And he does mention Uganda’s “execute gays” bill during his address.
We may disagree about the best way to reform our health care system, but surely we can agree that no one ought to go broke when they get sick in the richest nation on Earth. We can take different approaches to ending inequality, but surely we can agree on the need to lift our children out of ignorance; to lift our neighbors from poverty.We may disagree about gay marriage, but surely we can agree that it is unconscionable to target gays and lesbians for who they are — whether it’s here in the United States or, as Hillary mentioned, more extremely in odious laws that are being proposed most recently in Uganda.
The full speech is below the fold.
THE WHITE HOUSEOffice of the Press Secretary
____________________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release February 4, 2010REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT THE NATIONAL PRAYER BREAKFASTWashington Hilton
Washington, D.C.9:08 A.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Thank you very much. Please be seated.
Thank you so much. Heads of state, Cabinet members, my outstanding Vice President, members of Congress, religious leaders, distinguished guests, Admiral Mullen — it’s good to see all of you. Let me begin by acknowledging the co-chairs of this breakfast, Senators Isakson and Klobuchar, who embody the sense of fellowship at the heart of this gathering. They’re two of my favorite senators. Let me also acknowledge the director of my faith-based office, Joshua DuBois, who is here. Where’s Joshua? He’s out there somewhere. He’s doing great work. (Applause.)
I want to commend Secretary Hillary Clinton on her outstanding remarks, and her outstanding leadership at the State Department. She’s doing good every day. (Applause.) I’m especially pleased to see my dear friend, Prime Minister Zapatero, and I want him to relay America’s greetings to the people of Spain. And Johnny, you are right, I’m deeply blessed, and I thank God every day for being married to Michelle Obama. (Applause.)
I’m privileged to join you once again, as my predecessors have for over half a century. Like them, I come here to speak about the ways my faith informs who I am — as a President, and as a person. But I’m also here for the same reason that all of you are, for we all share a recognition — one as old as time — that a willingness to believe, an openness to grace, a commitment to prayer can bring sustenance to our lives.
There is, of course, a need for prayer even in times of joy and peace and prosperity. Perhaps especially in such times prayer is needed — to guard against pride and to guard against complacency. But rightly or wrongly, most of us are inclined to seek out the divine not in the moment when the Lord makes His face shine upon us, but in moments when God’s grace can seem farthest away.
Last month, God’s grace, God’s mercy, seemed far away from our neighbors in Haiti. And yet I believe that grace was not absent in the midst of tragedy. It was heard in prayers and hymns that broke the silence of an earthquake’s wake. It was witnessed among parishioners of churches that stood no more, a roadside congregation, holding bibles in their laps. It was felt in the presence of relief workers and medics; translators; servicemen and women, bringing water and food and aid to the injured.
One such translator was an American of Haitian descent, representative of the extraordinary work that our men and women in uniform do all around the world — Navy Corpsman Christian [sic] Brossard. And lying on a gurney aboard the USNS Comfort, a woman asked Christopher: ”Where do you come from? What country? After my operation,” she said, “I will pray for that country.” And in Creole, Corpsman Brossard responded, “Etazini.” The United States of America.
God’s grace, and the compassion and decency of the American people is expressed through the men and women like Corpsman Brossard. It’s expressed through the efforts of our Armed Forces, through the efforts of our entire government, through similar efforts from Spain and other countries around the world. It’s also, as Secretary Clinton said, expressed through multiple faith-based efforts. By evangelicals at World Relief. By the American Jewish World Service. By Hindu temples, and mainline Protestants, Catholic Relief Services, African American churches, the United Sikhs. By Americans of every faith, and no faith, uniting around a common purpose, a higher purpose.
It’s inspiring. This is what we do, as Americans, in times of trouble. We unite, recognizing that such crises call on all of us to act, recognizing that there but for the grace of God go I, recognizing that life’s most sacred responsibility — one affirmed, as Hillary said, by all of the world’s great religions — is to sacrifice something of ourselves for a person in need.
Sadly, though, that spirit is too often absent when tackling the long-term, but no less profound issues facing our country and the world. Too often, that spirit is missing without the spectacular tragedy, the 9/11 or the Katrina, the earthquake or the tsunami, that can shake us out of complacency. We become numb to the day-to-day crises, the slow-moving tragedies of children without food and men without shelter and families without health care. We become absorbed with our abstract arguments, our ideological disputes, our contests for power. And in this Tower of Babel, we lose the sound of God’s voice.
Now, for those of us here in Washington, let’s acknowledge that democracy has always been messy. Let’s not be overly nostalgic. (Laughter.) Divisions are hardly new in this country. Arguments about the proper role of government, the relationship between liberty and equality, our obligations to our fellow citizens — these things have been with us since our founding. And I’m profoundly mindful that a loyal opposition, a vigorous back and forth, a skepticism of power, all of that is what makes our democracy work.
And we’ve seen actually some improvement in some circumstances. We haven’t seen any canings on the floor of the Senate any time recently. (Laughter.) So we shouldn’t over-romanticize the past. But there is a sense that something is different now; that something is broken; that those of us in Washington are not serving the people as well as we should. At times, it seems like we’re unable to listen to one another; to have at once a serious and civil debate. And this erosion of civility in the public square sows division and distrust among our citizens. It poisons the well of public opinion. It leaves each side little room to negotiate with the other. It makes politics an all-or-nothing sport, where one side is either always right or always wrong when, in reality, neither side has a monopoly on truth. And then we lose sight of the children without food and the men without shelter and the families without health care.
Empowered by faith, consistently, prayerfully, we need to find our way back to civility. That begins with stepping out of our comfort zones in an effort to bridge divisions. We see that in many conservative pastors who are helping lead the way to fix our broken immigration system. It’s not what would be expected from them, and yet they recognize, in those immigrant families, the face of God. We see that in the evangelical leaders who are rallying their congregations to protect our planet. We see it in the increasing recognition among progressives that government can’t solve all of our problems, and that talking about values like responsible fatherhood and healthy marriage are integral to any anti-poverty agenda. Stretching out of our dogmas, our prescribed roles along the political spectrum, that can help us regain a sense of civility.
Civility also requires relearning how to disagree without being disagreeable; understanding, as President [Kennedy] said, that “civility is not a sign of weakness.” Now, I am the first to confess I am not always right. Michelle will testify to that. (Laughter.) But surely you can question my policies without questioning my faith, or, for that matter, my citizenship. (Laughter and applause.)
Challenging each other’s ideas can renew our democracy. But when we challenge each other’s motives, it becomes harder to see what we hold in common. We forget that we share at some deep level the same dreams — even when we don’t share the same plans on how to fulfill them.
We may disagree about the best way to reform our health care system, but surely we can agree that no one ought to go broke when they get sick in the richest nation on Earth. We can take different approaches to ending inequality, but surely we can agree on the need to lift our children out of ignorance; to lift our neighbors from poverty. We may disagree about gay marriage, but surely we can agree that it is unconscionable to target gays and lesbians for who they are — whether it’s here in the United States or, as Hillary mentioned, more extremely in odious laws that are being proposed most recently in Uganda.
Surely we can agree to find common ground when possible, parting ways when necessary. But in doing so, let us be guided by our faith, and by prayer. For while prayer can buck us up when we are down, keep us calm in a storm; while prayer can stiffen our spines to surmount an obstacle — and I assure you I’m praying a lot these days — (laughter) — prayer can also do something else. It can touch our hearts with humility. It can fill us with a spirit of brotherhood. It can remind us that each of us are children of a awesome and loving God.
Through faith, but not through faith alone, we can unite people to serve the common good. And that’s why my Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships has been working so hard since I announced it here last year. We’ve slashed red tape and built effective partnerships on a range of uses, from promoting fatherhood here at home to spearheading interfaith cooperation abroad. And through that office we’ve turned the faith-based initiative around to find common ground among people of all beliefs, allowing them to make an impact in a way that’s civil and respectful of difference and focused on what matters most.
It is this spirit of civility that we are called to take up when we leave here today. That’s what I’m praying for. I know in difficult times like these — when people are frustrated, when pundits start shouting and politicians start calling each other names — it can seem like a return to civility is not possible, like the very idea is a relic of some bygone era. The word itself seems quaint — civility.
But let us remember those who came before; those who believed in the brotherhood of man even when such a faith was tested. Remember Dr. Martin Luther King. Not long after an explosion ripped through his front porch, his wife and infant daughter inside, he rose to that pulpit in Montgomery and said, “Love is the only force capable of transforming an enemy into a friend.”
In the eyes of those who denied his humanity, he saw the face of God.
Remember Abraham Lincoln. On the eve of the Civil War, with states seceding and forces gathering, with a nation divided half slave and half free, he rose to deliver his first Inaugural and said, “We are not enemies, but friends… Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection.”
Even in the eyes of confederate soldiers, he saw the face of God.
Remember William Wilberforce, whose Christian faith led him to seek slavery’s abolition in Britain; he was vilified, derided, attacked; but he called for “lessening prejudices [and] conciliating good-will, and thereby making way for the less obstructed progress of truth.”
In the eyes of those who sought to silence a nation’s conscience, he saw the face of God.
Yes, there are crimes of conscience that call us to action. Yes, there are causes that move our hearts and offenses that stir our souls. But progress doesn’t come when we demonize opponents. It’s not born in righteous spite. Progress comes when we open our hearts, when we extend our hands, when we recognize our common humanity. Progress comes when we look into the eyes of another and see the face of God. That we might do so — that we will do so all the time, not just some of the time — is my fervent prayer for our nation and the world.
Thank you, God bless you, and God bless the United States of America. (Applause.)
END 9:25 A.M. EST



33 Comments



I like itI’m like a dog with a bone, and it’s just darn good to get one.
Amen!
Damn, he’s good!at this speechifying thang. He just is…
Although (as John Aravosis has already pointed out) that sentence on gay marriage is clumsy as all get out (yes, it does make it appear as if he supports gay marriage).
Not Good Enough“more extremely in odious laws that are being proposed most recently in Uganda.”
Which should have been followed with “….which many people IN THIS ROOM have personally thrown gasoline onto the flames in Uganda”.
Eating or not, it’s not uncool to call out busybodies who imitates Hitler.
Credit where it’s dueRealistically Obama could not have skipped this event even if he wanted to – it is simply too politically charged these days. So for him to mention this, and condemn the law so strongly, is really fantastic.
I have been vocal that my biggest disappointment with Obama has been his refusal to use his bully pulpit to fight against the anti-gay hate in our society. This is exactly what I’ve wanted to see for a year, so I’m thrilled.
With this Q&A with the GOP and his other remarks today about the ludicrous “birther” crap, it sounds like Obama is finally fighting back against all the forms of hate the right uses to maintain political power.
It was clear to all who was in the room.I think there was no need for him to follow up as you suggested. The fact that he said what he did in their own breakfast hoedown is very powerful. Dare I say it? He showed leadership. Good for him.
“surely we can agree…”I’ll give Obama due credit for saying what he did. It’s about time he said something about this.
But…”surely we can agree”?! So he’s still trying to find his precious “common ground” with these hatemongering thugs? When is this man going to come to his senses and realize that there is no way to finding common ground with absolutists? They are by definition not capable of doing the common ground thing.
Yes, it’ll be interesting to see what he follows up within other venues. My first response when I read that was “oh great, not another unctuous John Edwards-style ‘I’m just not there yet’ piece of crap to string us along?” But considering the venue, I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt for the moment and see what he says on the subject in other forums. But I’m certainly not willing to be hoodwinked into thinking he is actually pro-equality unless he says so clearly and backs it up by concrete action. After all, his DoJ is defending DOMA. Actions speak louder than words, and certainly they speak louder than opaque words spoken over French toast and bacon.
Yeah, that is how it sounds… who knows what it meant?
Every speech has more than one audienceI think his appealing to reason was a good approach. There are a lot of “movable middle” in the country, and they, like any of us, respond better to appeals to their better nature and reason than to admonishment from on high. The backers of the Uganda bill and other anti-gay stuff certainly got the message that his administration doesn’t approve, and regular Americans watching on tv or listening on the radio or even reading an excerpt in the newspaper will be more likely to continue listening if they are spoken to like reasonable people.
Here’s what GoodAsYou’s JH says about this DISAGREEMENT….
What Lurleen said plus…The overriding theme of the speech was “civility” and not “common ground.”
No, they cannot agree
The Family believes in an elect, chosen by their god for leadership roles and for salvation. The rest of the nation or nations are meant to be subservient peasants…so no, Mr President, no agreement is possible
of course, but that group has been put on notice,and that is the point of the exercise.
AND another needless sound bit for homohaters to use…
One can APPLAUD his criticism of Uganda and I do. But it was consciously weakened by his choosing prissy 50-cent euphemisms…”unconscionable,” “odious.” I know diplomatese often requires tiptoeing, but he would never refer to the Taliban as being only unconscionable and odious. These are effectively Ugandan Taliban, Mr. President and they want the legal authority MURDER us!]
At the same time one can condemn his unnecessary reminder to the world that he unconscionably and odiously agrees with the bigots about marriage equality [thus needlessly giving yet ANOTHER sound bite/quote to them for their next anti marriage equality campaign].
Typical and indefensible, just as his dance of WORDS on DADT while CONTINUING to DISCHARGE gays which Maureen Dowd described in the NY Times:
We will never get more than inches, more than crumbs, if we don’t stop awarding 10-10-10-10-10 just because Mr. Obama has merely stepped on the ice.
Obama’s comments are symptomaticof the disease that has plagued his administration from day one: a desire to be conciliatory, to the point of abandoning core principles. Even John Aravosis, who seems determined to put the best light on nearly everything Obama does, has slammed him repeatedly for that (most recently just yesterday). It has unarguably been disastrous for the administration, and for the country. And it continues.
To “surely agree” with extremists, you have to move in the direction of extremism. That is what my comment addressed, not this specific speech and its hypothetical audience in the “movable middle.” And I’m more than willing to stand by it.
Put on notice?!You think “surely we can agree” is putting them on notice? Then what would attempts at appeasement and conciliation and finding common ground sound like?
What gets my attentionis that Prez Barack referred to his Secretary of State by her first name. Oh really? Would he had referred to “Bob” if his Secretary of State was a man? I some how doubt it. What’s wrong with saying Secretary Clinton? Condenscending to women as well to gays, lesbians and transgender citizens.
Surely we can agree …When Obama said, “Surely we can agree that it is unconscionable to target gays and lesbians for who they are,” he knew damn well that there were conservative Christians in that audience who do not agree with that statement.
The subtext of those remarks is that to not agree is to be without conscience, without a moral compass. He called ‘em out, in a way that was befitting a President who was speaking as an invited guest.
I applaud both President Obama and Secretary Clinton for highlighting heterosexism at the National Prayer Breakfast, when both/either of them could have chosen the easier route: a milquetoast little speech about how lovely it is to pray that would have caused no controversy and made no headlines.
Excellent observation
If you read Ugandan news,you’ll understand how effective messages from our government have been and how hard-felt they are perceived by the Ugandans pushing the bill. They’ve already responded vehemently to Obama and Clinton’s speeches, and it’s nighttime there. They’re listening very, very closely.
Noticed that tooBut to be fair, he calls the VP “Joe” all the time – I think it is just a level of informality we aren’t used to in government, particularly since Michelle is the only person I ever hear call him Barack.
On the other hand, it drives me crazy when people refer to Jill Biden as “Mrs.” She earned her doctorate, damn it, and that should be acknowledged. It was overlooked by a lot of the media, but my favorite moment in the inauguration was when the VP and wife were introduced as “Vice President and Dr. Biden,” that was wicked cool, as they say back in my home town in MA.
Maybe……because they were running mates and it was a note of camaraderie?
Seriously, can this man do nothing right for you picky bastards?
The word “Hillary”is instantly recognisable world wide and means one woman and one set of inclusive, egalitarian, justice driven values.
Further, the word “Hillary” instantly gives the Right Wingers nausea, hypertension, agita, and disturbed sleep.
And even with Condoleeza Ricemany a reporter did not say “Madame Secretary” but “Dr. Rice.”
Then again, Condi Rice is single.
Good point here, Maurain fact, I’m on another of the gay blogs where we’re analyzing the effectiveness of Obama”s use of “we” in this speech.
Very trueCher, Oprah and Hillary are some of the very few Americans instantly known by one name only. Although I understand Karen’s concern, I can’t help but think that this is some combination of Obama being collegial and informal, and of recognizing Clinton’s ‘brand’.
But W called her “Condi”and it did appear to be out of friendship and appreciation, not out of sexism. At least, not totally out of sexism.
Calling out“Treating LGBT people as anything less than equal is unconscionable. My administration will prosecute vigorously anyone who attacks their rights” would be calling the Christians out. LBJ and JFK issued similar statements in the 60s, relative to the civil rights movement. It’s hard to imagine Obama saying anything even remotely as forceful.
QScribe, a comment from towleroad might help here…
http://www.towleroad.com/2010/…
Now I agreed with the poster that Obama seems to be using this technique, I just didn’t think that it was a black thang. Mario Cuomo used the same technique when he gave his famous speech at Notre Dame in 1984.
http://pewforum.org/docs/index…
Amd, as the towleroad commenter noted, it is a common rhetorical device used in black churches.
And, of course, you can go back through history, I found a speech by Demosthenes that utilizes the same thing.
To Me,it was more like “SOMEBODY is behind the kill-the-gays bill in Uganda. He or she may or may not be in this room…..”
Kinda like when somebody claims a person is stealing from them and they know who it is (in front of all the potential thiefs), but won’t reveal WHO’S stealing from them! LOL
I didn’t find it compelling or usefulIt reminded me of Neville Chamberlain. He could have simply done, to me, the right thing and told these people to blow. Could give Uganda walking papers. Let’s remember, Uganda needs OUR aid. Bill passes, no aid of ANY kind from the US and also, try to get businesses to sanction Uganda like South Africa was sanctioned. I want this so called President to stand up and actually lead instead of being a frigging lapdog. How hard is it to say no?
What to believe? Words or Deeds.Obama, when comes to support for our agenda is a man of few words.
Obama claims to be a “fierce advocate” for LGBT Americans. He claims to be for ENDA and against Clinton’s DOMA and DADT. He signed the feel-good UN Declaration for GLBT rights. He made a few very minor appointments. And there were some medals and an unforgettable Easter egg hunt. And now he’s come out foursquare against anti-GLBT mass murder in Uganda. Oh, such heroism. Be still my heart.
But he’s not shy on deeds. His campaign began with antiLBGT bigot Donnie McClurkin and ended with antiLBGT bigot Rick Warren.
He continues the occupation of Iraq and he and Clinton do nothing, repeat nothing, to stop the mass murder of our GLBT brothers and sisters by US trained and armed police, militias and military forces.
He spars with the Democratic (sic) Congressional misleadership about who should take the lead in passing ENDA and repealing DOMA. As a rule that means the vultures are circling.
As it becomes clear that the AfPak war’s going to be a long drawn out affair with heavy causalities he’s calling for an end to DADT to get more cannon fodder. He and the Pentagon said nothing about the violence against GLBT servicemembers or their loss of benefits or imprisonment, the one and only thing on their minds is a fresh source of meat for the grinder.
He continued and enlarged the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives and out it under the control Joshua Dubois, an ordained Pentecostal bigot who task it is to use federal largesse to bribe pulpit pimps. He refuses to dismiss Leah Daughtry, an anti-choice anti-LGBT ordained Pentecostal minister who runs the DNC. After attacking and dismissing Jeremiah Wright for his nationalist and progressive approach he appointed his own spirit advisors, two of whom performed the same duty for GW Bush.
The Obama administration always defends Clinton’s DOMA against legal challenges saying that LGBT partnerships are akin to incest and pedophilia. He continues to stridently oppose same sex marriage and some GLBT ‘leaders’ agree with him to the extent that they oppose the fight to defend or extend SSM rights. They say that we can’t win on SSM, forgetting that it was Obama who torpedoed the fight against Prop 8 with “gawd’s in the mix”.
Compare his words and his deeds. Obama’s grade if F-. He’s a bigot because he opposes SSM and he’s our enemy.