Frances Kissling: Obama's Poor Choice for Faith Leader

[MzNov]

Why did a pro-choice president appoint someone to HHS who is against abortion AND birth control? Political payback?
by Frances Kissling

President Barack Obama's appointment of Alexia Kelley, founder of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, as director of the Department of Health and Human Services' Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives took the pro-choice movement by surprise. On Thursday, the day that news of the appointment leaked out, Marcia Greenberger, co-president of the National Women's Law Center and a quintessential Washington insider, told me that she "hadn't heard anything about it till today, and we are trying to get to the bottom of it."

". . .

more on the anti-choice choice from Common Dreams.org Sunday, June 7

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/06/07-3




Edit: This originated on Salon.com on Sunday

[ananda]

1. Here's the problem.

There should be no correlation between faith
and government at all.

There should be no government or president
appointed faith leader at all!!!!

[MzNov]

2. Exactly n/t

[PurityOfEssence]

7. Hey, and ya know what? IT'S THE LAW!

It's not just that there shouldn't be any religious aspect to our government because we don't feel there should, it's because the Constitution says so. Apparently, you know that, and I know that, too.

Somehow, on the other hand, our extremely intelligent, constitutional scholar attorney of a President either DOESN'T, or openly defies the spirit of the thing.

Religion has unintended consequences; this is just another McClurkinish bungling of an ongoing tactic to shortcut things and play to the cheap seats.

[brendan120678]

3. Didn't Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good support Obama for President? (nt)

[JDPriestly]

4. The existence of the department violates the 1st Amendment as

James Madison -- who was the primary author of that Amendment made very clear.

Here is what Madison said on this issue:

Memorial and Remonstrance
. . . .

Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?


5. Because the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.
. . . .

7. Because experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation.

During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest luster; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy.

More at
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/memorial.htm

I recommend that every DUer read Madison's writings on this. And I certainly wish that President Obama and his aides would read Madison's writings on it. Madison thought about this issue a great deal and presents numerous arguments regarding the separation of church and state. In this time of religious extremism and the proliferation of the varieties of religions in the U.S., Madison's arguments for the separation of church and state are more relevant than ever before. President Obama does not have the right to take my tax money or yours and spend it to support religious causes.

[MzNov]

5. and I think Madison fought hard for his beliefs

there were a bunch of fundie-like reglious "fouders" in his day too. But common sense and human rights rights prevailed to establish the foundation for this country, which seems to be crumbling every day.

[Recursion]

9. The greater fear at the time was the state taking over the church, like in England

As a bonus, the same restrictions (if followed) keep the church from taking over the state.

[bertman]

6. I'll just remind everyone that Judge Sotomayor is also a Catholic and will be the SIXTH

Catholic justice of nine Supreme Court Justices when she is sworn in.

No religious influence on government here. Nothing to worry about. Get over it.

[JDPriestly]

10. That Catholic predominance on the Supreme Court also concerns me.

It is not right to have so many Catholic educated people on the Supreme Court. There is too little diversity in that respect. Diversity counts. But especially when it comes to questions involving public schools and religion in schools we need an equal number of public school, non religious school justices. I like Sotomayor in other respects, but the Court is already out of balance in terms of the representation of Catholic educated justices. She will make it worse.

[bdamomma]

8. there should be no faith based office, what ever happened

with separation of church/state?

[JDPriestly]

11. Look, the Supreme Court should be diverse. The number of Catholics

on the Court is already troubling. And by Catholics, I'm not talking so much about just the religious beliefs, but about the education. We should have more public school educated justices.