Tapu Misa: Nothing scary in dial-a-prayer sessions

I don't know why it should come as a surprise to anyone that the world's most powerful man feels the need to seek spiritual succour from a small group of pastors.

After all, President Obama has never made any secret of being a committed, church-going Christian.

But the reaction from some quarters of the mainstream (as in, if it's religion, it must be bad) media to the revelation in a recent New York Times story that the President regularly consults five pastors for private prayer sessions on the phone, has been predictably negative.

Though none of the President's tight five are aligned with the Religious Right, and all are described as "centrist, social justice guys", and includes a respected civil rights campaigner, the idea that some of Obama's inner circle are conservative on abortion and homosexuality has raised fears he may be led astray by some of his more conservative spiritual advisers.

The Telegraph reported that a year after the "incendiary rantings" of Obama's former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, had threatened to derail his presidential campaign, revelations of the "dial-a-prayer" sessions has prompted critics to declare that the President had a new "pastor problem".

Gay rights groups fear the group will derail key gay rights legislation and "neuter Mr Obama's social policies".

Over at the Guardian, Sarah Posner suggested that, given the "paternalistic orthodoxy of Christian fundamentalism", Obama's spiritual counsellors didn't have the best interests of women at heart.

Posner seemed to regard as sinister Obama's expansion of his Office of Faith-based and Neighbourhood Partnerships, from its laudable mission of fighting poverty and social injustice to including policy guidance on such matters as "fatherhood" and "abortion reduction".

"That these policy concerns should be the province of religion is bad enough," she wrote. "Obama also stacked the council with men, many of whom are opposed to reproductive rights."

All of which misunderstands Obama's theological leanings (which is at the social justice end of the church, according to one observer) as well as those of his advisers.

Jim Wallis, who is on both the faith-based council and Obama's inner sanctum, wrote in 2005, "If the Democrats could be persuaded by both good political sense and sound moral values to moderate some of their positions by becoming anti-abortion without criminalising an agonising and desperate choice, and being pro-family without being anti-gay, they would change politics in America".

There's nothing scary or sinister about Obama's faith-based council, which brings together Jewish, Muslim and Christian leaders to oversee the distribution of grants to religious and community groups, and to look for new, faith-based solutions to pressing social problems.

As Obama said last month in what's described as his first religious speech: "I do believe that if we can talk to each other openly and honestly, and if perhaps we allow God's grace to enter into that space that lies between us, then the old rifts will start to mend, new partnerships will begin to emerge.

In a world that grows smaller by the day, perhaps we can begin to crowd out the destructive forces of excessive zealotry and make room for the healing power of understanding."

Yes, Obama's prayer group is against abortion - but who isn't, at heart?

Obama has made it clear he is pro-choice, but he has made abortion reduction a priority for his faith-based council.

In fact, abortion reduction rather than abolition is now the "common ground" on what was once the abortion battlefield. In a pragmatic response to social and political realities, old foes have put down their weapons to work together to promote programmes seeking to cut the abortion rate by providing economic support for vulnerable women, and preventing unplanned pregnancies.

In Congress, for example, pro-life and pro-choice representatives have partnered to sponsor the Reducing the Need for Abortion and Supporting Parents Act.

This is a major breakthrough, though as John Gehring and Simone Campbell wrote in the website of the liberal Christian movement Sojourners last week, "a chorus of critics from across the ideological spectrum has lined up to malign these common-ground efforts".

"Liberal bloggers slam Catholics and evangelicals working on this approach as radical 'anti-choice' hardliners cosying up to the Religious Right. Religious conservatives denounce the effort as a betrayal of faith and question research that finds abortions decline when women have quality health care and access to robust social services. "

Still, after more than three decades of "political paralysis and legal gridlock", they wrote, the time is ripe for ending the abortion stalemate.

"At a time of grave economic crisis, it's more essential than ever that we reject the false divide between social justice and pro-life advocacy.

Policies that help put Americans back to work, ensure families have affordable health care, and strengthen fraying social safety nets also lower the abortion rate, which is more than four times higher for women living in poverty than for women earning 300 per cent above the poverty line ..."

As Douglas W. Kmiec, a law professor who opposes abortion, told the Washington Post, "If one strategy has failed and failed over decades, and you have empirical information that tells how you can honour life and encourage women to make that choice by meeting real needs that are existing and tangible, why not do that?"

* Tapu.Misa@gmail.com