Your email address is safe with us. View our Privacy policy.
Author Bio:
Kathleen Parker is one of America's most popular opinion columnists, addressing the country's mental health through her views on current national ...
Read more about Kathleen Parker.
Kathleen Parker is one of America's most popular opinion columnists, addressing the country's mental health through her views on current national ...
Read more about Kathleen Parker.
Taking The President On Faith
Kathleen Parker
WASHINGTON -- Oh, for those halcyon days when our biggest worry was
whether the federal "faith-based" office might encourage a homeless
person to find Jesus.
Remember that?
Hardly anyone talks much about the faith-based initiative begun by President Bush and expanded by President Obama. Nor was there hardly a murmur about Obama's appointee to head the program, Joshua DuBois, a 27-year-old Pentecostal preacher.
A comparison of how the media have treated the two presidents and their faith-based programs during the first six months of their administrations (2001 and 2009) is the subject of a new study by the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism and the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.
The findings suggest a very different standard applied to each president.
When George W. Bush introduced the concept of a faith-based office, the original vision was to help nonprofit charities get government support to help feed the hungry and house the homeless. From the reaction, you'd have thought Bush was trying to install a caliphate. Indeed, most newspaper stories focused on the blurring of church and state.
By contrast, when Obama upgraded and renamed the program -- The White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships -- most stories focused on procedural questions and a new, 25-member faith-based advisory council. Few, if any, headlines questioned whether Obama might be using his faith-based office to advance liberal policies, whereas Bush was under persistent fire for allegedly pushing (horrors) a pro-life agenda.
The only issue that attracted much attention under Obama's watch -- also a concern under Bush -- was whether faith-based organizations receiving federal funds could make hiring decisions based on a person's religious beliefs. Obama has called for a review of the policy.
The Pew study used keyword searches to identify stories for analysis -- a total of 331 newspaper articles from January to June 2001 (281) and from January to June 2009 (50).
During the Bush years, stories were 50 percent more likely to be on the front page than in 2009, and separation of church and state was the top concern in 2001.
The study takes a stab at explaining these discrepancies. One obvious explanation is that the program was new under Bush. By the time Obama rolled into town, it was a known -- and not very threatening -- quantity. And Obama inherited a full menu of demanding issues, on top of which he added an all-you-can-eat buffet.
Who has time to nitpick nonprofits helping the poor?
Not so fast, says Michael Cromartie, vice president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center (and director of the Evangelicals in Civic Life program). Cromartie insists that the disparate levels of scrutiny can't be attributed only to timing and busy schedules.
"Sure, there's always a lot going on in Washington with any new administration. But can you imagine the outcry if Bush had hired a 27-year-old Pentecostal preacher to run the faith-based office and surrounded him with a 25-member advisory board made up of people largely sympathetic to his policy agenda?"
In fact, Bush appointed University of Pennsylvania political science professor John DiIulio, a Democrat, to run his program. Cromartie maintains that the greater attention to Bush was because the media were suspicious that his faith-based initiative was an attempt to install a theocracy.
Bush can be partly blamed for this perception, having once said that God wanted him to be president. He also told Bob Woodward that in making decisions about Iraq, he didn't consult his temporal father -- the former president, George H.W. Bush -- but yielded to a higher Father.
Obama, who, in fact, invokes Jesus in speeches more often than Bush did, according to an analysis by Politico, not only embraced his predecessor's initiative, but has given it the loaves-and-fishes treatment by expanding the mission. As described by DuBois in a video posted on the White House blog, the office's mission extends even to "figuring out the role of faith-based organizations in combating global climate change."
Why does Obama get a pass?
In part, because he's not Bush. But also, perhaps, because the media are more approving of the issues and policies Obama wants to advance.
One may argue, as Bush critics have, that the previous administration similarly tried to advance policy through its faith-based office. What one may not argue is that Obama has been treated to the same scrutiny as his predecessor.
========
Kathleen Parker's e-mail address is kathleenparker(at)washpost.com
(c) 2009, Washington Post Writers Group
This news arrived on: 08/16/2009
Printer Friendly Version | Send this page to a friend | Post Comment
Rate This Story:
Great - 5 - 4 - 3 - 2 - 1 - Bad
Posted Comments:
08-19-2009 19:29
JCE wrote:
Catharyne
Even more appalling than the average Americans lack of knowledge concerning Canada, is the average Americans lack of knowledge of its own country, and how things work. Conservatives polled in North Carolina proved this. 4% of them said that Hawaii was not a state, and 8% didn't know if it was or not. And it is voters like that who are going to the polls. But that doesn't stop a very large part of them from hearing an opinion from a friend or news media, and all of a sudden being an expert on the subject. In so many sad ways, China is showing itself to be smarter than our own government and people. Like the American Indian, when threatened with extermination, we patriots may have to move to Canada to be free. I sure hope not. The way we are allowing China and other countries to buy our country, in pawn, and in reality, even Canadians may have to learn to speak Chinese.
08-19-2009 08:29
Catharyne Stauffer wrote:
WOW JCE :) Big Hugs my friend and very well said :)
Our countries are each others largest trading partners but, I sometimes find the lack of knowledge Americans have about Canadians and vice versa a bit troubling . I have corrected a few misconceptions on both sides of the border .
I , myself have learned a great deal about the political system in the US and a host of other facts from coming here and posting .
Our countries history and lives are often very intertwined and so its important to know more about each other.
I have on a few occasions had to explain why as a Canadian am I interested in the politics of the US and why am I on a US blog site . I have family living in the US and many many American friends would certain top my list of why . In short there are more good reasons as to why than reasons not to be here :)
Our countries are each others largest trading partners but, I sometimes find the lack of knowledge Americans have about Canadians and vice versa a bit troubling . I have corrected a few misconceptions on both sides of the border .
I , myself have learned a great deal about the political system in the US and a host of other facts from coming here and posting .
Our countries history and lives are often very intertwined and so its important to know more about each other.
I have on a few occasions had to explain why as a Canadian am I interested in the politics of the US and why am I on a US blog site . I have family living in the US and many many American friends would certain top my list of why . In short there are more good reasons as to why than reasons not to be here :)
08-19-2009 00:36
JCE wrote:
Further, Catharyne and I don't agree on everything, and being human, I am not right about everything. But you might take note of the fact that even when she disagrees with someone, she is very civil, and she backs up what she says with facts, statistics, common sense, and compassion. So far from not taking her opinion seriously you might just listen and learn. There is plenty of room for that, not only for you, but for all of us. When she confronts me on something that she thinks I am doing wrong, you would notice the lack of meanness, the lack of attack. She believes what she is saying, and thinks that if I look at it, it will help me. She talks to me with respect and friendship. How could anyone say that that doesn't count? She makes nice posts for reasons far beyond her being a nice person, which she is. Does that account for why you make mean, spiteful, nasty and unhelpful posts? Perhaps you should listen to her posts AND your own. Much to be learned here.
08-18-2009 23:26
Catharyne Stauffer wrote:
To OMT , Thank you for your kind words and you are correct I am not an American citizen but I have family and many friends that are Americans and because of that I try to stay up to date and current .
Sometimes with the exchange of opinions ( even foreign ones hehe ) it gives a better over view and it also can dispel misinformation about Canada and or the US . This better understanding of each other can only be a blessing and further peoples understanding of each other . Also my impartial view point is sometimes used for some as a form of checks and measures .
Sometimes with the exchange of opinions ( even foreign ones hehe ) it gives a better over view and it also can dispel misinformation about Canada and or the US . This better understanding of each other can only be a blessing and further peoples understanding of each other . Also my impartial view point is sometimes used for some as a form of checks and measures .
08-18-2009 19:04
John W Smith III wrote:
Religious comments shouldn't even be coming out most of you people mouths on here especailly you conservatives right-wing nuts.That's all you guys are a bunch of bible thumpers and hyprocrites.Faith-based anything don't even cross you people minds on here unless someone bring it up and then you still don't care.
The Bible is the most quoted and the least clearly understood book of this time.Different things at different times.The Bible spans thousands of years and different kind of literatus and so you can go in the Bible and find pretty much what you want to be said on any subject.What you have to do is look at the whole sweep of the Bible message and what you find is instructions to treat God as God,Government as Government,and to treat other people with respect and dignity.If you want to be religious you go not just to quoting scriptures you act like the scriptures tells you to act.
The Bible is the most quoted and the least clearly understood book of this time.Different things at different times.The Bible spans thousands of years and different kind of literatus and so you can go in the Bible and find pretty much what you want to be said on any subject.What you have to do is look at the whole sweep of the Bible message and what you find is instructions to treat God as God,Government as Government,and to treat other people with respect and dignity.If you want to be religious you go not just to quoting scriptures you act like the scriptures tells you to act.
Comment archive | Comment FAQ's
 |
 |
View Kathleen Parker ezine stories by date or visit the complete archive |
The ArcaMax Politics channel is one of 70 content categories offered by ArcaMax Publishing on this ... |
FIND JOBS
