Obama’s religious advice for his party

At the same time, he said, “Secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square

For better or worse, the rights and liberties (including the pursuit of happiness) of all Americans are based upon secular values. The religious-based viewpoints of those religionists who wish to limit those rights and liberties on an “us vs. them” basis that is based upon religious belief and doctrine is inappropriate and unwelcome in the public square. Our laws and legal tradition and liberties are NOT based upon the bible and it is a grave disservice to all Americans to pander to those who proclaim it to be otherwise.

Who was the “waffle” in Doonesbury? Clinton? Well, I guess I’m a waffller too, since I’m on both sides of this. On the one hand, I don’t get apoplectic every time I hear someone recite the God part of the pledge. On the other, I DO get apopolectic when I hear the religious self-righteous insist on grafting the deity onto our national symbols, and then slander the people who dare to object.

When I hear a recording of Dr. King invoking the help of God Almighty in the cause of civil rights, I get chills. When I hear GWB working the lyrics of hymns into his speeches to pander to the likes of James Dobson, I want to puke.

If those of us on the left seem disrespectful of some people’s religious faith, I think it’s largely a reaction (in some cases, I’ll concede, an overreaction) to the hypocrites in the “party of God” who display their religious conviction as proof that they are morally correct about taking us to war, ignoring the poor, hoarding their riches, and despoiling the environment.

I may not lead the applause on Sen. Obama’s speech, but I understand the motivation and I wish him well. [/waffle]

I think we need a clarification of terms: fundamentalist, evangelical and religious seem to be used interchangeably lately. Personally, I don’t care what someone else believes as long as intolerance isn’t included.

Honestly, the more I hear from/about Obama the less I like him. But he is indicative of a much larger problem- that being some Democrats and center-left pundits who accept GOP spin as reality. Like you point out, who/where are these rigid secularists among the Democratic leadership?

As someone who was raised Methodist, attended a Catholic college, then became (more or less) a Buddhist (with perhaps a splash of Sufism thrown in), I am not wholly uncomfortable with references to God, etc. But, as someone else noted above, I am troubled every time some wackjob fundie spouts off about Jesus and how the Bible ought to be the basis for our government and laws. I’d actually welcome and applaud some other mainstream Christians, as well as moderate Muslims, speaking out about their faith and values, if nothing else to dispel this notion that the fundamentalists of each faith have some sort of claim to truth.

On the other hand, I would like to see the under God language taken out of the Pledge. But that is based on the legislative history of its insertion, not on any absolutism with respect to the separation of church and state.

Unfortunately, Obama buys into the GOP/fundie spin that to oppose theocracy, or to stand up to those who pander to religious intolerance, is somehow anti-religion. Which is rather sad given his level of education and experience.

I hope you don’t mind my linking to another blog, but Pachacutec on Firedog Lake had another take on this story, linking Bill Clinton to the rise of this type of scenario. The thread was long and lively.

Asadedicated non-religionist, I had absolutely not one single problem with anything Obama said, and I read the entire speech. I rather suspect that people with my non-religious orienation may form a majority of the regulars here (or at least those of us in the noisy minority of regular posters), and I have long detected among us almost an aversion to anyone bringing up anything religious. I am not pointing any fingers when I say this, but in my experience, people who are not really sure what their belief is (religious or non-religious) have a tendency to not want to have “challenges” to their beliefs brought forward. This can be as true for an atheist as it is for a member of Focus on the Family. So for those who do find a “problem” here with what Obama has said about religion, I would ask you think carefully about why you have that feeling. I say that because I think he is absolutely right about the power of religion to move things and get things done. I say that as someone who experienced what he talks about regarding the power of the black church during my work in the south in the Civil Rights Movement, and I say it as someone who once met a for-real Saint – Ammon Hennacy, co-founder with Dorothy Day of the Catholic Worker movement, and a man whose very existence in every second of time was a challenge to all around him to look at themselves and what they were doing and why.

Myself, I agree with Maimonides that “to understand the universe is to know god” (with a small “g”). But I know full well that religious imperatives can power change. My ancestor, the first Cleaver in North America, was the leader of the first group of Europeans in the world to make the non-ownership of slaves a condition of membership in their community, a community that was essentially a theocracy, albeit a Quaker theocracy. Their decision was based on their interpretation of The Golden Rule – do unto others as you would have others do unto you. For 175 years – from 1688-1863 – that religious decision they had made not only informed all my ancestors in their active opposition to slavery, but formed something that grew and expanded throughout Quakerism. Religion played a huge role in the abolition movement, in England and here in America. I doubt there is anyone here – religious or non-religious – who isn’t moved when they hear or sing “Amazing Grace,” written by a former slave trader who “saw the light.” Go read “The American Crisis” – Paine was not a very religious guy, but if you don’t get a religious interpretation out of what he wrote there and the way he put the argument, then you need reading comprehension lessons.

Yes, I would rather recite “one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all,” as I did till I was 10 years old. In fact I do that. I pass on “under God” but I don’t make a huge thing of it.

As far as what Obama said here, there are things in the speech to which I would privately say “Hey man, uhhh, did you really have to say that?” But I can think of many more things I would be likely to say to which he could rightfully have the same response. Like they say at the end of AA meetings, “take what you need and leave the rest.”

Overall, my reaction to this speech and to the speech-giver is that this guy really is who we need in 2008.

“Take what you need and leave the rest.”

Without weighing in on this specific speech… I thought Sirota’s Nation piece on Obama was absurd and deeply stupid.

His whole criticism of Obama really amounted to “This guy is too eager to compromise.” From the perspective of a hardcore partisan like Sirota, I’m sure that’s true. But most of the heroes of American political history had an outlook very similar to Obama’s. FDR and Lincoln were also loathed by the Sirotas of their times for insufficient moral rectitude: Lincoln’s failure to immediately come out foursquare against slavery, FDR’s desire to save capitalism through reform rather than destroy it by assuming dictatorial powers and later his over-deliberate pace in leading the US into the war.

What they failed to see, and what Sirota fails to see now, is that these great leaders were “masters of the possible.” They were acutely sensitive to the national mood, and acted in deference to prevailing opinion while gradually working to change it. Had Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in summer 1861, the North would have lost the war; if FDR had acted more precipitously in addressing the crises of Depression and War, our ensuing history would not have been as successful as it’s been.

I’m not saying that Obama is the equal of those legendary figures. He’s not perfect; no politician is. But my opinion is that if he’s pissing off people like David Sirota, his chances of making a positive impact for progressivism at a world-historical level are much, much better than if the extremists and super-partisans were thrilled with him across the board.

I agree with your assessment completely. And I agree with Justin that Obama is losing some of his shine.

This post also illustrates a peeve of mine. Originally, ‘evangelical’ simply meant ‘Protestant’. Before 9/11, Christian fundamentalists were called just that and they were happy about it. After 9/11, when the world clearly saw how evil fundamentalism is, the fundies starting calling themselves evangelicals, simultaneously whitewashing themselves and tainting Protestants as a whole. The talking points pushed this change in vocabulary and the press and general culture followed suit. This is a wrong that needs to be righted. Evangelicals may be progressive; fundamentalists never. Fundies should be treated as a separate group, one which is at the root of many of the country’s and the world’s ills.

I understand what he’s trying to do, but it’s simply not going to work. True compassion means nothing to radical Christians and nothing Obama or anyone says will change that. They’re all about hate.

I can also understand attacking the “staw men” that the Republicans make up, as well, but I think a better tact would be to point out they simply don’t exist, not just position himself in opposition.

As far as religion in public, I’ve always felt religion should be kept personal, between you and what you believe. I think when religion becomes social at all that the resulting social entity becomes counter-productive to that religion.

Tom Cleaver says:

“I rather suspect that people with my non-religious orienation may form a majority of the regulars here (or at least those of us in the noisy minority of regular posters), and I have long detected among us almost an aversion to anyone bringing up anything religious.”

I have long suspected that a fair proportion of commenters are non believers, but I haven’t sensed that they have any aversion to people bringing up religion, in any context. Non believers are drowning in the religious expressions and sentiments of the 95% or more who profess to be believers in virtually every aspect of our lives. Total immersion in a highly religious culture is a fact of life for everyone in America, and I don’t sense at all that non believers are unsure of themselves. Maybe just tired of hearing about God and Jesus all the time. Anymore than they want to hear about all those celebrity babies or American Idol or what passes for news on cable tv.

The problem with Obama’s speech is that he panders. The First Amendment demands a fidelity to religious neutrality.

Democrats should point out how their principles coincide with the principles of Christianity (e.g. – care for poor). Ass-kissing will get us nowhere.

Once my New England elementary school got to the Bill of Rights in history, I sure wondered how it was that we kept having to say “God” every day in school. Don’t go writing off bright kids, nor the emotional bruising of being made an ‘outsider’ by your school.

Obama went to grammar school in Indonesia and then to the (very) exclusive Punahou school in Honolulu – I’m not sure that he ever was a kid in public school in the US. I’m not really sure that he’s really in a position to be supposing what it’s like to be a public school kid in the US.

I’m with you on all the significant points. But this is Obama- does the guy really deserve to be vilified over one speech? Sometimes people of character should be allowed to speak their mind; somebody who’s really independent, willing to explore the nuance of policy, and do it publicly, without poll-driven self-censoring. That’s the stuff that leaders should be made of. Hasn’t this guy proven his bonafides? I say give him a break.

hark: “I have long suspected that a fair proportion of commenters are non believers, but I haven’t sensed that they have any aversion to people bringing up religion, in any context. Non believers are drowning in the religious expressions and sentiments of the 95% or more who profess to be believers in virtually every aspect of our lives.”

Absolutely right. I *used to be* a reasonable, “live and let live” atheist. It’s the force-fed “religion” (all on the surface, empty mouthing off below) which I’ve experienced over the past 5 yrs that’s turned me into a knee-jerk one. I don’t care what someone’s religion is or how attached to it a person is — to each his/her superstitions — but, please, don’t tell me that your ethics are better than mine. *Especially* if you have no evidence to back up your statement. I live by what I believe; can the Jesus-freaks say the same?

And good for Obama if he can convince some of the fence-sitters that I’m not about to come and snatch their Gods from them; I just don’t want them to force their Gods on me.

Andy I didn’t say it was in the constitution. But the Declaration of Independence is an important document. It sets forth the reasons why the US should be a free state independent of the English monarchy.

So I’m not going to argue that the Constituion embraces biblical tenets. It doesn’t. But not only did many of the founding fathers believe in a divine spirit, they referred to it in the constitutional debates. Furthermore, there is a tradition of natural law in american jurisprudence.

So its not really about the role of religion in DAILY life, its the role of a creator as the source of our unalienable rights.

As an aside. I am an atheist who has long fought prayer in school and other government sponsored religious events. I remember reciting the Lords Prayer at school events as a child and feeling that others were imposing their beliefs on me. On the other hand, religion is a very human expression and the idea that some people would not let religious clubs meet on school grounds seems ridiculous to me.

Why is it a strawman argument to say Democrats have essentially not engaged the political/policy debate within a faith paradigmn?

This false perception of godless Democrats was allowed to be created when people of faith on the left stayed silent and took the separation of church and state to such extremes that they stopped bringing up WHY they are liberals. That’s also true with politicians that represent people of faith on the left.

We on the left ceded faith in the public sphere to one right-wing, Christian fundamentalist group because of our silence.

One can talk about the grounding of one’s morality in religious terms without seeking to convert people and respecting the diversity of beliefs (faith or non-faith based). I do it all the time to great effect.

People respect a political discussion that involves a discussion of the larger aspects in life, like why we are here on this earth. Islam, Christianity, Judaism, the Hindu faith, Buddhism – they all bring an interesting and equally valid faith perspective to this. Secularism does too.

Obama should have done one thing in that speech, which I think would have assauged everybody’s concerns. He should have very cleary attacked the hypocracy of the supposed Christians definining faith tradition in America now. We don’t need to respect voices of intolerance and that should be made very clear whenever politics and religion become topics of discussion.

Regards,

Patrick Briggs

Addison,

You bring up a good point. From both a liberal perspective and from a Christian perspective of inclusiveness, you are right.

What I find difficult is the tension between stopping these people on the right from doing further damage to this country – many of these righties are hostile to the Democracy this nation was founded on and to the inclusive and taking-care-of-the-least-of-these truer form of Christianity – and bringing them into the greater human family.

Great leaders find a way to do this. Martin Luther King did. Nelson Mandela did in South Africa (there’s a great story of how he embraced his jailers – his enemies – as friends).

The trick for leaders like Obama will be to stand for the best parts of the liberal politcal tradition as well as the best parts of the varying faiths in this country…unflinchingly. You can’t be friends with everybody. Calling out the hypocracy on the right is part of standing for something.

Regards,

Patrick

Wow…just browsed the comment section from CNN on this issue…kind of depressing to me. Secularists want to give the finger to conservatives (esp. Christians), and conservatives don’t think Obama’s sentiments are genuine. *sigh* No one wants to get along…time for another civil war I guess.

Carpetbagger wrote:
“Who are these inauthentic religious Dems?”

Uhhh…that would be the Chief Theologian of the DNC, The Very Right Reverend Howard Dean, whose favorite New Testament Book is The Apostle Paul’s Epistle to the Church of Job.

Unholy Moses wrote:
“The problem I have with reaching out to evangelicals is that many (I’d even say almost all) are still against gay marriage. They may say “civil unions” are okay, but the whole “separate but equal” theory didn’t work too well down South several decades ago, and there’s no reason to think it’d work in regards to gay marriage.”

This “We don’t want those people in our party” is a common sentiment. Problem is that type ARE some of the most reliable Democratic voters. The great majority of African-Americans are evangelicals and have even stronger views against gay marriage than white evangelicals. And then there’s Catholics. You know that Karl Rove has these people in his sights. One more thing…what was the position of Kerry/Edwards?

Greg H wrote (post #17);
“This post also illustrates a peeve of mine.”

Heh. Your understanding (I’d call it MISunderstanding) is a pet peeve of mine. ^:)

“Originally, ‘evangelical’ simply meant ‘Protestant’.”

Yes, pretty much, long ago…”Evangelical” was equivalent to “Lutheran.” Same for Reform/Calvinist and Methodist/Wesleyan.

“Before 9/11, Christian fundamentalists were called just that and they were happy about it.”

Here’s where the problem begins. Modern day Evangelicals are those who broke away from the Fundamentalists little over 50 years ago. The original group included Billy Graham, Carl Henry, and Harold Okenga. Many people do not want to recognize the distinction between the two groups and prefer to include Evangelicals with Fundamentalists. The simple way to understand the definitions is that if the Fundamentalists (the real ones) call you a Liberal, and the Liberals call you a Fundamentalist, you’re probably an Evangelical. BTW, the real Fundamentalists ARE happy to be called that. In fact that’s the AP Stylebook definition.

“After 9/11, when the world clearly saw how evil fundamentalism is, the fundies starting calling themselves evangelicals, simultaneously whitewashing themselves and tainting Protestants as a whole. The talking points pushed this change in vocabulary and the press and general culture followed suit. This is a wrong that needs to be righted.”

That sounds like the liberal talking points version. What I observed is that most folks didn’t really understand what an evangelical was. Not long after 9/11, there was a good deal of effort in the press to try to understand and communicate the differences between evangelicals and fundamentalists. Many folks prefer use what I call the “Armstrongian Mythos/Logos Manicheaism.” – after Karen Armstrong’s “Battle for God” intro. Conservative evangelicals like Falwell, Robertson, and Dobson, who are disowned by the real Fundamentalists, are regarded by many as fundamentalists, when they are in fact just very conservative evangelicals. This approach creates a highly divisive view of the world of non-liberal Christians.

Barak Obama and Amy Sullivan are two folks who understand the truth. Sadly, too many on the left are looking for heretics, not converts. The wrong that needs to be righted is the simple-minded Manichean demonization of a critical swing voter group.

“Evangelicals may be progressive; fundamentalists never.”

The most important thing I’d like to communicate is that Evangelicals are very far from a monolithic group. They are spread out all the way from fundamentalists to liberals. The real Fundamentalists are actually just harmless little fuzzballs who mostly want nothing to do with politics. They are all quite isolated from even themselves. For example, Fred Phelps despises Falwell and the Religious Right. The real trouble comes from groups who are on the cusp of Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism, such as the Reconstructionists.

“Fundies should be treated as a separate group, one which is at the root of many of the country’s and the world’s ills.”

It does a terrible disservice to the truth to lump together American Protestant Fundamentalists – no matter how you define them – with Wahabbian Islamic Fundamentalists and Qutbian Terrorists. But it makes some people feel good about themselves. Karen Armstrong does a very good job of explaining the profound differences between the different fundamentalisms here:

http://www.bookbrowse.com/excerpts/index.cfm?fuseaction=printable&book_number=543

Unfortunately she apparently proceeds to ignore her own admonishment (I haven’t read the book- just that intro).

Regarding comment #28 by KCinDC…

YES!!! Someone gets it!

Bottom line:

Barak Obama and Amy Sullivan get it and the Democratic party will be well served by their advice. They need to be respected. Listen to them.