Wrong, wrong, wrong on Obama

Apparently, John Finch’s 20 years in private practice have given him the very skill that he decries Barack Obama for:  “the greatest skill of every pitch-artist is the ability to weave bits of truth in an often deceptive fashion.” He has taken Obama’s suggestion that — given the increasing religious diversity of the U.S. population — we must embrace different value systems, and we cannot simply think of this country as a “Christian” one.

Somehow, Finch has equated a rapidly changing demographic with a new value system. Obama’s remarks have nothing to do with moral values — they are simply suggesting that a multicultural society should embrace all the attendant faiths — and nonfaiths — that are part of our national fabric. That would include respect for their various value systems.

I’m planning on voting for Obama on Nov. 4, but don’t count me as one who looks at him with “blind adoration.” He’s not Superman. He has said things and done things that do not sit well with me. I’m voting for him because he has all the skills that this country needs for a president at this juncture. If you want to see some blind adoration, go to a Sarah Palin rally.

Danny Gotham
Chapel Hill

---------------------------------------------------------

As a Christian seminary student, I object to how John Finch’s Oct. 28 column “weaves bits of truth into a large fabric of fluff” to misrepresent a speech Barack Obama made to progressive Christians. He quotes an out-of-context passage to claim Obama promotes replacing Christianity with lukewarm religious pluralism.

Ironically, Obama was calling on Christian Democrats to stop hiding their Christianity. He describes how to do this while keeping church and state separate to avoid Christianity’s reduction to another political issue with which to score points.

Obama doesn’t propose adopting a politically correct universal moral code, as Finch suggests, but rather translating biblical values into proposals that are subject to argument, and amenable to reason. This way, a progressive Christian politician can fight for biblical values without throwing around God’s name cynically and disrespectfully.

Morgan Guyton
Durham

---------------------------------------------------------

Regarding the Oct. 29 Point of View by John Finch, I would like to suggest that perhaps he should look in the mirror. He’s a pretty good pitch artist himself, except for me he has thrown nothing but foul balls. Aside from the abusive ad hominems, false dilemmas and amphiboly he employs, his own “blind fundamentalism” is transparent. I found his cover-up of Obama’s position amusing. He states:
“He [Obama in his “Call to Renewal” speech] explains why ‘Christian values can no longer form the moral basis of American society. He [again, Obama] states that: “Given the increasing diversity of America’s population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.”
 
How clever Finch was to leave out any attempt to help clarify Obama’s obvious intention. With the addition of a few words and if we bother to pay attention to his past rhetoric, we can understand his position. To wit: “Christian values can no longer be the only form for the moral basis of American society.” His statement has an entirely different meaning than the one alluded to by Finch and is based upon the fundamental principles of our Constitution. We are a country based on a foundation of freedom not on Finch’s particular brand of “Christianity” only, or anyone else’s for that matter.

Frankly, Finch, not Obama, scares me. With 20 years in practice as an attorney, has he forgotten those principles taught in his constitutional law classes, or merely chosen to twist and ignore them?
 
It is hard for me to believe that anything could cause more polarization in our society than the thinly veiled sectarian issues Finch used to prop up his exposition. Focusing on heated issues like “abortion and other matters” (whatever they may be) is far more divisive than making a simple statement about our diversity as a nation.

His false dilemma about Obama’s lack of understanding about “the morally conservative nature of most cultures” or that he disregards the “true facts with the assumption that the rest of us are clueless” are clearly not reasonable choices to glean from his written and spoken positions. Our need, no, our moral imperative, is to embrace freedom by showing tolerance, living peacefully and defending everyone’s right to believe as they choose, while at the same time obeying the laws of civilized society.

I have no “blind fundamentalist-style devotion” to anyone or any ideal other than to live free. Indeed, I agree with Finch about one thing: History does have an annoying way of repeating itself. Sectarianism is one of those “scary” things I hope we can all avoid repeating. Being free and avoiding any kind of “sectarianism” is why our country was founded, wasn’t it?

Paul M. Kauffmann
Durham

---------------------------------------------------------

In response to the Point of View “From the lips of Barack Obama” by John B. Finch, I would like to say thanks for affording me the opportunity to read the article written by Barack Obama, which led Finch to believe that Obama is a “left-wing extremist.”

After reading the article, I am in total opposition to Finch’s opinion and am only further convinced that Barack Obama has the most dynamic insight into understanding mankind and our very blessed United States of America.

Rose Whitley
Smithfield

---------------------------------------------------------

John Finch, in “A pitch artist who inspires scary devotion,” is frightened of Barack Obama. Based on his column, Finch frightens very easily. He fears the statement that our nation is diverse, not simply a white, Protestant, uniform entity, and that our values should reflect that diversity. And just what Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist or Muslim values does Finch fear? An examination of the basic moral values of any of the world’s great religions would reveal much more similarity than difference.
 
Finch described the Rev. Jeremiah Wright as “virulently divisive.” Rev. Wright’s extreme statements are clear; so is Obama’s denunciation of those views. All of Obama’s writings, actions while a state senator and U.S. senator and statements during the primary and general election campaign indicate that he does not accept the “liberationist theology” views expressed by Rev. Wright. However, given the experiences of African-Americans during the Jim Crow era, it is absurd to expect that those of Rev. Wright’s generation would hold views other than the ones expressed by Jeremiah Wright. If you have been subject to lynching, and every legal and social degradation, verbal condemnation is the least one would expect. But Obama grew up at a different time, had different experiences and does not share those views expressed by Rev. Wright.

Obama said he would agree to public financing, if an agreement could be reached with the Republican campaign. It is clear that if he had gone with public financing and not accepted the millions of small donations, the Republican attack machine, including the 527s, would have had a field day.  Campaign finance will have to wait for more comprehensive reform.

Obama does not have “dubious oratory talent,” but real talent; he has the intelligence and the ability to be a great president. It’s a shame John Finch does not recognize this.

Joe Elinoff
Durham

---------------------------------------------------------
I was saddened by the article written by John Finch, who seems to share the same last name as Atticus  Finch in the famous novel by Harper Lee. I do not understand why The N&O chose to print this pitch artist’s venomous article. He apparently prides himself as a Christian conservative.  Well, the best of Christian conservative tradition is to celebrate the birth of God with all stripes of religion — magis from all over the globe.

I remember the year-end parties given by the late Dr. Leslie Campbell, where he heartily welcomed a Palestinian from Bethlehem for the occasion. Contrary to the pitch artist’s rhetoric, the McCain campaign has inspired scary devotion amounting to a mob. McCain has been irascible throughout the campaign, while Obama has been calm. I ask the pitch artist accusing Obama being a pitch artist to read the candidate’s past comment on the Warren court.  Obama is an intellectual to a fault.

 Has the writer ever attended a black church? I urge him to do so. Jeremiah Wright is in the tradition of Prophet Jeremiah. The preacher’s self-righteous rhetoric belies his good deeds. There is no mistake the Rev. Wright has done a lot of good things. What was shown in the snippets does not reveal the real person and his church.

What Finch advocates is not in the best of Christian tradition. It is a last ditch pitch artist’s effort to stop the history from happening.  

Paul Suhr
Raleigh

---------------------------------------------------------

John Finch (“A pitch artist who inspires scary devotion,” Oct. 29) so misrepresented Barack Obama’s 2006 speech that it’s hard to refute briefly.  

Nowhere does Obama hint that Christian values no longer underlie American society, as Finch charged.  

Late in the speech, Obama says we have become a religiously diverse nation. From this, Finch inexplicably argues that Obama is either ignorant of or cynical about the nature of the world. Obama’s point is simply that politics must be respectful of this diversity.

Finch uses the tired “celebrity” talking point: Obama is such an inspiring speaker that he is dangerous. So effective public speaking is a bad thing?

Reading Obama’s speech honestly reveals a thoughtful examination of religion and politics. He might not be as absolute as some conservatives want, but he respects their religious values.  

Obama is not the pitch-artist here.

Don Clement
Durham

---------------------------------------------------------

Many thanks to Point of View writer John Finch for pointing us to a two-year-old speech by Barack Obama. As an Obama supporter I highly recommend this speech to any undecided voter.

Finch, of course, hopes the speech will convince you that Obama is a dangerous extremist. Wow, you’d think he could have found something a tad more inflammatory, less thoughtful, less statesmanlike than this. It’s at http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/

Our highest hope should be that an Obama presidency will move people such as Finch toward thinking and working within a diverse society instead of fighting against it.

David E. Brown
Chapel Hill

---------------------------------------------------------

Like many others in Raleigh, I am a lawyer. Law school’s purpose is to teach reasoning and organized, rational thinking and this is the basis on which people listen to a lawyer’s opinions with some respect. John Finch certainly gives his legal credentials as a reason to listen to his views. I am upset that he uses the profession and his “20 years” as a lawyer to make such a flawed argument.

Finch writes well and much of what he says makes sense. But his entire argument is based on a personal, partisan assumption that’s hidden from the casual reader. In his fifth paragraph, Finch writes that “[p]resumably” Obama’s suggestion that we embrace a more inclusive moral code shows Obama’s desire to foist his “very liberal policies regarding abortion and other matters” onto society.   Thus does attorney Finch, with The N&O’s assistance, persuade based upon his legal credentials and his erroneous personal assumptions.     
 
The more inclusive moral code Obama referenced is to embrace non-Christians. I come from a proud Jewish heritage. Our Founding Fathers separated church and state so that all Americans could have freedom of worship. Many Republican supporters seem to equate Christianity to being “American” or a “real” American or patriotic. I submit that nothing could be further from the truth. Obama’s speech calling for our country to embrace Americans of all religions is certainly not equivalent to pushing abortion rights or a liberal agenda.

I am just so upset my profession and its reputation for intelligently reasoned thinking is used to support this type of thing!

Victoria Wright
Raleigh

---------------------------------------------------------

Why publish another fear-mongering attack on Barack Obama like John Finch’s baseless column claiming that Obama is a left-wing extremist who is hiding some unspecified scary agenda, and calling Obama supporters blind for not seeing this? Can no one defend McCain/Bush policies without resorting to scare tactics about Obama?

Finch says he’s afraid of Obama’s 2006 speech on religion, which promoted the idea that faith-based morals have a role in public policy. This is an idea that a huge majority of Americans agree with. Obama, however, cautions against using the beliefs of any particular religious sect as the basis for our laws. Again, this is something Americans agree with, and it’s right there in the Constitution. What is scary about this?  

It’s hard for me to understand how anyone fairly reading Obama’s words on this or any other topic can be afraid of some hidden extremist agenda.  Some may disagree about some of his ideas like allowing Bush tax cuts on top income-earners to expire, or bringing troops home from Iraq, but these are not scary radical views.

The election should be about ideas, but it looks like fear-mongering is all Finch and the McCain/Palin campaign have left.

Michael Ling
Chapel Hill

---------------------------------------------------------

I suppose it is reasonable to offer a range of editorial views, pro and con on Barack Obama. But the guest op-ed by John B. Finch just doesn’t belong in any paper that values its credibility.  Finch makes the inflammatory charge that Obama is a “left-wing extremist” and attempts to loosely back up that dubious claim by equally dubious arguments about Obama’s multiculturalist outlook. And then he claims that most cultures are morally conservative. Just what is “morally conservative” supposed to mean?

If you insist on subjecting your readers to this drivel, in all fairness, perhaps you should headline these pieces, “Another rant by a right-wing raving ideologue.”

Howard A. Partner
Durham

---------------------------------------------------------

Reading the op-ed piece by John Finch, I am drawn to wonder whether he is aware that his argument supports the language he criticizes.

Paraphrasing Obama, he states: This demographic change is given as the reason why America must embrace a more universal moral code. He then proceeds to demonstrate that such a universal code, acceptable to Roman Catholic and Hindu immigrants, would more closely approach that of fundamental, evangelical Christians than would the moral code he attributes to Obama’s very liberal policies.

To my understanding, Finch has confused what Obama said (Finch’s attribution) with his own adversarial political view.

Dan McConnell
Raleigh
-
--------------------------------------------------------

John Finch started his outrageous attack on Barack Obama in his Oct. 29 op-ed piece by writing “Who is the real Barack Obama? Unlike most of his supporters, I have concluded that he is a left-wing extremist.”

Finch’s evidence is Obama’s 2006 “Call to Renewal” speech on religion and politics. That speech confirmed, Finch writes, “my worst fears about Obama.”

The problem with Finch’s charge is that Obama’s speech is anything but radical; it is moderate in tone and substance (and I encourage readers to Google it and read it for themselves).  In fact, Finch has completely mischaracterized Obama’s position. This is an important issue for many people, and the record needs to be set straight.

In his speech, Obama claimed that “Americans are a religious people.”  He asserted the importance of faith —a faith that speaks to a “deep hunger” in people’s lives. He confessed that “something was missing” in his own life that led, eventually, to his own conversion to Christianity: “I felt that I heard God’s spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth.”

Obama argued that “secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square” and he mentioned a number of great Americans who were moved by their faith to make America better. He praised evangelical ministers for their public concern and chastised his own party for its occasional wariness of religion.  (Indeed, Obama has since proposed strengthening President Bush’s faith-based initiative, to the discomfort of some Democrats.) He noted that it is not enough to change laws; the problems of our time require that our hearts be changed as well.

Is this what troubles Finch? Well, he doesn’t mention any of this. The problem would appear to be that Obama also defended the separation of church and state.

Now, we need to keep in mind, as Obama reminded his listeners, that the strongest support for separating church and state at America’s founding came from evangelicals — especially Baptists, and he made the important and often overlooked point that the vitality of religion in America (unlike in Europe) is a result of the free enterprise in religion that the First Amendment made possible. The idea of separating church and state is not some wild-eyed radical idea.

But, Finch says, Obama “alludes to immigration” (a red flag) and claims that we are no longer “just a Christian nation.” He seems to think that what Obama really wants is a “universal moral code” in keeping with his “very liberal policies.” This, Finch argues, violates the “morally conservative” nature of our culture

America has become a religiously pluralistic society and, as Obama noted, “given the increasing diversity of America’s population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater.” We need to find common ground. Democracy requires that we not use religion as a “tool of attack.”  Americans “don’t want faith used to belittle or to divide. They’re tired of hearing folks deliver more screed than sermon. Because in the end, that’s not how they think about faith in their own lives.”

This doesn’t require that religion be excluded from the public square; far from it. But this does mean that we should treat each other with respect and try to find moral common ground.  In a religiously pluralistic society the separation of church and state provides a framework that allows us to live together with our deepest differences (which are often religious). It prevents constant warring over religious truth — over whose interpretation of the Bible will be favored, or which religion will be given preferences.

Finch notes that 20 years of practicing law has ”given me many opportunities to learn about ignoble human qualities” — implying that he is able to discern such qualities in Obama.

No doubt Obama’s position can be criticized from the vantage point of the Religious Right or the Secular Left, but what is completely unreasonable is to argue, as Finch does, that Obama’s position is radical or insincere or ignoble. Obama’s speech, and his position on religion and politics are utterly moderate, deep-felt, and any suggestion otherwise is simply “over the top.”

Warren A. Nord
Former director, Program in Humanities and Human Values at UNC-Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill