I've given a lot of thought over the last two days about Barack Obama's speach about religion and the democratic party.
Just some background. Last year I posted a diary about Rosalyn Carter visiting Toccoa, GA in 1977. 36 students and faculty at a christian college had died in a flood due to a dam break. A book was written by some Christian Fundamentalists about the tragedy and Rosalyn Carter wrote the introduction to that book.
http://www.amazon.com/...
Suffice to say, what the democratic party is today. I can't picture the spouse, let alone one of our politicians connecting with those people the way Rosalyn Carter did in 1977. Simply because it was a connection established only on terms of pure faith. I've often thought about reproducing the text of Rosalyn Carter's introduction to this book just to show a time -- not so long ago -- when a democratic party politician would speak in such an effusive manner about religion. And also to show a time when a politician -- any politician at all -- could do so without it seeming like pandering to a group of voters.
It occured to me that such a book about such a tragedy could have been more about helping people in a more rational sense of the word. in short, what caused the dam to break?? was there a corporation in charge of building the dam that was guilty of some form of criminal negligence??
the idea that a dam just breaks -- god's will -- i think rubs us all the wrong way because we are democrats. even the most religious among us would still want to look at that situation with an eye towards making sure it never happens again.
but that wasn't the topic of the book. and that's not why a democratic party first lady went there in 1977.
some more background. i am not religious.
when the barack obama story broke about his 'Call to Renewal' Keynote Address, most of us were introduced to it by the AP:
http://news.yahoo.com/...
David Espo's lede:
WASHINGTON - Sen. Barack Obama chastised fellow Democrats on Wednesday for failing to "acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people," and said the party must compete for the support of evangelicals and other churchgoing Americans.
I can't help but re-write it like this... Just for the fun of it...
WASHINGTON - Sen. Barack Obama urged fellow Democrats on Wednesday to "acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people," and said the party can appeal to churchgoing Americans who have become disillusioned with
the Bush Administration.
cause both iterations are, pretty much, equally true. Ain't framing a hoot?
that last paragraph of this MSM contribution to our intra-party tug of war:
Obama mentioned leaders of the religious right briefly, saying they must "accept some ground rules for collaboration" and recognize the importance of the separation of church and state.
and, actually it wasn't that brief, mr. Espo:
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.
While I've already laid out some of the work that progressive leaders need to do, 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.
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. And if you doubt that, let me give you an example.
We all know the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham is ordered by God to offer up his only son, and without argument, he takes Isaac to the mountaintop, binds him to an altar, and raises his knife, prepared to act as God has commanded.
Of course, in the end God sends down an angel to intercede at the very last minute, and Abraham passes God's test of devotion.
But it's fair to say that if any of us leaving this church saw Abraham on a roof of a building raising his knife, we would, at the very least, call the police and expect the Department of Children and Family Services to take Isaac away from Abraham. We would do so because we do not hear what Abraham hears, do not see what Abraham sees, true as those experiences may be. So the best we can do is act in accordance with those things that we all see, and that we all hear, be it common laws or basic reason.
in brief it goes like this:
1. separation of church and state protects religion.
2. a religiously motivated agenda must be expressed in universal terms. such an agenda will be limited by what we can see, by common law. and by application of basic reason.
i felt it made sense to add this segment of Obama's speech to the debate... if only just because it sets the record straight for anyone out there at all who might have somehow convinced themselves that Barack Obama has tossed the separation of church and state overboard. or has given the country over to the rule of mis-interpretted parables taken too literally by -- well -- some of them are, indeed, fanatics.
if that isn't you, then i still don't think it hurts to read that segment in and of itself just cause i think it's very eloquent.
but back to the offending remarks:
Democrats, for the most part, have taken the bait. 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.
Probably doesn't do me any good to say so, but i agree with the second half of that statement. There are some of us who do dismiss religion in it's entirety in the public square. it is irrational. if it's not intolerant now, it's the first step on a slippery slope. the proneness of religion to intolerance makes it something we can't tolerate in the public milieu. etc. etc.
and i agree with Obama that an introduction of faith into our public discourse can help. one refrain i hear a lot, a complaint about our agenda is that it lacks vision. we are prone to a laundry list of solutions that lack inspiration. and it occurs to me that this kind of statement:
2 + 2 = 4
while it is true, a provable statement of fact... it lacks the emotional punch of...
4 is self-evident, a right bestowed on us by our creator.
But the first part of that paragraph... I can't help but admit it pisses me off. I tried to rationalize it, but I can't and then i realized why....
here's two statements:
1. Democrats are afraid to embrace religion.
2. Democrats are afraid to support withdrawal in iraq.
no matter where you stand on those topics, the above contextualization -- fear -- of any disagreement on those topics is destructive to the democratic party.
My response to Senator Obama would be: Senator. a democratic party candidate could run an entire campaign without ever bringing up their own religion, or lack thereof. NOT out of a fear of offending anyone. But, quite simply, out of personal conviction.
To assume that anyone who did run such a "religion-free" campaign was doing so not out of personal conviction, but out of fear of the topic, is just as offensive as someone assuming that your embrace of religion is superficial pandering to intolerant bigots.
the alternate title to this diary was: Obama Pulls a Feingold, but that would be polarizing.