Pro-Life Hecklers Interrupt Obama Event, And He Sees A Teachable Moment

ROCHESTER-VIA-C-SPAN: Hecklers shouting pro-life slogans interrupted Barack Obama's campaign rally in Rochester tonight.

After listening to their chants, Obama said he'd speak with them later.

He is, after all, the candidate who has promised to reconcile opposites and listen to his opponents.

But they would not quiet down, and Obama's audience began to shout his campaign slogan: "Fire it up, ready to go!'

"For the folks who are opposed to abortion, I understand your position, but this isn't going to solve anything," Obama said.

He walked to the edge of the stage.

"Are you going to do this the whole time, or are we going to have to reschedule?"

Police officers removed the protesters, and Obama saw a teachable moment.

"Some people got organized to do that, and that's part of the American tradition that we're proud of" he said.

"The excitement is over."

"Or, it's just beginning."

Comments

Classy handling by Mr. Obama.

Posted by Jack | January 7, 2008 6:59 PM

Wow, after four years of George Bush I didn't realize someone could be so graceful. Big big points there.

Posted by Chris | January 7, 2008 7:28 PM

Graceful Under Pressure.

Posted by MJ | January 7, 2008 7:37 PM

Prime example of Obaman politics. This is the real change he's talking about, folks. Not just change on a few specific issues, but change in how politicians carry themselves.

Posted by Jay Adkisson, CA | January 7, 2008 7:43 PM

I agree that it's graceful, but what does it mean? "I understand your position" sounds awfully like "I feel your pain." He's not about to bridge the gap to anti-abortion folks; he's just going to tell them, very politely, that he'd never interfere with a woman's right to reproductive choice. It's graceful, it's polite... and it's unbending.

Posted by dt | January 7, 2008 7:48 PM

sigh...

Obama makes me swoon. I can't wait to hear him say "My fellow Americans". And I can't wait to be proud of all of us for voting for him.

Posted by Anna | January 7, 2008 7:51 PM

Just a side note: It's "fired up, ready to go," not "fire it up."

Posted by OAmerican | January 7, 2008 7:55 PM

I attended the event this evening. I have to say that I have a lot of respect for the man and the way he handled the situation. Most people would respond with anger and annoyance. When the crowd responded with anger, he asked for calm. The he congratulated the protesters for their organization ability and guts. I guess I saw first hand that there is more to him than just words.

Posted by Sam | January 7, 2008 8:12 PM

"I understand your position" sounds awfully like "I feel your pain."

It doesn't have to be.

I'm solidly pro-choice. I'm done marches, clinic defense, the whole deal. I was a member of NOW, and contribute to Planned Parenthood.

But yes, I can understand, appreciate, and even sympathize with the feelings, if not the actions and polices, of the pro-life movement. I don't know if Obama feels the same way -- given his strongly religious leanings, I'd not be surprised. But yes, you can stand four-square for Roe and also grasp the complex moral choices that abortions can bring, and how people can see that as a negative choice to be resisted.

Posted by Woodrow "asim" Jarvis Hill | January 7, 2008 8:25 PM

I agree with Woodrow. I'm pro-choice because I believe the woman has a fundamental right to choose what is best for her. But I understand and acknowledge the anti-abortion point of view. Some of the pro-Lifers are extremists and scary but many are sincere people who are unable to tolerate any shades of gray on the issue. And I think, many pro-Lifers are going to appreciate the thoughtful consideration and leadership that Sen. Obama can bring to bear on this, one of our most long-running controversies.

Posted by Zooter | January 7, 2008 9:28 PM

Now, the question is, will the Video go Viral and make all of the Newscasts like the HIllary Is Crying commercial did?

That video was played in full at the top of every news cast this evening...

You couldn't buy that kinda publicity, but it is possible to stage it

Obama's response on the other hand is the response of a Leader I want talking to Iran etc

Posted by Obama Supporter | January 7, 2008 9:29 PM

I agree with Obama Supporter. I was quite surprised that I hadn't seen this on the TV yet. I saw Hillary all over CNN, which I've renamed the Clinton News Network. Obama seems like a pretty classy guy. I was ready to vote for him for POTUS after his keynote speech in 04, but it's actions like today's to reinforce that thought. The timing is perfect for him this year.

Posted by mmegyesi | January 7, 2008 9:54 PM

No doubt it will greet voters (and most importantle independents) as they walk out the door tomorrow morning, reminding some of the stakes (roevwade) and others of what they can expect from Obama. I saw him do this in D.C. (but with AIDS hecklers).

Posted by JC | January 7, 2008 11:35 PM

I have to respect Obama a lot for this. I am firmly anti Abortion, but its rare to find a politician on either side of the isle that has the respect for other human beings. Obama is just a good person a good American and though I'm voting for Ron Paul, hes at least made me think of voting for him if he ran against Rudy McRomson. Id still vote Huckabee or Paul, but assuming neither win or run 3rd party, Rather then stay home for the general election id consider voting Obama. Before today Id have sat home.

Posted by MikeB | January 8, 2008 10:18 AM

The issue of the separation of religion from government is one our forefathers addressed in our constitution.

Quotation:

"When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some." Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun.

The principal religion in western hemisphere has been Christianity since the 16th century; it continues to be the choice of about 75% of the U.S. and Canadian adult populations. But, "religion" in the U.S. involves much more than Christian Churches; it includes:

Churches, circles, groves, gurdwaras, mosques, synagogues, temples, etc., and the organizations of which they are a part.
Solitary practitioners of an organized religion.
People who consider themselves religious, but are not affiliated with any specific group.
Humanists, secularists, Agnostics, Atheists, etc. all of whom have specific religious beliefs. Although some would consider them non-religious, if you ask an Agnostic what their religion is, they will probably reply "Agnostic."

"Wall of Separation" between Church and State
Thomas Jefferson, as president, wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut on 1802-JAN-1. It contains the first known reference to the "wall of separation". The essay states in part:

"...I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State..."

During the 1810's, President James Madison wrote an essay titled "Monopolies" which also refers to the importance of church-state separation. He stated in part:

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history."

The US Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment as if it requires this "wall of separation" between church and state. It not only prohibits any government from adopting a particular denomination or religion as official, but requires government to avoid excessive involvement in religion.

Church/state separation in the U.S. Constitution:
The framers of the U.S. Constitution were concerned that European history might repeat itself in the new world. They wanted to avoid the continual wars motivated by religious hatred that had decimated many countries within Europe. They decided that a church/state separation was their best assurance that the U.S. would remain relatively free of inter-religious strife. Many commentators feel that over two centuries of relative religious peace in the U.S. have shown that they were right.

In 1789, the first of ten amendments were written to the Federal Constitution; they have since been known as the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

This was ratified by the States in 1791.

The establishment clause of the First Amendment:
The first phrase in the First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." is called the establishment clause.

The courts have the responsibility to interpret the U.S. Constitution in specific instances. In their ruling in 1947 of Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Twp", the U.S. Supreme Court ruled:

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State'."

Three tests have been derived from various court decisions to decide the constitutionality of laws that have a religious component:

The Lemon test: This was defined in a Supreme Court ruling in 1971. 10 To be constitutional, a law must: have a secular purpose, and be neutral towards religion - neither hindering nor advancing it, and not result in excessive entanglements between the government and religion.

The Endorsement Test: Justice O'Connor created this criterion: a law is unconstitutional if it favors one religion over another in a way that makes some people feel like outsiders and others feel like insiders.

The Coercion Test: Justice Kennedy proposed this criteria: a law is constitutional even if it recognizes or accommodates a religion, as long as its demonstration of support does not appear to coerce individuals to support or participate in a religion. 11

A simple set of criteria is that the government (and by extension public schools) may not:

promote one religion or faith group over any other
promote a religiously based life over a secularly based life
promote a secularly based life over a religiously based life.

There is some opposition, particularly among Fundamentalist Christians to this interpretation of the First Amendment by the courts. They feel that the Amendment should be interpreted literally to mean that the government may not raise any one denomination or religion to the status of an official or established religion of the country. They feel that the First Amendment contains no wording that prohibits the government from engaging in certain religious activities, like requiring prayer as part of the schedule at public schools, requiring schools, courts and government offices to post the Ten Commandments, allowing public schools to have organized prayers as an integral part of public school sports events, praying before board of education or municipal government meetings, etc.

The free exercise clause of the First Amendment:
The following phrase "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise thereof... is called the free exercise clause; it guarantees freedom of religion. This passage does not promise absolute freedom of religion. For example, courts have found that:

Parents cannot deny their children badly needed medical attention and rely solely on prayer.
The Amish can be compelled to wear slow vehicle reflectors on the backs of their buggies
A congregation cannot generate annoyingly excessive noise during a service.

The limits of this clause are continually being tested in the courts on a case-by-case basis.

Extension of the First Amendment to the individual states:

Initially, this amendment restricted only the powers of Congress regarding religion. However, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, proposed by Congress on 1866-JUN-16, required individual states to also follow the Bill of Rights. The 14th Amendment states that:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

The 14th Amendment was proclaimed adopted on 1868-JUL-21. Since that date, the First Amendment, and other amendments guaranteeing rights to citizens, apply equally to all levels of government. 13

Recent developments:
In 1988, 200 Americans of many religious backgrounds signed the Williamsburg Charter reaffirming their belief in the importance of the First Amendment.

In 1995, President Clinton delivered a speech on religious freedom which described the benefits derived from that amendment.

In 1993, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which gave special religious privileges to individuals and groups and limited the application of laws that intruded on personal or corporate religion. It was declared unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court in 1997-JUN. As the former Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black said: "'No law' [regarding the establishment of religion] means 'NO LAW.'" The wall of separation was again restored.

Today, only the states of Texas and one of the Carolinas have constitutions requiring a religious test for holders of public office. And although these laws are still on the books, they have been nullified by Federal legislation.

Many, perhaps most, countries around the world do not have a wall of separation between church and state. The result is often enormous abuses, largely directed against their own citizens who follow minority religions.

Posted by osage | January 8, 2008 11:19 AM

Yes, Obama is religious, but that does not equate with being anti-abortion. Many religious people, including Christians, are pro-choice. Further, Obama belongs to Trinity UCC. UCC (United Church of Christ) is actually a very progressive denomination in terms of their biblical interpretation and their stands on social justice issues (available on their website, UCC.org).

Posted by JG | January 8, 2008 12:50 PM

Unfortunately, Obama's response is typically naive.

The only way he would get my vote would be a response "yes, I understand your position, but when elected President the first thing I will do is undo President's Bush's global gag rule and I hope you all will understand my position."

Posted by Margie | January 8, 2008 3:07 PM

The guy has real class. For some reason, religious conservatives aren't content to live their lives according to their beliefs, they insist on living OUR lives THEIR way as well. This is intolerable in a free country, and we can't vote for a theocracy -- ever. Sorry, Huck.

Posted by MizLiz | January 8, 2008 6:44 PM

How easily we can buy into fallacious thinking. In his book, The Audacity to Hope, Obama says he would seek a middle ground on abortion. He claims our common goal is to reduce abortions. Let's compromise: join with me in handing out condoms and contraceptives to your children and we'll reduce pregnancies and hence the need for abortions.

OK! I go against my priciples, but what,exactly, is he willing to give up. Let me make it clear with an analogy: rewind the tape 150 years to the era of slavery. I'm pro-salvery and you are ardently abolitionist. I say to you: "Let's work together to reduce slavery. Let's pool our resources, develope a machine to pick cotton more efficiently and reduce the need for slaves. Wouldn't 2 million slaves be better then having 5 million slaves?"

Either the man is disingenuous or plain incapable of logical thinking. In either case, I don't want him as my president.

Posted by NJKID | January 10, 2008 11:51 AM

NJKID,
Slavery, at least, let people live- quite rarely included murder for convenience (or "freedom of choice") sake. Abortion is far more barbaric than slavery.

Posted by SPL | January 22, 2008 4:06 PM

So no rights for individuals based on thier place of residence? Who else will speak for the unborn. Abortion is akin to slavery, your life is in the indiscriminate hands of another.

Posted by bob | July 8, 2008 2:34 PM