Organizing for America | mrboma's blog: Call to Renewal Analysis

Call to Renewal Analysis

By mrboma - Jul 6th, 2008 at 5:34 am EDT

Comments | Mail to a Friend | Report Objectionable Content

Tags: Atheism, atheist, Church, Faith, humanism, Obama, religion, secular, separation of Church and State, state, values

This is the second essay I have written on Obama's public religiosity. This is an in depth analysis of Senator Obama's keynote speech at the Call to Renewal Conference in 2006, and was written about a week following the speech at the request of Pastor Dan on the blog Street Prophets. If you select [Issues] on Obama's website, and then choose [Faith] from the drop down menu, you can watch the speech this essay addresses. At the time, Senator Obama told Pastor Dan that many of the criticisms of his speech had come from people who had not read or heard the entire speech. So I went back and watched the speech a few times and read the full text to see what critics were missing. Taken as a whole, I found it to be a self-contradictory mess, and a worry that Senator Obama's religiosity may threaten the wall of separation between Church and State. I am especially concerned given his recent proposal on so-called faith-based initiatives.

First some background: I am an atheist, secularist, and humanist, so these are the perspectives I will be bringing to Senator Obama's speech.
Definitions I use in my analysis:

*Atheist - One who does not believe in any God, spirit, supernatural force, divinity, etc.

*Non-theist - An atheist, agnostic, free thinker, or other non-religious person. Senator Obama uses the term "secular people" for non-theists.

*Secularist - One who believes that religion has no place in government and government has no place in religion. Secularism contains no judgement, explicit or implicit, on the truth or value of religion, so even a true believer may be a secularist.

*Humanist - One who holds a naturalistic world view that emphasizes that human beings have the power and responsibility for creating their own societies. Humanism advocates the use of reason, compassion, scientific inquiry, ethics, justice, and equality.

*Secular - Containing no mention of anything religious. Again, this is different than anti-religious because their can be no judgement made about the truth or value of any religion if religion is not even mentioned to begin with.

Let me begin with a simple list of points I think the Senator tried to make in this speech:

1. The right has co-opted religion for their political goals. (My evaluation - true)

2. Democrats need to engage in religious discussions in order to reclaim turf from the religious right. (My evaluation - maybe true, but those discussions need to be in the appropriate arenas)

3. A powerful cabal of "some liberals" who are against all discussion of religion in the public square have prevent #2 from happening. (My evaluation - false, upside-down, and inside-out)

4. Only through religious rhetoric can we inject morality into politics. (My evaluation - false).

5. We need to be very careful as we engage the religious community so as to maintain the separation of church and state. (My evaluation - true)

6. We need to translate our morals into universal (secular) terms for general consumption (my evaluation - true, and a total contradiction of #4)

7. We need to compromise when it comes to what amount of religion we allow in public debate (my evaluation - false, and a potential contradiction of #5)

Now the agonizing dissection begins, and I do get nit-picky. While some of the points I make are fairly minor, others are more troubling. Senator Obama did make some very good points - points that made me want to stand up and applaud. But the speech also contained a few "SAY WHAT?!" moments. Senator Obama was trying to walk a fine line in this speech, a line perhaps too fine for anyone to balance on. As a result, I found the first part of his speech had major problems. In the second section, he suddenly came to his senses and completely contradicted the first section. At the end, I was left scratching my head. What are we actually supposed to do with this self-contradictory jumble?

Like many political speeches, Senator Obama's Keynote Address began with a personal anecdote. He related a confrontation in which Alan Keyes called into question the Senator's religion, and how this confrontation put him in a bind on how to respond:

Obama: "Should I say that a literalist reading of the Bible was folly? Should I say that Mr. Keyes, who is a Roman Catholic, should ignore the teachings of the Pope?"

Me: Surely these aren't the only options, to attack Mr. Keyes beliefs in one way or another? I'm sure someone as intelligent as Senator Obama could have thought of other ways to respond. But the Senator was trying to illustrate how he feels liberals have treated the question of religion in politics (see #3 above). He juxtaposed the option of insulting Mr. Keyes' religion with his actual response during the campaign:

Obama: "Unwilling to go there, I answered with what has come to be the typically liberal response in such debates - namely, I said that we live in a pluralistic society, that I can't impose my own religious views on another, that I was running to be the U.S. Senator of Illinois and not the Minister of Illinois."

Me: I think this is an excellent response, but truthfully it wouldn't have bothered me if he had spoken of his faith in addition to this answer. Senator Obama went on to elucidate the false choice he feels liberals have been faced with:

Obama: "At best, we may try to avoid the conversation about religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that - regardless of our personal beliefs - constitutional principles tie our hands. At worst, there are some liberals who dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word "Christian" describes one's political opponents, not people of faith.

Now, such strategies of avoidance may work for progressives when our opponent is Alan Keyes. But over the long haul, I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in people's lives -- in the lives of the American people -- and I think it's time that we join a serious debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy."

Me: Boy there is a lot to take issue with in these graphs! First, how can he say looking to the Constitution for guidance is avoiding the conversation? On the contrary, I think that turning to the Constitution is to place the conversation in its proper context, that Mr. Keyes' comments were totally inappropriate. The Constitution lays the guidelines, and Democrats are wise to follow them. That being said, there are certainly times when the separation clause does not apply, so I think liberals should engage in those discussions. And I think they do - around the dinner table, at prayer groups, in religious settings, at Street Prophets and on other blogs, on Air America's "State of Belief"... in other words, in the appropriate settings. Though Mr. Keyes' remarks were inappropriate in the first place, answering the challenge presented by Mr. Keyes would have been one of those situations where latitude is granted. I frequent atheist websites, and I am quite certain that Senator Obama could have spoken of his own faith without offending the non-theist community, so long as he also said that Mr. Keyes was wrong to make religion a campaign issue, and he included the caveat that he would not impose his beliefs on others. As the Senator himself pointed out later in this keynote speech, context matters. He was addressing a specific personal attack, not using his religion as a campaign plank, and that is a huge difference that anyone would recognize.

So why didn't the Senator speak about his faith in response to the challenge? Because apparently, he is afraid of the boogeyman. One of my main complaints about the speech is that Senator Obama relied heavily on the "some liberals" scapegoat that the Hannitys and O'Reillys have created - the nonexistent cabal that wants no public mention of religion anywhere, ever. Ironically, Senator Obama has done exactly what he accuses those "some liberals" of doing: painting a caricature of fanatical, irrational, intolerant political opponents. I'm sure some of you are going to say that you've met these atheist pricks personally, and so have I. But they don't exist in anywhere near the numbers or with the influence that Senator Obama suggests. In fact, most non-theists are just as quick to defend the rights of believers as to protest the improper mixing of Church and State - because that is also defending the wall of separation (see the ACLU).

Look at it this way: how many "openly atheist" public officials do you know of? I can't think of any! Yet there are thousands of politicians on both sides of the aisle who openly speak about their religion. And no one is more aware of the power of people's faith than the non-theistic. We are reminded of it constantly. This is exactly why we safeguard the separation of Church and State so vigorously. Fighting to buttress the wall of separation is NOT attacking religion and has nothing to do with thinking religious people are irrational or fanatical. The wall safeguards religion from the government as much as it protects the government from religion.

There is only one organization that lobbies the Congress on behalf of secularists, The Secular Coalition for America ( http://secular.org ). They began lobbying in September 2005 on a meager budget of small donations from the public. They have a single lobbyist, Lori Lipman Brown, and a staff of six, who's hands are full dealing with BushCo's clear violations of the separation clause. So, they are not out there trying to stifle any and all public religious expression, nor would they. In fact, take a quick look at their website and you will see that the SCA readily and frequently engages in serious honest debate about faith and politics in our pluralist democracy, exactly the thing Senator Obama says this type of liberal is dead set against. In truth, the resistance to honest dialogue generally comes from a small but vocal minority on the other side who claim that any attempt to reinforce the wall of separation is an attack on religion.

Lipman Brown says her goal is to "lobby U.S. Congressional representatives on issues arising out of the inappropriate incursion of religion into civil law." The SCA's mission statement is:

"The mission of the Secular Coalition for America is to increase the visibility and respectability of non-theistic viewpoints within the larger culture and to protect and strengthen secular government as the best guarantee of freedom for all."

Why should the non-religious feel a need to lobby to "increase the visibility and respectability of non-theistic viewpoints?" Senator Obama knows the answer, though he doesn't seem to understand the implications:

Obama: "We first need to understand that Americans are a religious people. 90 percent of us believe in God, 70 percent affiliate themselves with an organized religion, 38 percent call themselves committed Christians, and substantially more people in America believe in angels than they do in evolution."

Me: There it is: non-theists make up only 10% of the population. We are a minority, constantly bombarded by the beliefs, imagery, and assumptions of the majority. If you have ever looked at the Humanist Network News, you will notice that at least one article every week deals with how to cope with being a minority.

Like gays, blacks, and immigrants, we atheists are scapegoats of the right-wing, and so we find ourselves under nearly constant attack from the Hannitys, Limbaughs, and O'Reillys of the world. I wrote about this in my first post here: Senator Obama, Please Don't Call Me The Boogeyman. The core accusations against us are that we have taken over the Democratic party, are without any morals, and that we are "making war" on religion. A major premise of Senator Obama's speech relied on these mischaracterizations, and he also implied that the non-religious are incomplete or unfulfilled, to boot.

We non-theists are not some secret society acting to prevent any and all religious discourse. Like the "war on Christmas" this is a fiction created by the right to sway "values voters" to their side. I invite everyone here to cruise the secularist websites I frequent and see what the non-theistic community is actually doing and saying:

Institute for Humanist Studies ( http://humaniststudies.org/ )

The Secular Web/Internet Infidels (http://infidels.org )

The Secular Coalition for America ( http://secular.org )

American Humanist Association (www.americanhumanist.org )

As he continued from the quote above, the Senator talked about people with empty lives finding fulfillment in religion.

Obama: "This religious tendency is not simply the result of successful marketing by skilled preachers or the draw of popular mega-churches. In fact, it speaks to a hunger that's deeper than that - a hunger that goes beyond any particular issue or cause.

Each day, it seems, thousands of Americans are going about their daily rounds - dropping off the kids at school, driving to the office, flying to a business meeting, shopping at the mall, trying to stay on their diets - and they're coming to the realization that something is missing. They are deciding that their work, their possessions, their diversions, their sheer busyness, is not enough.

They want a sense of purpose, a narrative arc to their lives. They're looking to relieve a chronic loneliness, a feeling supported by a recent study that shows Americans have fewer close friends and confidants than ever before. And so they need an assurance that somebody out there cares about them, is listening to them - that they are not just destined to travel down that long highway towards nothingness."

Me: I agree that people generally need a sense of purpose that comes from a cohesive world view in order to find fulfillment. I also believe that a sense of belonging is an important facet of this. I wrote about it in comments over at Booman Tribune just a few days ago:

"I believe it is human nature to seek consensus, because we are social creatures and we therefore all have a desire to belong to a group.
[SNIP]
Why do I, and I'm sure most others, come to the blogs? To find like-minded individuals. To belong. It is comforting to know there are so many other people who think and feel as I do."

Where I take offense to Senator Obama's narrative is in the implication that it is the non-religious who feel unfulfilled and that only through religion can a person actually find the fulfillment that a sense of purpose bestows. I can tell you unequivocally that this just isn't true. I have known many religious people who feel unfulfilled, and I can attest that there are many cohesive and fulfilling world views that are not religious at all. While the Senator's intent was likely only to affirm the power of his religion, he belittled my world view in the process.

Back to Obama, speaking about his personal awakening in Christ:

Obama: "That's a path that has been shared by millions upon millions of Americans - evangelicals, Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Muslims alike; some since birth, others at certain turning points in their lives. It is not something they set apart from the rest of their beliefs and values. In fact, it is often what drives their beliefs and their values."

Me: The same is true for me when I left the Catholic Church and became a secular humanist (though I didn't know at the time that my beliefs had a name). The same is true of my Wiccan friends. The same is true for my native american friends. We all have some sort of world view and our morals are a reflection and implementation of that world view. The problem is that some mainstream religious people believe that ONLY the devout of their religion have any morals or values at all. They may be a minority of the religious folks who believe this, but unfortunately, they are often the ones with the microphones.

Obama: "And that is why that, if we truly hope to speak to people where they're at - to communicate our hopes and values in a way that's relevant to their own - then as progressives, we cannot abandon the field of religious discourse."

Me: Ok, as I stated earlier, there are appropriate times and places for engaging in religious discourse. If the politician is speaking to a religious organization or congregation, as Obama was, of course I see nothing wrong with engaging in religious rhetoric (though they could offend me if they belittle the non-religious). And I think a politician can obviously answer questions about religion from constituents, voters, or opponents and use religious references and imagery in their reply without raising my ire, so long as they are not running on their religion - religious tests for public office are unconstitutional. Heck, even as an atheist, I engage my religious friends and family using religious references and imagery when appropriate, because I do understand that people cannot always separate their values from their religion. But I will complain if a politician talks to the general public in religious terms because it is exclusionary.

Obama: "Because when we ignore the debate about what it means to be a good Christian or Muslim or Jew; when we discuss religion only in the negative sense of where or how it should not be practiced, rather than in the positive sense of what it tells us about our obligations towards one another; when we shy away from religious venues and religious broadcasts because we assume that we will be unwelcome - others will fill the vacuum, those with the most insular views of faith, or those who cynically use religion to justify partisan ends."

Me: In other words, if we don't reach out to evangelical Christians and other religious Americans and tell them what we stand for, then the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons and Alan Keyeses will continue to hold sway.

Again, religious discourse has an appropriate time and place, and I have no problem with politicians engaging the religious communities within the proper boundaries. The people Senator Obama named are not going to respect those boundaries no matter what. Does that mean we should also ignore those boundaries, too? It is like my father always said: If the Republicans were jumping off a cliff, would the Senator have said that we should jump off the cliff, too? What I cede to the religious right is what should not be happening in the first place. The solution is not to join them in it, it is to point out the folly of their ways and work to stop it.

Obama: "More fundamentally, the discomfort of some progressives with any hint of religion has often prevented us from effectively addressing issues in moral terms. Some of the problem here is rhetorical - if we scrub language of all religious content, we forfeit the imagery and terminology through which millions of Americans understand both their personal morality and social justice."

Me: Here we go again with the mythical "Some progressives." The hints of religion we are not comfortable with are the ones that impose someone else's religion on us or say that we are inadequate, wrong, or evil if we don't have the same beliefs - that is hardly "any hint of religion."

More fundamentally, I believe that we most certainly can talk about policies in moral terms without bringing in religious imagery or terminology. There are many values that can be evoked that we all hold in common as Americans regardless of religion. I seem to remember a certain phrase: "We hold these truths to be self evident..." not God given. I'm talking about values like life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, equality of opportunity, human rights, civil rights, social justice, tolerance, democracy, equality under the law, etc. We can and do talk about these values without bringing up religion. I'm sure that most religious people can see the commonalities with their religious values without anyone having to point it out explicitly. Again, the problem is often that liberal views are completely distorted, mischaracterized, or lied about by the right wing echo chamber.

Hopefully, religious Americans also recognize another one of those common American values: the separation of Church and State. Separating the two in public policy debate is the only way to guarantee equal treatment for each and every religion as well as for non-theists. Keep the references to God and Bible out of the halls of Congress, the White House, and the Courts. And remember, the wall of separation is a protection for BOTH sides.

So, yes, yes, yes, we need to discuss our policies in terms of values, morals, and purpose. I have actually written about this before. We need to say that we believe in social programs to aid the poor because it is the moral thing to do - it will help us create a more just and equitable society. But unless they are addressing a church group, there should not be the need for our politicians to say, "We believe in social programs to aid the poor because it is the moral thing to do because Jesus said, 'Whatsoever you do to the least of these, you do unto me.'"

I believe that the power of a message lies in the truth of it, not the invocation of divinity. I know some of you will find that a contradictory statement, but it isn't. Just look at the way that Robertson and Falwell misuse religious invocation and you should be able to see what I mean. It is despicable for the religious right to use religion the way they do. I understand the need for the devout to reclaim their religions from the charlatans. But that is not and should not be the politicians arena. That is what websites like Street Prophets are for. That's what "State of Belief" on Air America Radio is for. Go preach it from the mountain and the pulpit, but not from the White House or the Senate floor.

But, but, but... what about the role of Black Churches?! This always comes up as the example of a good mixing of religion and politics. Sorry, it is more complex than that. The Black churches' role must be examined within the context of American history. Going all the way back to the days of slavery, Black churches were historically the only community organization tolerated by whites (and even then, just barely), and the only form of Black scholarship allowed was in scripture. So not surprisingly, it is within this arena that Black leadership emerged and community mobilization took place.

More importantly, there is a qualitative difference between the political involvement of the Black churches (or others like Dorothy Day or Philip Berrigan) and the way the Dobson's and Robertson's involve themselves in politics. The political goal of these social reformers is not to infuse politics with religion; they are not trying to impose their religion on the rest of us. They were and are working for social justice, civil rights/human rights, and equal opportunity - secular goals.

Obama: "Our failure as progressives to tap into the moral underpinnings of the nation is not just rhetorical, though. Our fear of getting "preachy" may also lead us to discount the role that values and culture play in some of our most urgent social problems.

After all, the problems of poverty and racism, the uninsured and the unemployed, are not simply technical problems in search of the perfect ten point plan. They are rooted in both societal indifference and individual callousness - in the imperfections of man.

Solving these problems will require changes in government policy, but it will also require changes in hearts and a change in minds. I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturers' lobby - but I also believe that when a gang-banger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels somebody disrespected him, we've got a moral problem. There's a hole in that young man's heart - a hole that the government alone cannot fix.

I believe in vigorous enforcement of our non-discrimination laws. But I also believe that a transformation of conscience and a genuine commitment to diversity on the part of the nation's CEOs could bring about quicker results than a battalion of lawyers. They have more lawyers than us anyway."

Me: Say what?! Here it is - he just said that religion is "the moral underpinnings of the nation." It may be the moral underpinnings of some of the citizenry, but that is different than "of the nation" - it must be different because otherwise I am not "of the nation." If what he means is the Judeo-Christian tradition in a broader sense, then you would have to say that that is the moral underpinnings for all of the so-called Western World, including Hitler's Germany. Be careful where you tap...

I also disagree that liberal politicians "discount the role that values and culture play in some of our most urgent social problems." I simply think that liberal politicians recognize that it is not the government's place, nor the politician's place, to be the arbiter of morals and culture. Liberals are rightfully suspicious of anything that might lead to book burnings and censorship. Whenever a government makes morality their province, you end up with an oppressive regime, because cultures are naturally dynamic and no bureaucracy can keep up with the rate of cultural change. Conservatism and fundamentalism are both diametrically opposed to this dynamism, which is why conservatism is always on the wrong side of historical reform movements. Cultural dynamism is also the reason I find the outcry over "activist judges" to be laughable. Our legislature could never act swiftly enough to keep our laws in line with our evolving cultural values, so judges have to step in for the sake of social justice. It is the heart of the common law system that precedent be set by courts interpreting the law within the cultural context of the day.

Certainly, I agree that a change in hearts and minds would help combat some of our social ills, but I don't see how the Senator's proposition that liberal politicians engage in religious dialogue or use religious imagery and terminology would help. I'm sorry, but Barack Obama or any other politician engaging the faith community would not take the gun out of the gang banger's hand nor turn the hearts of CEOs. That gang member is not firing into the crowd because he lacks religion or because Democrats have not engaged in religious dialogue. He is doing it because he feels disenfranchised by the greater American culture and has turned to the sub-culture in which he thinks he can be a big man. Malcolm X said that the American Dream is dead for the black man. We need to renew that dream, or he will seek an alternative dream. So there is yet another common, secular American value that we can reference: the American Dream. I don't see how Democrats talking to the religious or about religion or using religious terms and imagery will do that.

Now, if Senator Obama was saying that churches should pick up where the government leaves off, ok. I agree that churches do a lot to help the poor and hungry and advance social justice. That is fabulous. But how does that fit into the middle of a speech on politicians' engagement or lack of engagement with religions? Is he suggesting that we should recognize the shared values - that both liberals and churches seek greater social justice? We already recognize that. What is his point?

Obama: "I am not suggesting that every progressive suddenly latch on to religious terminology - that can be dangerous. Nothing is more transparent than inauthentic expressions of faith. As Jim has mentioned, some politicians come and clap -- off rhythm -- to the choir. We don't need that.
In fact, because I do not believe that religious people have a monopoly on morality, I would rather have someone who is grounded in morality and ethics, and who is also secular, affirm their morality and ethics and values without pretending that they're something they're not."

Thank you, Senator. Using and abusing religion for political ends is dangerous. And non-theists do have just as solid a moral fiber as the religious. Thanks for noticing.

Obama, "But what I am suggesting is this - secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King - indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history - were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition."

Secularists do not ask you to leave your religion at the door before you enter the public square, only that you leave your religion at the door before you enter the halls of Congress, or the court house, or the White House, or the State Capitol, or City Hall. It may be accurate to say that much of our law is grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition, but you must also recognize that our law is specifically and deliberately secular. We are not a Christian nation, but a secular one. So, if our law really is a codification of morality, and our law is secular, then it must be possible, by definition, to inject personal morality into public policy debates without injecting religion.

Obama: "Moreover, if we progressives shed some of these biases, we might recognize some overlapping values that both religious and secular people share when it comes to the moral and material direction of our country. We might recognize that the call to sacrifice on behalf of the next generation, the need to think in terms of "thou" and not just "I," resonates in religious congregations all across the country. And we might realize that we have the ability to reach out to the evangelical community and engage millions of religious Americans in the larger project of American renewal."

I think it is fantastic that the Senator pointed out that religious values and secular values share much in common. However, it is not the non-theists who don't see the commonalities; non-theists are constantly surrounded by religious values, so we know the commonalities. It is the religious who need to understand that our values are not so different from theirs, and I think many do. Unfortunately, by utilizing the boogeyman caricature of non-theists that the religious right constructed, I think Senator Obama actually makes that goal harder to reach. This speech essentially confirms the picture Limbaugh and O'Reilly have painted of us non-theists, and that is counter-productive.

Obama: "And by the way, we need Christians on Capitol Hill, Jews on Capitol Hill and Muslims on Capitol Hill talking about the estate tax. When you've got an estate tax debate that proposes a trillion dollars being taken out of social programs to go to a handful of folks who don't need and weren't even asking for it, you know that we need an injection of morality in our political debate."

SAY WHAT?! First of all, I would bet that 99% of the politicians already on Capitol Hill are religious (or at least believe in some form of divinity). Second, this statement is based upon the false equivalency of morality and religion. How can he say this after having just said that he didn't think the religious have a monopoly on morals and that religious and secular morality has a great deal in common? Now he says we need more religious folks on Capitol Hill so we can inject morality into the debate?! I agree we should talk about the estate tax in moral terms, but why do we need more religious folks on Capitol Hill in order to do so? We don't, and it is totally offensive to me to suggest that we do.

Obama: "So the question is, how do we build on these still-tentative partnerships between religious and secular people of good will? It's going to take more work, a lot more work than we've done so far. The tensions and the suspicions on each side of the religious divide will have to be squarely addressed. And each side will need to accept some ground rules for collaboration."

Me: Those ground rules are already established in the Constitution. It is not the secularists who constantly violate them, nor is it the religious on the left in general. It is the religious right, who push theocracy and create false narratives to divide natural allies. It is in addressing this that Senator Obama finally got to the good part of his speech where he contradicts nearly everything he said that I took issue with in the first section (though he maintains the false frame about non-theist boogeymen):

Obama: "I want to talk a little bit about what conservative leaders need to do -- some truths they need to acknowledge.

For one, they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. Folks tend to forget that during our founding, it wasn't the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment. It was the persecuted minorities, it was Baptists like John Leland who didn't want the established churches to impose their views on folks who were getting happy out in the fields and teaching the scripture to slaves. It was the forbearers of the evangelicals who were the most adamant about not mingling government with religious, because they did not want state-sponsored religion hindering their ability to practice their faith as they understood it.

Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let's read our bibles. Folks haven't been reading their bibles."

Me: AMEN, Brother! But doesn't this totally contradict what he said earlier? How are we supposed to bring religion into public policy debate without bringing religion into public policy debate? How can Democrats start using more religious references and imagery at the same time they are telling the GOP to back off on the mixing of religion and politics?

Obama: "This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing."

Me: Holy Crapoly! This is what I was harping on throughout the first two-thirds of my evaluation. Unfortunately, Senator Obama does a poor job of explaining how we communicate our values in universal terms. And how does Senator Obama reconcile what he said earlier:

Obama: "if we scrub language of all religious content, we forfeit the imagery and terminology through which millions of Americans understand both their personal morality and social justice."

with this:

Obama: "Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values."

Me: Unfortunately, he doesn't reconcile them at all. How do we use religious imagery and terminology to reach out to the religious while at the same time using universal (non-religious) values? It hurts my brain to try to unfold that one. Maybe I should just take the Zen route and say, "I don't know how, it just is."

Obama: "Finally, any reconciliation between faith and democratic pluralism requires some sense of proportion. This goes for both sides.

Even those who claim the Bible's inerrancy make distinctions between Scriptural edicts, sensing that some passages - the Ten Commandments, say, or a belief in Christ's divinity - are central to Christian faith, while others are more culturally specific and may be modified to accommodate modern life.

The American people intuitively understand this, which is why the majority of Catholics practice birth control and some of those opposed to gay marriage nevertheless are opposed to a Constitutional amendment to ban it. Religious leadership need not accept such wisdom in counseling their flocks, but they should recognize this wisdom in their politics.

But a sense of proportion should also guide those who police the boundaries between church and state. Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation - context matters."

Me: I agree that a sense of proportion is needed and I have said so throughout my evaluation. That proportion is defined in the Constitution. It is the religious right that has pushed the boundary way out of whack from where it belongs as defined by the Constitution, not the "some liberals" that Obama blames. Not surprisingly, one of his examples nearly had me pulling my hair out.

Obama: "It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase "under God." I didn't. Having voluntary student prayer groups use school property to meet should not be a threat, any more than its use by the High School Republicans should threaten Democrats. And one can envision certain faith-based programs - targeting ex-offenders or substance abusers - that offer a uniquely powerful way of solving problems."

Me: I am a teacher, and I do know that some students are uncomfortable with saying "under God" in the Pledge. I simply tell them to stay silent during that phrase, and I do the same. No big deal, right? Wrong! If you are a parent, imagine how you would feel if the Pledge said "under Allah," "under the Goddess," "under Gods," or "under Vishnu" and your kids were required to recite it at school? The typical response I get from Christians when I ask this question is that the Pledge reflects the dominant religion and my examples do not. But it doesn't matter if the phrase reflects the majority beliefs or not, because our government is supposed to be in the business of protecting minorities from the majority.

It also doesn't matter how the Pledge makes the kids feel. The government is not supposed to be involved in matters of religion at all, so a government sanctioned Pledge should not contain religious references. Senator Obama and everyone else needs to understand that this is in no way an attack on religion; we do not ask that the Pledge contain the phrase "without God," simply that it stay silent on the subject. That is the true meaning of secular - no mention of religion at all. I would also get rid of the "In God We Trust" on our money for the same reason. I know this seems minor, but it isn't from my side of the fence. Remember, we non-theists are a small minority that must endure thousands of little religious intrusions in our lives. When they come from our friends, neighbors, and families, that is one thing - we can deal with it precisely because we understand the importance of religion to them on a personal level. But to have those impositions come from the government is just plain unAmerican.

Senator Obama's second example was better, but his third example cuts it close. Religious clubs on school grounds are fine, so long as the Wiccan club, Muslim Q'uran study group, Dungeons and Dragons club, and Humanist Student Alliance all have access equal to what is granted to the Christian or Jewish Student Unions. Faith-based self-help programs are fine, too, so long as they aren't getting government money to proselytize and as long as the court is not ordering people into religiously based programs that conflict with their own beliefs. Each of those would be a clear violation of the wall of separation.

Again demonstrating his knowledge of solid speech writing conventions, senator Obama ended with another anecdote. This one was about a doctor who complained about the Senator's 2004 campaign website saying he would fight "right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman's right to choose." The doctor took offense to the suggestion that everyone opposed to abortion is a right-wing ideologue. Point taken - some anti-abortionists are not whackos and the left needs to be more aware of its rhetoric so as not to alienate potential Democratic voters.

Too bad his speech wasn't so clear, because at the end, I was left scratching my head. What was Senator Obama advocating in this speech? As best I could comprehend it: We on the progressive side of the aisle should throw off the rhetorical shackles imposed by "some liberals" and compromise with said religion-haters so that we can engage in religious discussions and couch our political speech in religious terms in order to convey our values in a way that will connect with religious folks we have lost to the right, but rephrasing our language in non-religious terms so as to be non-exclusionary and to safeguard the separation of Church and State. Umm... yeah... sure... wait... what?

Reader Comments	Comments RSS
Comments are closed for this post.

How to unite? | Report to Admin

By Torgny V.O.B. Jul 6th 2008 at 6:32 am EDT

I have read your blog with great interest. Today the world is divided between many various groups with their particular belief-system, and their special platform of how the world is made. There are Atheists, Agnostics and people who believe in various spiritual concepts. The latter includes many groups, all the way from people who believe in the letter of the Christian Church they happen to belong to, others follow some Eastern tradition or belief in Natural Spirits.

For Centuries there has been quarrel between these groups, and too often intolerance and many times wars have been the result. One group has been in power, others have felt that that their values and lifestyle has not been included.

Today the world is in war, with various groups fighting each other. And I don’t believe in any solution where one group decides what is right and what is wrong. We have to learn to live together, a new world of mutual respect and understanding for each other. If Secular people are forced into a religious belief-system they will revolt. And if religious people are forced into a Secular system they will revolt too. The great underlying problem is that it is so easy to believe that only my way of thinking and look upon the world is the right one. This is as true independent if you believe in a religious system or if you are an Atheist.

For a long time religion has hardly been discussed in the Democratic Party. And many (not all) people have therefore felt that they are welcome in the Republican Party and not in the Democratic Party.

I think that Obama is right when he says that if we shall unite we have to talk openly about these things. This is hard for many people. But if we don’t do it, the fight between various belief-systems will continue.

Re: How to unite? | Report to Admin

By Denise from Bozeman, MT Jul 6th 2008 at 7:30 am EDT

While it is constructive to speak about faith and how various religious organizations can actively and productively participate in community outreach programs, there is a fine line that must be sought in respecting the separation of church and state. James Madison, one of our founding fathers and author of the 1st amendment was vocal and advised against the entaglements between religion and government, including governmental funding programs through religious orgainzations (please see references and info online including: Link.

Perhaps the better approach is to inspire and invite Americans to join citizen/volunteer groups vis a vis their moral and generous nature, whether that be religous based or not, that do similar work that can be funded by the govenment (see Link. When "Americans" participate, that includes everyone and not specific groups of one religion or another and respects the doctrine of the first amendment.

It is important that Obama win this race, not because he's a Democrat, but because he is the right person to represent all Americans; the election can't be a simple switch of representing one segment of the population to another segment of the population. The best way to do that is to respect the constitution in the way Obama claims: "We the People..."

This voter is hopeful that the demands of running for office allow the integrity of the candidate to remain strong and reaffirm the values of all Americans, not the prescribed and religiously defined "American values." The difference is inclusion vs. exclusion and I for one, am tired of being told what and who I have to be in order to fit the Bush administration's mold of what constitutes an American!

Re: How to unite? | Report to Admin

By mrboma Jul 21st 2008 at 7:35 pm EDT

I am totally with you on this, Obama got the Faith Based Initiatives wrong. My wife organizes volunteer events for her work. They hold one event every month, including: Food Bank Orange County, Special Olympics, AIDS Walk, MS Walk, Children's Hospital Orange County, Junior Achievement, Women Helping Women, Angel's Charity, Court Appointed Special Advocates, and so on. Every one of those is a secular organization. Those are the kinds of organizations the government Community Based Initiatives should be funding. Religious groups can organize and volunteer at any of those thousands of places that need help, just like my wife organizes employees at her work.

Re: How to unite? | Report to Admin

By mrboma Jul 21st 2008 at 7:26 pm EDT

What is your point? I am not opposed to openly discussing these things in the proper forum. I just think Obama did a poor job of doing that. He presented a self-contradictory mess of a speech. And he fell into the trap of utilizing some of the frames used by the right wing to discuss religion, the non-religious, and the separation of church and state. If we actually want a productive and open discussion, we need to stop using those right wing frames.

Being pro-secular is not being anti-religious. The separation protects religion from government as much as government from religion. The fight between differing religious systems will continue so long as there exist different belief systems. That is unavoidable. The fights may be violent or they may be friendly discussions like this one. But no matter what, religious fights should not include the government. Just because the right has crossed a line, does not mean we should also cross that line.

Content on blogs in My.BarackObama represents the opinions of community members and in no way should be interpreted as endorsed or approved by the campaign.