Can Tabor Get an “Amen”?
By Anthony | May 16th, 2006 | 12:16 amNathan Tabor, a North Carolina political activist and contributing editor at The Conservative Voice, recently tried to take “the liberals” to task on the subject of prayer. Unfortunately, his arguments are a little long on rhetoric, and a little short on support. A few highlights:
To hear liberals tell it, George W. Bush doesn’t have a prayer of succeeding. What with the war in Iraq, soaring gasoline prices, and the high cost of medical care, the President’s critics dismiss him on good days as ineffectual…on bad days as a dunce.
Yet, the President, with his cockeyed optimism and can-do American spirit, seems to believe he can and will succeed. And he believes that much of the credit can be attributed to prayer.
You see, this is a praying President. Maybe that’s why he catches so much flack from the media elite, who never met a praying man that they liked.
I’m not sure who the “media elite” are, but I know that there have been many positive stories about “praying men” in the media over the years, including Billy Graham and Pope John Paul II. There are plenty of other potential reasons for Bush to catch flack other than his propensity for prayer.
In fact, this President was bold enough to say that prayer is the greatest gift a citizen can offer him. Not a vote. Not a contribution to the Republican Party. Prayer.
I’m not sure how this qualifies as bold, considering that 82 percent of U.S. adults pray during a given week, and considering that the comment was made during his speech given for the National Day of Prayer. Bush may be a bit tone deaf and out of step on occasion, but I think even he can see it’s better to talk up “prayer” instead of “votes” or “contributions” on the National Day of Prayer.
Yet, this is not a President who is commanding people to pray—as some on the left would have you believe.
More vague generalizations. Who on the left has said this?
Unfortunately, for many of us, the National Day of Prayer is a national day of regret. This is because we are not really free to pray at times in the land of the free. For instance, our children are banned from offering an earnest prayer at school—where prayer is often needed the most.
Here Tabor’s argument really goes out into left field. Children are not banned from offering prayers at school. Our Constitution protects our right to pray wherever we want, be it in school, in a church or in a park. Tabor makes it sound as though a poor third grader saying grace quietly at lunch time is going to be disciplined, and that’s certainly not the case. To be sure, there have been instances where an overzealous teacher or administrator has overstepped his bounds, but you would be hard pressed to find a case where a court had upheld such an action.
A number of liberals would like to shut down churches where pastors are bold enough to dare speak against modern-day ills such as abortion, the break-up of the family, and pornography. They claim such clergymen are venturing into the religious no-man’s land of politics.
Again, what liberals have called for this?
Even if you can scrounge up a few people who happen to be liberal and are guilty of the offenses Tabor lists, that hardly warrants painting that whole side of the political spectrum with the same broad brush. After all, there are conservatives who want to forcibly convert people to Christianity and indiscriminately bomb Arab nations with nuclear warheads. Does that mean that “conservatives” as a whole are calling for such actions?
May 16th, 2006 at 5:40 am
Tabor, regrettably, is breaking the first rule of drug-dealing: don’t use your own stuff. A majority of Americans aren’t unhappy with him because he prays. A majority of Americans are unhappy with him purely because of his job performance.
May 16th, 2006 at 9:30 am
Great post. 🙂
May 17th, 2006 at 3:43 pm
This is the argument Tabor should have made: The encroachemnt of liberal monism.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/readings/elshtain.html
Excerpt:
“This position seeks to do on the level of law what a strict version of Rawlsian philosophy aims to do in the realm of discourse-namely, to strip public life of religious markers, emblems, and ceremony.”
May 17th, 2006 at 3:47 pm
Regarding President Bush and his faith.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jesus/president/
May 17th, 2006 at 3:54 pm
The victim card is a mystery to me. Athiests somehow have taken control of our country, and are out to get Christians, but most Americans (and most in power) are Christian. Evil liberals are running everything and are out to get Conservatives, but at least two of the three branches of federal power are solidly Republican (for now at least). He’s setting up a shadow enemy that can never fight back, and a lot of people will probably go along with it.
May 17th, 2006 at 8:19 pm
Bubba:
Thanks for the links. Regarding the excerpt from the first one – what do you think is meant by “public life”? Is it referring solely to the political realm, or do you think it is more broadly referring to “the public square” including areas outside political discourse?
Jim:
I totally agree. Christianity is overwhelmingly represented in the political arena – especially now, considering the influence the Christian right has over the party in charge. Meanwhile, I think it would be very difficult for an atheist to get elected to any significant public office, and impossible for one to be elected president. The idea that prayerful people are persecuted victims is silly.
May 18th, 2006 at 3:18 pm
Amen!
May 18th, 2006 at 5:17 pm
“Is it referring solely to the political realm, or do you think it is more broadly referring to “the public squareâ€? including areas outside political discourse?”
Both.
To simplify the point, “religious freedom” does not necessarily mean “freedom from religion” in all aspects of public life.
May 18th, 2006 at 5:58 pm
Bubba,
I agree 100%.
However, I would dispute that there is any significant “liberal” push to totally remove religion from the public sphere – certainly not the non-governmental portion of the public sphere. I don’t know of any major attempts to ban street corner preachers, or limit personal expressions of faith in the public square for instance. Claims that liberals are trying to get rid of all public references to religion may be good for rallying the base, but they aren’t true.
May 18th, 2006 at 6:00 pm
“…. especially now, considering the influence the Christian right has over the party in charge.”
Influence, yes; control, no.
One of the myths being propagated by some people is that the Christian right took over the GOP. In reality, it was the GOP who took control over the Christian right politically.
On the other hand, it’s probably fair to say that the Democrats have not taken over control of Secular Humanists, even though the secular crowd exerts a lot of influence in that party.
May 18th, 2006 at 6:09 pm
“I don’t know of any major attempts to ban street corner preachers, or limit personal expressions of faith in the public square for instance.”
Are you saying that cases like Michael Neudow’s (sp?) fight against the Pledge and the “under God” phrase”, the banning of prayer at public school events, the wide-ranging trend toward removal of Christmas from the public eye, the political correctness of forbidding the saying of “Merry Christmas” are all isolated and separate things, and have no interconnection with each other?
If so, why are these things being done in recent times only? Why were these things not being done throughout the nation’s history?
Why now?
May 19th, 2006 at 8:48 am
Bubba,
Thanks for the replies. I would agree that “influence” is more accurate than “control” – there are other groups influencing the GOP (and Democrats for that matter), so I don’t think any one group can be said to “control” the GOP. That being said I think it’s still obvious that the Christian right has a large influence on them.
As for the GOP taking control of the Christian right, if by that you mean that the GOP has become adept at pulling the Christian right’s strings and mobilizing them for various goals, then I would agree that the GOP has a great deal of influence over many Conservative Christians. I’m not sure to what extent they control them other than that though.
I’ll have to reply to your other post later… I have to go right now. For the moment you can check out some of my earlier posts on the alleged war on christmas if you’d like.
May 23rd, 2006 at 12:10 pm
Excellent points, Bubba. I think it is clear that Republicans have (in recent history) effectively stolen a march on the Democrats when it comes to religion. The Democratic party manifests a level of discomfort with religious language that continues to hurt them politically. Bush is no more “theocratic” than other presidents in recent history who have invoked God or religious terms–he merely recognizes that this resonates with voters, as Americans are overwhelmingly religious. Evangelical Christians are an important demographic, and Democrats are going to have to learn to reach out to them. May sound crazy, but it’s worth bearing in mind that “evangelical” does not equal “fundamentalist.”
May 25th, 2006 at 6:58 pm
“….but it’s worth bearing in mind that “evangelicalâ€? does not equal “fundamentalist.â€? ”
Absolutely right.
“The Democratic party manifests a level of discomfort with religious language that continues to hurt them politically.”
With their Far Left base, which is exerting greater control these last years, also absolutely right.