NC NAACP President Attacks Religious Right as 'Just Running Their Mouths'

[Htom Sirveaux]

'[divclass="excerpt"]

by Rev. Mark H. Creech

February 3, 2014 | 8:32 am



Two Sundays past (January 19, 2014), in a sermon the media described as "fire and thunder," [1] Rev. William Barber, head of the NC NAACP mounted the pulpit of Zion Baptist Church in Columbia, South Carolina, and began to excoriate all things political to the right.

Rev. Barber singled out by name, U.S. Senator Tim Scott (R) of South Carolina, arguing, "A ventriloquist can always find a good dummy." [2] Barber said that Scott was just a mouthpiece for the Tea Party. The remark received considerable attention, even making the national news.

But it was what Rev. Barber said about pastors on the religious right that was largely overlooked. Barber said "issues such as voting, healthcare, environment and education 'are moral issues, faith issues.'" And he also added, "Any profession of faith that doesn't promote justice and standing against wrong is a form of heresy…pastors who obsess about topics like prayer, homosexuality and abortion while neglecting justice, poverty, fair play and equality issues 'are just running their mouths.'" [3]

Conservative evangelical ministers would certainly agree that the many social issues Barber named are "moral issues, faith issues." But it is Barber, we believe, who has embraced a heresy.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/nc-naacp-president-attacks-religious-right-as-just-running-their-mouths-113833/


Here's a liberal Christian standing up to conservative Christians. Read the rest of the article to find out how encouraged the conservatives are by this liberal's theology.

[marions ghost]

1. This is a very conservative rightwing website..

This guy goes on to --exalt prayer in the schools, disparage gay marriage and reproductive choice.



He calls Rev. Barber a socialist:

"Barber constantly touts the term "social justice." It is, without question, the mantra of the left, both political and religious. Nevertheless, the notion of social justice as they understand it is without warrant in Scripture. Behind it lurks the static view of economics typical of socialistic, even communistic regimes. It is totally alien to the Free Market system taught in the Bible and endorsed by our nation's founders.

The late Dr. D. James Kennedy in a sermon titled, The Bible and Economics, once explained it this way:

"Free market economics postulates a growing economic pie and by no means indicates that if one person has more, another person must inevitably have less. It postulates exactly the opposite. If one person has more in the process of getting more, he has succeeded in contributing to the enlargement of every other piece. For example, Henry Ford was born into this world as a poor man. He left the world worth hundreds of millions of dollars. From the static point of view…he had hundreds of millions of dollars by plundering everyone. He had despoiled all of us, taken a part of our wealth. If justice will prevail, we shall take that away from him and divide it among ourselves because he has impoverished us by his gain.

"Is that true? Is not the very opposite the truth? Is not the truth that every one of us is richer because of Henry Ford, or would you have preferred to walk to church today or ride a horse?"

Because Rev. Barber couches his words to sound as if they were about compassion for the poor and the deprived of this world, he is perceived by some as having the moral high ground. Still, the charity Barber demands is based in government coercion – a redistribution of wealth. It violates the eighth commandment of God which orders us not to steal another man's private property – a commandment that not only applies to the individual, but to the state as well. In other words, what Barber advocates for is nothing less than a legal form of plunder. He preaches a gospel of envy which operates in an institutionalized form of theft.

[trotsky]

2. This article doesn't intend to, but it demonstrates very well...

the folly of arguing for policy based on one's interpretation of a religious text.

[marions ghost]

3. Not sure I understand

--are you trying to say that this guy Creech and Barber are both abusing religious texts?

[trotsky]

4. I'm saying that they both think they are doing what their god wants.

And neither will ever be able to prove the other one wrong.

[Htom Sirveaux]

5. The kantians, utilitarians, and virtue ethicists are fighting an unending battle over morality, too.

In fact, most of philosophy is like that. Should it be abandoned?

[skepticscott]

6. Abandoned? Perhaps, like religion just not taken very seriously

as a means of inquiry that is capable of gradually getting closer to the truth. Dismissed as a world of declarations, rather than demonstrations.

[Htom Sirveaux]

7. But the very existence and nature of truth

is itself a philosophical question.

[trotsky]

13. What scott said.

No one's saying people have to abandon their philosophical or religious viewpoints.

[marions ghost]

8. Does that matter?

--that one proves the other wrong like dueling preachers?

I don't really care much what or who either of their Gods are--Rev Barber talks sense from a humanist perspective. The other guy's all about justifying greed and hoarding of wealth. I'll support Rev Barber's POV no matter where he gets it from. He's the sane one. Other guy's a loon.

[Htom Sirveaux]

9. What an excellent question!

[skepticscott]

10. It matters

when so much law and public policy is decided by what amounts to the argument "MY god wants it this way". Showing that no one can really know that (and that only in the case of privileged religion are people not considered delusional whackos for saying they do) matters a hell of a lot.

[Htom Sirveaux]

11. I agree with you that it's impossible to know

what would constitute a direct revelation from God. Even a floating head in the sky issuing commands, were it to appear, could be aliens playing a trick on us.

Even so, I still want liberals out there opposing conservative interpretations with their own.

[trotsky]

12. Actually, it matters quite a bit when it comes to the political sphere.

"Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all. Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what’s possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It’s the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God’s edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one’s life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing." — Barack Obama

[marions ghost]

14. If you do some research about Rev Barber you will find out that

--he is careful to "translate his concerns into universal values." He is a unifier.

Barber is coming from a religious tradition, but he has NO problem with joining hands with atheists, for example, or any secular group to work for mutual concerns. The same could not be said of Rev Creech.

If the right can mobilize their base through churches, I'm afraid the churches with liberal congregations must answer to that, and stand up for what we all agree is morally right. Am glad to see it.

I am not a Christian but I am fine with Rev Barber being one and speaking for me. He's also an extremely effective leader of the NC NAACP. Barber is a smart man and a wonderful speaker. He speaks from the heart like MLK did--and I think he understands very well that in public policy, we must have a division between church and state.

You should take a deeper look at Barber. The equation with Creech is way way off.

[trotsky]

15. Yeah, I've done some research about him.

I've looked at his speeches and more often than not, they contain biblical references and appeals to what Jesus would do.

I appreciate what he brings to the table. And he can base his personal opinions on whatever religious beliefs he likes. But doing so in the public sphere isn't going to work, as explained in that quote from the President.

[marions ghost]

16. I think you should separate

his rhetorical style and the occasional (very occasional unless he's in a church) biblical references--from any notion that Rev Barber is out for mixing religion into public policy. He's leading a movement , not running for office or influencing government directly like the right does.

Remember also that Rev Barber is speaking to Southerners and natives of the South are very big church-goers. So it plays well in the south and Barber sees the Moral Movement as a southern thing. He consistently speaks in a way that is inclusive of all. Over and over he talks of "fusion politics" as the way to go. He is all about morality in politics, not religion. I don't think Rev Barber believes in any sort of merger of church and state. I would not support him if he did. And neither would the other political and social groups in NC. These are not stupid people.

[trotsky]

17. I never said he supported a merger of church and state.

What I'm saying, and what the president said, is that appealing to religion and religious belief when arguing about policy is counter-productive. You have said nothing to contradict this.

[marions ghost]

18. It is counter-productive for a policy maker

or politician to appeal to any religious belief.

The hardcore religious right steps over this line. Rev Barber knows exactly and precisely where the line is. Big diff between the two outlooks. My prob is with equating Barber with Creech, or with the tactics of the religious right to influence politics. Barber has no such agenda.

This article I found describes the dangers of the RIGHTwing evangelical agenda--it's much more sneaky and offensive than Barber's fervent rallying cries for sanity and morality could ever be:

http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/how-gop-oligarchs-and-christian-right-are-hiding-behind-1st-amendment-ram?page=0%2C0

How GOP Oligarchs and the Christian Right Are Hiding Behind the 1st Amendment to Ram Through Their Political Agenda
The Tea Party is turning the Constitution’s most fundamental protections into a refuge for scoundrels and billionaires.
November 30, 2013 (article has 330 comments)

----excerpt:

“The Court is now poised to decide whether corporations also have a First Amendment right to exercise the freedom of religion, which can be thought of as another form of expression—that is, voicing or acting out one’s personal beliefs,” he wrote. “It may be too early to say so, but a decision by the justices recognizing such a corporate right may make the controversy over the Citizens United ruling pale by comparison.”

On Saturday , the Wall Street Journal editorial page attacked the administration—which created an exception for houses of worship, religious schools, hospitals and charities. In its typical fashion of blurring details to buttress its view, it said, “The radical implication of the White House argument is that the Constitution doesn’t apply to commercial activity.” Their view is the radical one. Of course, the Constitution protects commerce, such as in contracts. But the Bill of Rights primarily protects individual rights.

The people who want to impose their religious beliefs regardless of cost or consequence are complaining not just that their freedom is threatened, but that corporate religious freedom exists, and must be elevated over the rights of people working for them. That’s radical. They conveniently forget that under Obamacare or any health plan, people can decide to take advantage of a medical procedure or not. These unruly Christian soldiers want to do away with that private choice from their employees, and have the audacity to argue their businesses are being deprived of religious liberty under the First Amendment."
(more at link)

[trotsky]

19. Again, you have said nothing to contradict what is in the president's quote.

I agree that the right wing is worse. I agree that they do it more. But the methodology is bad no matter who is doing it or to what extreme they go.

[marions ghost]

20. OK

Obama: "I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all. Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality.

--which is exactly what Rev Barber advocates.

In the next paragraph Obama says: "It involves the compromise, the art of what’s possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It’s the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God’s edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one’s life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing."

I think Obama here in the second paragraph is referring specifically to religious fundamentalism. NOT to the practices of someone like Barber. In fact I would say that Obama and Barber are actually very similar in their beliefs.

----------------
What Obama says about his own personal relationship to his Christian religion:

President Barack Obama gave an unusually personal speech about his religious faith on Thursday, saying that "it is the biblical injunction to serve the least of these that keeps me going and keeps me from being overwhelmed," in address to a prayer breakfast in Washington.

The speech, delivered at the National Prayer Breakfast, comes on the heels of public opinion surveys that show only a minority of Americans know that Obama is a Christian and that a growing number believe he's a Muslim.

"My Christian faith has been sustaining for me over the last couple of years and even more so when Michelle and I hear our faith questioned from time to time," the president said Thursday, referring to his wife. "We are reminded that ultimately what matters is not what other people say about us but that we are true to our conscience and true to our God."

"When I wake in the morning, I wait on the Lord, I ask him to give me the strength to do right by our country and our people," Obama said later. "And when I go to bed at night, I wait on the Lord and I ask him to forgive me my sins and to look after my family and to make me an instrument of the Lord."

The address was televised and streamed live on the White House website.
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/03/obama-to-deliver-major-speech-on-personal-faith-white-house-official-says/

[trotsky]

21. OK indeed.

"--which is exactly what Rev Barber advocates. "

Except when he's using religion to argue for policy positions, which he has done in many speeches.

And your link to how the president views his faith in his personal life is completely irrelevant. He's not advocating for a policy position or law. I'm afraid I don't understand what you're trying to argue.

[marions ghost]

22. Do you think NC progressive groups would support

Barber if they did not trust his intentions? You'd be insulting a lot of very smart and genuinely populist people if you did. You're distorting Barber's message--it is not fundamentalism. NOWHERE does he argue for religion as a basis for policy positions, as fundies do.

Barber argues for common-ground morality and justice as a basis for policy positions. That is very clear.

Barber is a preacher, grassroots leader. Obama is a lawyer, politician. No difference in their positions on the place of religion in the public policy sphere.

Done here. Nice chat. Bye

[trotsky]

23. You seem to be confused here.

I'm not saying that Barber is intending to turn the US into a theocracy. I have given no opinion whatsoever on what his intentions are, nor do I care. I'm talking about actions and words, and in particular those used to argue for policy positions. Appealing to religious reasons is something that both the left and right do, and they're equally pointless. You still have done nothing to disprove that assertion, but you did dispatch some straw men very well, so congrats I guess!