I couldn't agree more, steve, though I think the word you are looking for is not "abject" in "abject disgust." I guess what really bugs me about all this outreach is that there isn't going to be any reciprocity without some kind of quid pro quo. As far as I can see the white house is offering some kind of money, or policy help, or a hand out but they will never get anything for it in terms of respect or honest dialogue because that isn't actually useful for the groups they are working with. Those groups aren't honestly interested in doing the work of "abortion reduction" or of "fatherhood workshops" or what-have-you. They are interested in using sluts and patriarchy as foils to *get religious adherents* and real world votes for their other programs and for their congregations. These groups are utterly self interested and their intersests are diametrically opposed to those of the secular tax paying public, of single mothers or even single fathers. Until Obama grasps that he's going to need to check his hand for missing fingers every time he extends it.

aimai

Let's hope this is another example of Obama channeling FDR in making meaningless gestures that people misinterpret as agreement and support, when he has no intention of doing what they want.

Calling this group of whackos, bigots, and misogynistic snakehandlers the "Religious Right" is a misnomer.

They're the Religious Wrong. . .

I'm saying the meeting will be a mistake if Obama aides believe a) they should give up ground to make the religious right happy; and/or b) they can win over those who hate them.

What other reasons can there be? Is the Obama administration so interested in spitting in the face of progressives that they would take this meeting just for the soundbite?

Concerned Women for America and the Family Research Council...Christian Medical Association and Care Net

Somehow, I don't associate any of these groups with religion or issues of public service. Meeting with them is more like Bush meeting with Code Pink.

Just curious, but has Obama met with "representatives of the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and People for the American Way, to discuss culture war issues"? I don't have a problem with his desire to meet with people he disagrees with to try to find common ground, even though those people aren't at all interested in common ground.

But I don't feel like this spreads across the political spectrum. Has the head of the faith-based office met publicly with publicity with organizations that don't think there should be a faith based office?

It's not the religious right groups that the President is aiming for, but the individual Christians who agree with him on such issues as decreasing abortions and improving the role of men in raising children. If he talks to the leaders of the various groups and then they castigate the President later, Obama wins since his take on responsible fatherhood and decreasing abortions is well known and in general agreed upon by most people. Any attack on the President by the religious right groups has to have some evidence of what they object to ("Obama is a baby-killer", etc.) and by accepting his invitation to the White House and the subsequent report by the White House on what happened, they diminish this sort of rhetoric or look vindictive because they have nothing to point to when they say such things.

While there are plenty of people out there who would like to agree with the nasty interpretation of the corporate right wing religionists, there are also those who a) believe that Christ's teachings include forgiveness and inclusiveness and b) agree with the President on these issues. It is hard for such people to broadly condemn someone who shares ideals with them. While they may disagree with some of what the President says or stands for, they also find solace in much of what he says.

To put this in perspective, imagine George W. Bush aides agreeing to meet with representatives of the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and People for the American Way, to discuss culture war issues. If that sounds like a ridiculous scenario, then you can appreciate why this meeting between Obama's faith-based guy and leading activists from the religious right is unusual.

Try to imagine any US president meeting with atheists groups, and you'll see why this pisses me off.

With any luck whatsoever, these jackbooted thugs will be told, point blank, that the Obama administration is not going to give them a legislative victory. If these groups want to reduce the number of abortions in the U.S., then they're going to have to start coughing up a really big share of the big bucks it'll take to put a proper prenatal/postnatal support system in place. It might sound something like this:

"You want these kids brought into the world? Fine---you help pay for that to happen; you help pay for their care, their support, their feeding and clothing and housing. You help pay for the extra thousands of classrooms equipped with computers and real science textbooks and non-ideologue teachers who have legitimate degrees and licensure, the tens of thousands of doctors' and dentists' visits, and everything else needed to support their nurture and upringing---from conception to adulthood. Otherwise, get your worthless hides outta my office, outta my boss's house, and outta my sight."

A little respect and offering of dignity goes a long way with these religious righters, many of whom feel despised, and left out of serious conversation. They bring much (but not all) of this on themselves, but regardless they respond to the kindness of an offer of respect.

Steve W makes an excellent point. I hope Obama asks them why they claim to be advocates for the unborn, but at the same time oppose government-guaranteed health care for the unborn.

And another thing -- why is it that pro-lifers hate *born* babies so much? I mean, once you're born, per Republican dogma, you're on your own. No health care, no government handouts, no head start -- nothing.

Finally, I hope Obama -- after politely listening to them -- brings up a few choice quotes from these raving lunatics and asks them to defend them to his face.

Personal Failure: "Try to imagine any US president meeting with atheists groups, and you'll see why this pisses me off."

Well, if I remember correctly, Obama did mention non-believers during the Inauguration speech, didn't he? How often has that ever occurred? But meeting with religious organizations is not analogous to meeting with atheists organizations, since atheism is not a religion, right? I'm assuming there is no similar established doctrine to inform atheist positions.

This might not be such a bad idea. It can't hurt, and sometimes all it takes to de-fang some of these crazies for a while is to give them a small show of respect.

As much as I disagree with the so called religous rigt on almost everything you really have to admire Obama for at least making the effort to have some kind of dialogue with these people. Otherwise have we come to the point in this country where it's down to just beleiving that people that disagree with us are enemies as opposed to people that just disagree. As wacked out as many of these right wingers are do they really want a war with their own people?

He is reaching out to the disenfranchised. There are a lot of republicans who are watching their party go off the deep end. With each meeting, each event, each gesture, he is making it very hard for reasonable republicans to dislike him. While the republican leadership is making it very difficult for reasonable republicans to like them.

President Obama has shown me time and again he is a few steps ahead of even the keenest media pundits.

My take is that Pres. Obama knows it is far better to assuage ignorance and then bring the ignorant along to the light, than it is to ignore those who would do harm if unchecked. Chill and allow President Obama to make whatever overtures he desires if such overtures allow us to expand the realm of democratic acceptance. After all we can't marginalize others just because they work to marginalize us. Should intelligent people allow for such a dynamic, our democracy would be in more peril than it is! -Kevo

As long as he meets with No-Nes, as well.

A friend forwarded me some poll, recently, where more people were marking the None category for religion. So, let's hear it for the rising No-Ne movement.

If the Religious Right is truly becoming irrelevant as you say, then this meeting is more important to them than it is to Obama.

Obama gets to demonstrate that he is willing to offer the olive branch, showing that his mind is open and he's not beholden to reflexive anti-religiosity.

The Religionists get to demonstrate that they are indeed relevant. Everyone wins.

To put this in perspective, imagine George W. Bush aides agreeing to meet with representatives of the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and People for the American Way, to discuss culture war issues. If that sounds like a ridiculous scenario, then you can appreciate why this meeting between Obama's faith-based guy and leading activists from the religious right is unusual.

This, unfortunately, is a bad anolaogy for several reasons. First, given Obama's often right wing friendly rhetoric and actions (Rick Warren, the wingnut commentator dinner you mention), this is not so surprising. Second, as at least one ommenter has noted, the Obama administration hardly seems to be meeting with the liberal groups you mention (can't threaten their "Very Serious Village credentials, can they?). And unlike Steve, I find this action to be very troubling, although not surprising. Yes, Obama is an improvement on Bush and was preferable to McCain. But, as shown just by Obama's embrace of the bulk of Bush's unconstitutional claims of executive powers, that is a mighty low bar.

I think if Obama is willing to meet with Iran, then meeting with the local Taliban representatives should be alright, I guess.

Just to note, its not Obama meeting with these folks, its the head of this office of faith based initiatives (or whatever the new name is). So it isn't quite as significant as Obama meeting with them. And Obama did say upon establishing his version of the office that one of his goals for it was reducing the number of abortions, so the head of the office reaching out to these folks as abortion opponents has a understandable rationale.

I just hope that Obama knows what the Family Research Council and the Concerned Women of America have done to some of us for the past three decades. And I hope that he realizes why so the victims of their anti-gay crusades don't see them as reasonable people who just need a little respect. I hope he realizes he may need to explain some of his take on this to folks once again and why.

Can any of these groups be brought on board for policies like food stamps and sectioon 8 housing that might tip the balance of some women's decision to "choose life"?

Is CWA too steeped in fiscal conservatism that they cannot be persuaded to see the contradiction of a society that demands hungry mouths be brought into the world but is unwilling to make sure food is available for those mouths we and they claim to be so precious?

If so, all the better to expose the hypocrisy. "Life is priceless, unless it's a 30% increase in food stamps/WIC."

If not, this could become a serious wedge in the heartless bastard/Jesus freak marriage-of-convenience. Can pro-life forces be encouraged to accept the common ground solutions to abortion that liberals already support?

This could be a productive tack if there's ANY sincerity on their side and not just Republican front groups. (I really don't know one way or the other.)

Anyone else hoping that he pulls a Jed Bartlett and tells them to get their fat asses out of his White House?

You are missing Obama's agenda - and that is perpetuation of the Bush admin agenda. Not only has Obama strengthened the faith-based and (newly named)neighborhood partnership offices throughout all of the govt agencies, he is actively embracing the agenda of the fundies and evangelicals.

Kimberly Konkel, a Bush holdover director at HHS (who not coincidentally, is LDS born, bred and educated - as was Mike Leavitt, the prior HHS sec who pushed through the abstinence only crap and the midnight conscience clause rules which would deny countless women essential healthcare education and reproductive health care), stated that not only are there no operational definitions of the terms, faith-based, community and neighborhood, there are no eligibility criteria, no metrics for stated goals and no evaluative criteria for effectiveness and even identifying what targeted patient outcomes are, let alone meeting them. It's a snake oil salesman's paradise.

Obama has already created a 25 member advisory board stocked with right wing fundie fanatics.

And it's all of Obama's making.

http://www.hhs.gov/fbci/about/contacts/fbci-contact.html

While I personally share very little life philosophy with these groups, I do think engagement is better than ostricising them. Even if nothing substantive comes from such meetings, at least some of the rank and file members of will find it hard not to like the President when he reaches out...even just symbolically. And a few may realize they share his views on certain issues even though their religious "leaders" do not. Isolation is a sure road to radicalization and that is something none of us wants.

Will the WH gives these guys more influence with the public by meeting them? Maybe the WH is hoping they disgrace/discredit themselves at the WH or in their post-meeting spins. I hope the WH is going to tape every bit of it.

I think this is a shrewd move on the part of the White House. They extended an olive branch, so when these peddlers of hate launch into their tirades against the evil baby-killers, the Obama administration can say that they met with them in good faith, so to speak, and they listened to their concerns.

It also reminds me of the scene in the pilot episode of The West Wing where President Bartlet meets with a similar group, listens to their concerns very politely, then tells them to either denounce one of their fringe group's antics now, and until they do, they "can all get their fat asses out of my White House."

Heh. Great minds, Mustang Bobby!

I find it fascinating that CWA or FRC would want to go anywhere near the Obama Administration. I'd think it would be much more helpful to their cause (and fund-raising) to claim that they've been shunned by the White House. If, and this is a big IF, they come out of the meeting with a few points of agreement-- abortion reduction, etc.-- then they really will appear to be in cahoots with the evil, evil Obama administration.

I suppose that even right-wingers just like to be asked. The Obama Admininstration risks little giving any civil attention to these wingnuts. I think the wingnuts risk looking like hypocrits among their followers for having any civil ties to the Obama administration.

((Celebrating an open Whitehouse where citizens of differing ideology are allowed, once again,to enter the People's House.))

To put this in perspective, imagine George W. Bush aides agreeing to meet with representatives of the ACLU, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and People for the American Way, to discuss culture war issues.

To put this in perspective, imagine the Bush Administration's having a "White House Office of Secularism and Church/State Separation." For that matter, imagine the Obama White House having such an office.

mikeyes, Okie and kevo at the beginning of the thread all pretty much nail it, in my view.

Obama is a savvy and intelligent leader.* The current demographic and socio-political context of the US suggests that making overtures to the "Evangelical" community makes sense, in that it will help to pave the way for reproductive health reform...by defusing some of the power of the anti-choice/"pro-life" movement.

* Obama "not qualified?" Ha!...it's a thrill to see Obama demonstrate more leadership acumen in 60 days than W did in 8 years.

I'm sure this is just PR. Trying to at least put to rest or whatever the whole thing on the right that Democrats are hostile to people of faith (false) meme.

I think Obama doesn't expect these meetings to end in policy agreements at all. In fact, I think what he wants out of this dialogue won't be said to have borne fruit for some years. Obama wants to change the tone and isn't stupid enough to think that can happen overnight. If he keeps reaching out his hand, however, hopefully both sides will (over time) start to calm down a little, be a little bit more mature. They may come to see that he is sincere, and one hopes, return his good faith dialog. Once THAT happens, then some policy common ground won't be so unattainable as it is now.

The various forms of atheism are belief systems. Just because they may not be recognised as a tax exempt church, does not mean that their positions on certain topics should not be sought at the same time as other "religious" groups, especially when they make up a significant part of the population.

To suggest otherwise is to suggest that organised groups representing certain belief systems have a privileged place in advising government. Let's try not to make that an established place, shall we?

But why isn't the government talking with the ACLU and AU regarding issues relating to religious freedom? After all, both are dedicated to the constitutional freedoms that we all supposedly enjoy. Neither the ACLU or AU are "atheist" organisations.