Q&A: Democratic Whip James Clyburn Talks Faith and Politics

October 5, 2009 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (13)

By Dan Gilgoff, God & Country

When then Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi wanted to turn around her party's secular image after the "values voter" election of 2004, she plucked South Carolina Rep. James Clyburn to lead the effort. Nearly five years later, Clyburn—now the House Whip—explains how his Democratic Faith Working Group is trying to resolve the debate over abortion coverage in healthcare reform, his decision to forgo seminary, and House Speaker Pelosi's Catholicism:

When you became chair of the Democrats' Faith Working Group in 2005, you said, "The Democratic agenda is deeply rooted in faith, but we have been less effective than we could be in communicating how our moral values guide our policies." That certainly seems to have changed.

Members are becoming much more comfortable with expressing our policies in faith terms. For a long time, constitutional issues were so near and dear to Democratic officials that we were just too guarded with all of that. Anything that even seemed like it would in any way violate constitutional principles we just stayed away from.

Now that the Democrats talk a good deal about faith and values, is the group even necessary anymore?

Oh, yes. Periodically, issues come up that need vetting outside of our regular setting. And some of that is taking place as we speak. We're now trying to put together a healthcare bill, and the chief negotiator on that is one of the cochairs of the Faith Working Group: [Connecticut Rep.] Rosa DeLauro.

In the context of this bill, the issue of the quote-unquote Hyde amendment and abortion issues are very much front and center. We've had some very serious deliberations on behalf of the entire caucus. Rosa DeLauro [met] with those members of our caucus who are squarely in the pro-life group.

Do you worry that Democratic concerns over abortion coverage can derail healthcare reform?

Oh, no, no. Those concerns will be resolved . . . . We have to just make sure that everybody feels comfortable.

How do you do that when one side claims the bill is abortion neutral and the other side says it includes an "abortion mandate" and federally funded abortions?

I'm going to let Rosa DeLauro make that pronouncement when she's comfortable doing it.

Are the concerns of antiabortion advocates about healthcare reform valid? Some Democrats say they're a smoke screen to derail reform.

Yes, they are very valid concerns. One of the reasons we exist is because the speaker feels there ought to be an entity within our caucus to keep these issues front and center. So Rosa DeLauro knows that there are things of the faith persuasion that are pretty much Catholic centered. She's the go-to person when it comes to this.

How often does the Faith Working Group convene?

The staffs of members of the Faith Working Group are meeting as we speak. It's almost a weekly meeting. We are always, as various members, meeting with outside groups.

What has the group accomplished recently that you're proud of?

Believe it or not, the faith community was big in [passing] our climate change bill. Something that I've always been taught is stewardship. It's the watchword in most religious teachings, and there's nothing more evident in stewardship than our responsibilities to the climate, to the Earth. It was a tough bill to get 218 on, and I don't think we would have been able to get there if there wasn't the kind of climate that faith groups helped us create.

And they're very much involved in this healthcare bill. I believe if James were writing his epistle today, he would go beyond clothing [the poor]. He would demand that we take care of the sick and the shut-in as part of expressing our faith. Most religious groups see it that way.

What do you say to religious conservatives who argue that those kind of biblical exhortations are directed at individuals, not the government?

What is the government if it's not individuals acting collectively on behalf of the common good? That's what we are. So I would not argue with that point. I would agree.

Ever catch flak from more secular lawmakers or liberal advocacy groups about bringing faith into government?

To the contrary, I get a lot of praise. I won't say his name, but one member of the caucus who is agnostic if not atheist said to me that of all the members of the caucus, the one person who they really are comfortable in playing this role is me. It's why Nancy [Pelosi] asked me to do this. And she herself is pretty grounded in her Catholicism. She doesn't hesitate to call upon that experience when needed.

She's often attacked by Catholic conservatives for her staunch support for abortion rights.

Her fundamental upbringing in Baltimore sometimes gets lost in the fact that she spent so much of her adult life in San Francisco. I go back to my faith upbringing that [talks about] bringing up a child in the way it should go so that when they get older they will not depart from it. And that can be applied to Nancy Pelosi. She was trained in the way she should go. She was a grown woman, married and raising her family, before she moved to San Francisco, having been born and raised in a staunch Catholic family in Baltimore. That's who she is.

You were planning to attend seminary, as your father did, but had a change of heart while at South Carolina State University. What happened?

I was participating in the sit-ins, and the sit-ins were very much faith based. I met my wife right after my first incarceration. We were sitting there talking about the future. I talked about going to the seminary, and she just thought that I was much better suited to go to law school. And one thing led to another, and I thought she was right, and I went home to tell my dad. But it took me 10 years to get to law school.

Ever regret not going to seminary?

The longer I live, the more I wish I had. I think if I had known back then what I know now, I probably would have gone to the seminary. There's a certain discipline in writing and speaking and really understanding people that I would have gotten to earlier in my life.

Many liberals and religious minorities criticize President Obama's faith-based office for delaying the decision on whether to allow religious groups receiving federal funds to hire based on religious background. What's your take?

I don't know how to get to where we need to be on that subject, but I'm sensitive to the fact that if you are a Jewish group, there ought to be some kind of reasonable balance so you're not forced to hire somebody who may not be sensitive to your background. It's just a tough issue to deal with. It's a very difficult issue, and I don't know if we'll ever resolve it.

Tags:
Democratic Party,
religion

Reader Comments Read all comments (13)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Rep. Clyburn you need to understand that abortion is anti-Catholic and anti-Christian.

So when Rosa DeLauro, Nancy Pelosi, VP Biden, and others support Abortion they are being Anti-Catholic centered and Anti-Chritian Centered. The are standing against God when they support killing a Human Life.

God made it clear. Do not Kill. Jesus made it clear. Love God and your Neighbor.

What you do to the least of God's people you do to God.

Thanks Dan for asking the hard questions. They exposed where he stands and what he aligns with.

If you get another chance ask him one question, add this question to the list. Would he want his Grandmother, Grandfather, Mother, Dad, Wife, or self Aborted? We know his answer would be No and Therefore the slaughter of the unborn is not for the common good.

He aligns with those who believe it is good to slaughter 3200 unborn babies a day and 1.2 Million a year in America. The slaughter of the unborn is not aligning with God.

If James were writing his epistle today, he would not go beyond clothing [the poor] and say slaughter the unborn.

Seek, Speak, Share, and Defend the Truth.

Life is important.

Every Human Life is Equally Important.

Respect Life.

Love Life

ComPassion of IN 7:35AM October 08, 2009

What Clyburn helps make clear is arrogance of liberals in Washington who look at the rest of us as sheeple who must be herded together and shown the path to greener fields. If only we would just live our lives as they demand and serve the greater good that can only be reached by abandoning all thought and reason.

Government is the religion. Individual worth is removed in favor of a collective good. A person will either be those who make the decisions or those who must abide by them. As Lincoln so aptly put it:

We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men's labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name - liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names - liberty and tyranny.

Clyburn, as with all liberals, think our purpose is to serve them. They need to think again and join the ranks of the unemployed.

John Galt of FL 5:08PM October 06, 2009

Mr. Clyburn misunderstands basic Christian teaching on the relationship between the public and private spheres. Jesus said “render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and unto God that which is God’s.” By this he sets out that the public sector is distinct from the private duties of the citizen. Remember, the question he was addressing was the duty of individual citizens to pay taxes to an oppressive regime unfriendly to his religion. Even though Caesar was an individual, as were all his senators, soldiers, and other minions of the empire, that did not in Jesus’ mind allow for a conflation of public and private duty.

If, on the other hand, Clyburn is really arguing that the theocracy of ancient Israel should serve as a model for our modern constitutional republic, I would call that an extreme, unreasonable, and unconstitutional stretch. Many try to make that analogy because Israel was often rebuked by the prophets for its failure to take care of its poor or it’s weak. From there the “religious socialist” extrapolates a general obligation of government to care for any need in any member of society, with no bright line demarcation to prevent genuine moral duty from devolving into totalitarian ownership of the kingdom’s subjects.

The problem with that theory is that Jesus specifically avoided the implementation of Christianity as a theocracy. He designed it as an organic assembly of individuals united in spirit, purpose, and destiny, which could act cooperatively with the governmental sphere, but was not authorized to use the police power of government to accomplish its ends, as Israel was. Jesus, prescient of the conflict to come, said, “My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, my servants would fight…”

The Apostle Paul distinguishes between public and private duty even more clearly in Romans 13, where he depicts government acting principally as God’s ordained tool for punishing evildoers in the world, yet lays on the private individual the principal duty to love. If Clyburn’s conflation were true, we could then expect the government to love us with the sacrificial love of Jesus himself, and we could expect the church to incarcerate and punish all blasphemers. The absurdity of this blurring of public and private duty speaks for itself. Think Iran.

Therefore, Clyburn’s conflation of private and public duty is wholly without support in traditional Christian theology. If he wishes to promote it under the banner of a different religion, that is up to him, but he should retract his claim that it is a Christian’s moral duty to support the destruction of the individual’s right to keep what they earn and use it as they see fit. Jesus did teach us to pay our taxes even when tyrants like Caesar are the ones demanding them. While that may speak to our duties as private citizens, I hope Mr. Clyburn sees that it does not justify confiscatory taxation modeled after Caesar’s “beneficent" regime.

Springfield Reformer of IL 4:40PM October 06, 2009

God & Country

Dan Gilgoff covers religion for U.S. News & World Report. He is the author of The Jesus Machine: How James Dobson, Focus on the Family, and Evangelical America are Winning the Culture War, and is a former politics editor at beliefnet. E-mail Dan at godandcountry@usnews.com.

advertisement