The Word of God, spoken to Moses in Exodus and Leviticus, prescribes the offences which merit death in the ancient world. The Church has always taught the state has the right to protect itself by putting criminals to death.
Just where do you think English common law came from, brainiac? From concepts based on Christian natural law, exemplified by Saint Thomas Aquinas.
If not for Christ and His Church, you would have no conception of "rights" or "justice" or "liberty". It was Christianity that took the false and corrupt notions the Greeks and Romans had of these virtues and perfected them. Liberals have spent the last 2 centuries trying to corrupt them again.
We're not going to let you get away with it.
Jeremiah| 2.23.09 @ 3:27AM
Nick -
You are an odd man. Nothing wrong with that.
The principles of political science I outlined above are simple terminology. They're not theories up for dispute. You don't have to like the terms. But saying that Nazis and communists are the same thing is pointless: why have the terms at all?
There is no political system called "conservative." Conservative describes a broad array of cultural tendencies, but not a political or economic system.
Let me sketch it out differently. The spectrum might look like this with examples:
Communist --
China, N Korea
Socialist
Sweden
Progressive
France, England, Germany
Liberal
United States
Reactionary
Brazil, El Salvador
Fascist
Nazi Germany
Jeremiah| 2.23.09 @ 3:36AM
Of course there are all kinds of hybrids and amalgams; even the countries I've named here aren't all perfectly one thing or the other.
Liberal broadly construed includes any society the recognizes human rights as the basis of law (thus the word "liberal", from the Lat. for free). On the spectrum above that would include "liberal," progressive, socialist, and probably many reactionary regimes.
Nick| 2.23.09 @ 5:37AM
Jeremiah,
"They're not theories up for dispute" by you and your comrades who wear Che t-shirts and read the Daily Worker.
I didn't write fascists and communists were the same thing. Can't you read. I said they both occupy the same point on the political spectrum- the totalitarian left.
Conservative is as much a political "system" as "reactionary" is. Again, try reading about political history before the 1960's, useful idiot.
I'll assume you are too much of a coward to read the FDR article. Here it is one more time:
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/6550
Even someone like you with your public school understanding of science, history, and politics should be able to follow their conclusions.
Jeremiah| 2.23.09 @ 12:51PM
Nick --
I did in fact read the article when you posted it before. I found it interesting but not entirely persuasive. I reported back what I thought on a post when I read it.
The political spectrum we're speaking about probably could be configured in different ways. I know Ayn Rand made a fairly strong argument that Nazis and Soviet Communism ought to be considered on the same end of the spectrum given their mutual hostility to individual rights.
However, that conflation LOSES a great deal of analytically useful information.
A fascist government typically confers upon a single individual or small group the very rights it denies others. Thus it still retains a notion of "rights" -- although those rights are no longer understood as universal.
Marxism does away with a rights based concept of law and government entirely, beginning with property. This is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from the attitude of fascist regimes, which typically are strongly supportive of the property rights of powerful corporations. (Fascist governments usually engage in what is sometimes called "crony capitalism". The same could NOT be said for communist regimes.)
The point of the spectrum is heuristic. It's to help explain DIFFERENCES, not similarities.
Of course Stalin and Hitler both killed civilians, for example. But they committed these (similar) atrocities for completely different reasons, and understanding those differences is more crucial to understanding the atrocities themselves than seeing them as similar to one another.
Nick| 2.23.09 @ 2:32PM
Jeremiah,
I keep track of the threads I post on, didn't see any reply from you. Where exactly did you post it?
You're conflating theory with practice, which is impossible. Comm. & fasc. have never lived up to the promises made, nor have they ever been successful.
My point was to rebut your socialist canard that fascism is of the right. There were two competing forms of socialism in the 1920's, world and national. You haven't been able to refute this fact with all of your attempts to redefine fascism to fit your ideology. They were both socialist because they subjugated the individual to the greater good of the state and they centrally planned their economies.
Nick| 2.23.09 @ 2:52PM
Also, right wing totalitarianism would be a Monarchy.
casino610 | 7.15.09 @ 4:44AM
Of course Stalin and Hitler both killed civilians, for example. But they committed these (similar) atrocities for completely different reasons, and understanding those differences is more crucial to understanding the atrocities themselves than seeing them as similar to one another.
r-jay | 7.15.09 @ 4:47AM
Of course Stalin and Hitler both killed civilians, for example. But they committed these (similar) atrocities for completely different reasons, and understanding those differences is more crucial to understanding the atrocities themselves than seeing them as similar to one another.
zonder | 7.15.09 @ 4:52AM
Marxism does away with a rights based concept of law and government entirely, beginning with property. This is ENTIRELY DIFFERENT from the attitude of fascist regimes, which typically are strongly supportive of the property rights of powerful corporations. (Fascist governments usually engage in what is sometimes called "crony capitalism". The same could NOT be said for communist regimes.)
jhk| 11.24.09 @ 9:16PM
DVD Copier For Mac,
DVD To DVD Copier Mac