"Programs over principles" might just be the change we need

Jonathan Turley, Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and contributor to USA Today, has a bone to pick with our new president. In his op-ed "Faith-based, Part II," Turley voices his displeasure with two of Obama's choices: One, the decision to have Rick Warren preach at his inauguration; two, Obama's choice to expand the faith-based government initiatives that were begun by the Bush administration, renaming Bush's "Office of Faith-Based and Community Inititaives" as the "White House Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships," and expanding it from one office to twelve. Through these examples, he intends to prove that Obama, while advocating for change, has more in common with his predecessor than his supporters may have thought.

Using Rick Warren to link Obama to Bush may seem like an odd method, and indeed, the connection is tenuous at best. Turley claims that Warren is a man "who actively seeks to shape society" along the lines of his controversial religious views; this, plus Obama's connection with Reverend Wright, raises Turley's concerns that our president, like Bush, "seems to gravitate toward ministers who see little dividing the pulpit from politics." He also suggests that Warren's endorsement of Obama "may lay a foundation for a mutually beneficial alliance" between his administration and religious conservatives, and that although Obama wishes to include all viewpoints, viewpoints like Warren's are not "worthy of incorporation." On this point, I must disagree. Obama's position of inclusion would be much harder to swallow if he only included people or groups that he (or Turley) personally agree with. And although I disagree with Warren's view of homosexuality, it's not as though by having him pray that Obama is going to base his policies on Warren's opinion. A person can be open to others' opinions without endorsing them themself.

Next, in his main argument, Turley complains that Obama's choice to expand faith-based initiatives instead of abolishing them further diminishes the idea of separation of church and state. He defines Obama's mentality this way:

It is a simple matter of priorities: Obama just seems to be more interested in programs than principles. He views change in more concrete terms: helping families, creating jobs and expanding the social safety net. Worthy objectives to be sure, but what about restoring the core principles that define our government?

"Restoring the core principles that define our government" sounds very lofty and important, but Turley's statement begs the question: what's so bad about the "programs" Obama endorses? Principles are all well and good, but they don't feed a family. Now, I'm not saying that as US citizens living in this era of "change" we should abandon the principles that our founding fathers laid out. However, I AM saying that Obama's attempt to make a concrete, tangible improvement in people's lives is something that should not be brushed away by questions of intangible principle. We can talk about separation of church and state all day long, but while we do, people are suffering. Historically, ministries and charities, usually religiously affiliated, have been the driving force behind attempts to alleviate that suffering. And if Obama realistically wants to bring about the change he has promised, then why not enlist their support?

The Faith-Based Initiative: Obama Edition

Before Barack Obama was declared the next United States President in November, many Americans had been wondering about the future of a program that my classmates and I briefly discussed this Thursday: President Bush’s Faith-Based Initiative. To the relief of some and the disdain of others, it appears from a speech delivered in early July that Obama will keep the Faith-Based Initiative intact after a few modifications. Namely, federal money will be used only on secular programs and Obama will eliminate proselytizing and religious discrimination against hired officials. Columnist James Carroll of the Boston Globe analyzed the motives and potential ramifications of Obama’s position in his article, “Secular Rule Benefits the Faithful, too.”

Carroll advocates Obama’s plans for the initiative on the basis that the added secularization Obama brings to the program promotes a more symbiotic relationship between religious groups and their target audiences. But the most interesting point Carroll makes lies in the political implications that this path of action has for Obama and America as a whole. Carroll hopes that Obama’s unique and highly tolerant perspective will bring more depth to the religious issues that impact our nation today by giving minority groups, such as “those religious believers for whom the secularity of liberal democracy is a value,” a voice.

I think Carroll’s positive outlook on this new policy is merited. The main reason I support Carroll’s analysis can be reasoned using James Morone’s concept of ‘us and them’ in his article “Hellfire Nation” (also covered in class this week). The diversity of the United States reinforces the need for a social identity – an ‘us’ – in Americans, but “defining us also designates them… generous visions of inclusion face off against hard prejudices” (Morone 8). These ‘hard prejudices’ are what have kept American beliefs about the role of religion in politics so polarized; or at least those beliefs that are normally vocalized. By taking a middle ground, Obama lends courage to more moderate individuals: nonreligious people who are not opposed to government funding working through organizations (simply because they have a religious branding), and those mentioned previously who are religious but happen to promote secularization. With the ideas of those previously afraid of promoting a “lose-lose” position added to the political arena, advocates with more extreme views on the issue will be forced to abandon the shallow ad-hominem attacks that plague most of today’s debates in favor of more substantial arguments.

There is still more waiting to do before we can watch how this plays out. Will a compromise truly be able to satisfy individuals who have worked tirelessly for their vision of America? Probably not, but maybe it will dilute their voices in the matter. A nation equated to having the ‘soul of a church,’ but founded on the concepts of secularization and personal freedom will face perpetual values conflicts - all most of us hope for is an environment to debate these conflicts in a mature and progressive way.

Religion, Rhetoric, and the Negotiating Table?

In brief, my research paper investigates how the United States’ historical founding has made Americans receptive to religious rhetoric and messages communicated by their political leaders. By acknowledging the inextricable link among God, religious liberty and freedom and understanding the religious language in which this connection is made, we can begin to comprehend how America’s religious roots continue to shape United States’ foreign policy.

In this article, Cooper highlights how the Bush administrations’ effort to “propound an intellectual and moral doctrine that eschew[s] talking to foes” has backfired and has led to 11th hour negotiations and concessions made by the United States earlier this year. Despite this “openness” to talk with nations considered part of Bush’s ‘axis of evil’, there is still a sense of reluctance and unwillingness to negotiate.

The question at stake is why did the Bush administration adopt a “no talk” policy for foe nations in the first place? What “moral doctrine” prohibited such talks with enemy nations? Although the answers to these questions are complex, we can begin to understand this strategy by exploring the philosophy behind the approach.

Bush’s rhetoric in public addresses (and conferences) gives insight as to what that philosophy might be. In his 2002 State of the Union Address, Bush used the term “axis of evil” to describe foreign nations that were “arming to threaten the peace of the world” and that were active sponsors of “hatred”. By demonizing enemy nations, Bush effectively portrayed these nations as sponsors of evil and terror. In doing so, he drew a distinct contrast between us and them. We were the deliverers of freedom, and they were the purveyors of evil. This sense of mission was evidenced by one of the delegates in the Israeli-Palestinian summit in 2003 who claimed that Bush declared he was on a “mission from God” when he decided to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.

Yesterday, our class discussed the possibility of using religion as a means to justify our political actions abroad, for example, the establishment of allies like Israel. If religion can be used to promote pro-Israel sentiments, can a “religious” philosophy like that constructed by Bush be used to “create” enemies? Although there is legitimacy behind why nations like North Korea and Iran are considered U.S foes, does this “religious philosophy”, and in turn, its rhetoric affect how the U.S sees other nations? And by the same token, does this philosophy and rhetoric affect how other nations perceive us? If so, do you think this has affected our foreign policy, particularly at the negotiating table?

In the NYT article, Abbas Milani, an Iran expert at Stanford University, questioned the approach that the Bush administration was using. “I don’t understand what they are
doing”? He was particularly struck by the Condoleezza Rice’s “provocative acts and words” when she described the situation with Iran earlier this year: “if Iran did not respond in the next two weeks to an offer of incentives, the United States and other major powers would go back to the United Nations Security Council for additional sanctions against Tehran”.

According to Milani, her actions and words could offset any chance that Iran’s leaders would suspend their uranium enrichment programs. Experts and insiders have also noticed the incongruity of the administration's approach. They've described this approach of open talks and strong rhetoric as “erratic” and “schizophrenic”.

This "erratic" approach and reluctance was best articulated by Ms. Perino, the White House Press Secretary, when she was asked if North Korea and Iran were still part of Bush’s ‘axis of evil’ if the United States was in negotiations with them. She responded:

''I think that until they give up their nuclear weapons programs completely and verifiably, I think that we would keep them in the same category,'' Ms. Perino said.

Can the Bush administration’s sense of reluctance and unwillingness to negotiate be explained by the moral and religious paradigm constructed by Bush after the attacks on 9/11? And has this paradigm affected U.S foreign policy approach to recalcitrant nations?

Your health, hanging in the balance

An article in Monday’s NY Times updated readers on the controversy surrounding a recent Bush Administration proposal. This Health and Human Services Act “would prohibit recipients of federal money from discriminating against doctors, nurses and other health care workers who refuse to perform or to assist in the performance of abortions or sterilization procedures [and dispensing birth control and emergency contraception] because of their ‘religious beliefs or moral convictions’”.

The proposed law is being strenuously protested by various groups, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the “National Association of Chain Drug Stores, the American Hospital Association, the American Medical Association, 28 senators, more than 110 representatives and the attorneys general of 13 states”. The EEOC asserts that this “would overturn 40 years of civil rights law prohibiting job discrimination based on religion”; other opponents have described it as “unnecessary for the protection of employees and potentially confusing to employers”.

Employment discrimination based on religion is already prohibited, and the concept of “religion” in this case can also be interpreted to include moral or ethical values. This ruling basically adds one’s stance on “choice” (as it relates to abortion and birth control) to the list of protected classifications, like gender or race.

The biggest threat from this “healthcare provider conscience” legislation comes from its sweeping implications. Pharmacists could opt not to fill prescriptions for birth control or dispense emergency contraception, which could lead to many patients getting turned away, or being unable to find a pharmacist or a doctor’s office in their vicinity which can meet their needs. This would most directly impact rural and low-income women who have fewer options, for geographical or financial reasons, for getting their prescriptions filled. Also frightening: “the rule could void state laws that require insurance plans to cover contraceptives and require hospitals to offer emergency contraception to rape victims”.

Essentially, this law goes so far as to put family planning clinics in a position where they cannot refuse to hire someone who objects on moral grounds to a fundamental aspect of their job, such as dispensing birth control. A person who opposed abortion could apply for a job at a clinic which provided abortion services, and then argue discrimination if not hired.

This proposal appears to be in violation of the Civil Rights Act, which requires that an employer make reasonable accommodations based on an employee’s religious beliefs unless it presents an overwhelming burden on the employer’s ability to operate. Additionally, I believe that this proposal gives undue preference to religion in that it provides an unnecessary benefit and protection. A person who is opposed to birth control does not have a fundamental right to get a job at a clinic where they would be called upon to dispense (such as a Planned Parenthood clinic). While many people with such views would not apply for such a job, others would, and could then file unnecessary discrimination lawsuits when/if denied a job.

I would argue against provider conscience rules in general, in that patients seeking legal prescriptions or medical procedures (from birth control to emergency contraception to abortion services) have a legal right to obtain them. Refusal to fill a prescription for something that is legal (regardless of your moral view of it) places an undue burden on the individual seeking treatment. The needs and requests of the patient need to be served, and sending a patient travelling from town to town seeking a pharmacy that will fill her prescription can represent a significant burden. If one staff member at a pharmacy refuses to fill a certain type of prescription, then there should be someone on hand at all times who will. This places a burden on the pharmacy, in order to meet the needs of its customers, which I believe is fair. (Applying this situation to abortion is a much more complex and sensitive issue that I will not delve into here.) This piece of legislation from the Bush administration is unnecessary, dangerous, and ultimately places women’s health in jeopardy.

Cuts to Contraceptive Aid in Africa

The State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development has allegedly ordered six African countries (Ghana, Malawi, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Uganda and Zimbabwe) to stop giving U.S.-donated contraceptives to the British-based Marie Stopes International (MSI) family planning organization. MSI works with the U.N. Population Fund in China, which President Bush opposes on the belief that it supports China's family-planning program. It seems to further his distaste for the Population Fund he is severing ties with their affiliate. In an official statement the MSI organization responded: "Only the Bush administration could find logic in the idea that they can somehow reduce abortion and promote choice for women in China by causing more abortion and gutting choice for women in Africa," it said. "This senseless decision is likely to have only one clear consequence: the death of African women and girls."

Further estimations by the organization suggest the loss of U.S. support will increase unwanted pregnancies to 157,000 per year, leading to 62,000 additional abortions and 660 women dying in childbirth. Kent Hill, an official of the U.S. aid agency, dispels these claims saying that the same supplies will be available, they are just being redirected through other aid agencies. With this new course, large cities will still benefit. The same cannot be said for rural areas where Marie Stopes clinics are the only resource for family planning.

Op-ed columnist, Nicholas Kristoff highlights the paradox of the “pro-life” administration in their latest decision on reproductive health, calling John McCain into the ring -- citing his support of the de-funding on the U.N. Population Fund. He also recounts an interview that asked McCain “whether American aid should finance contraceptives to fight AIDS in Africa, [to which] he initially said, ‘I haven’t thought about it,’ and later added, ‘You’ve stumped me.’” Barack Obama is said to support U.N.-led family-planning initiatives.

While the original intentions are good -- refusing to support forced abortion or sterilization in China -- they should not come at the expense of another population. To be clear this is a decision of the Bush administration, however; John McCain’s support does hurt his defender-of-the unborn status greatly. Now just to leave you with an entirely separate consideration, something else to mull over: what a decision like this can do to affect our international relations with the African nations. Is it in the American best interest to prioritize issues in China over Africa?