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. "Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation. Context matters," the Illinois Democrat said in remarks to a conference of Call to Renewal, a faith-based movement to overcome poverty. "It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase 'under God,'" he said. "Having voluntary student prayer groups using school property to meet should not be a threat, any more than its use by the High School Republicans should threaten Democrats."
-- AP lede on his "talk about the connection between religion and politics and perhaps offer some thoughts about how we can sort through some of the often bitter arguments that we've been seeing over the last several years"
I passed a blurb about this speech, which had a similar tone, in the national news round-up section of the NY Daily News earlier this week. It sort of rubbed me the wrong way -- another progressive sort concerned about the lack of respect of faith in the movement, which is said to be a significant problem in the search for support. Amy Sullivan over at Washington Monthly is on this bandwagon and the report in TPM Cafe criticized a couple bloggers who found the speech distasteful. The speech's honoring of faith, especially in the promotion of progressive causes, is surely acceptable. Likewise, things like this:
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.
Nonetheless, the critics (see also, the comments to the TPMC piece) have some reason to be concerned. Sen. Obama's speech clearly was supposed to be another one of his "let's all join together" appeals akin to the one at the Democratic Convention in 2004. Shades of President Jefferson saying we all are federalists, we all are republicans, so let's cut the divisive stuff. But, in some cases, this approach is a problem when things are not so evenly divided. It is not like each side is equally divisive ... consider his remarks during the effort to filibuster Alito suggesting that was not the way to go. No, we can't always play nice. We have already touched upon shades of his "establishment" side ... given what that is these days, that should raise a bit of a red flag.
Anyway, what is the lede? The speech criticized both sides, but the lede is that even fellow Dems, Dems said to be future stars, are concerned that the party is not respectful of faith enough. The problem is in part that he left himself open to be used to further a usual meme, but it is not only the result of selective quotation. Sen. Obama spoke of a "gap" in this area that conservatives exploit.* This feeds into the lie that Republicans are for believers, Democrats for nonbelievers. And, does so with spurious examples. How many Democrats oppose "under God" in the Pledge? As to the degree that did not pressure him personally to accept a religious belief ... well his household was not exactly typical. But, the run of the mill public school child clearly will determine God is as American as apple pie, the flag, and something called a "republic."
Heck, how many "secularists" oppose "every mention of God in public"? Damn it, Barack -- even the strict believer of separation of church and state oppose OFFICIAL mentions of God. Thus, someone giving a speech -- like you -- are not covered. Likewise, sorry no, I do not think reciting the Declaration of Independence is verboten. Now, a few -- though rather few in any political capacity -- are hesistant about some sorts of religious clubs. Nonetheless, a left-right coalition passed a law upholding the right of religious clubs to meet in public high schools. Justice Brennan concurred in a ruling upholding the law. The TPM Cafe thread cited a ruling involving promotion religious doctrine in an after school program at an elementary school. The ruling was 6-3. Not quite the same thing.
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.
Let me be fair. The speech overall had various good things in it about the place of faith in public life, which is fine, though I am not sure if there is some pressing need that we reminded of the fact. Well, perhaps, the point is that is places a certain compelling purpose to public life that we surely do need. Fine enough. But, he threw in some dross into the mix too, a sort of acceptance of a "civil religion" that is not quite as vanilla as he implies. Likewise, Obama seems to require evenhandedness, even if it really is not called for. What is this "at best" stuff?
This is sort of the "b.s." that the blogs disliked. The other side will ignore the "some," just as the AP story highlighted only his criticism of his own party, while noting he mentioned the "religious right briefly." After all, even he said "for the most part" even if only respecting taking the calculating "bait." Various candidates, from Kerry on down, spoke of religious values that influenced their views.
Also I am really not sure how many "liberals" really "dismiss" religion "as inherently irrational or intolerant." This would be a bit difficult given that a majority of their brethren follow some sort of organized religion. They in fact are upset about certain religions that clearly are intolerant, and yes, rather irrational. I again see a certain sort of "civic religion," a favoring of a certain sort of religion, while others might be deeply conscientious and so forth, but are in some fashion not really "religious" as that word is sometimes defined.
And, as a few comments noted, is he not disrespecting many faithful followers ... those with "religion," but a more private faith? A faith that does not require reaffirmation in the public square via empty rituals that favor certain sects? As a "secularist" myself -- which is not the same thing as an atheist or some caricature that frowns when someone says "bless you" when you sneeze in public -- I also find comments like "secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square" a tad bit distasteful. How many actually do that? I am not telling Obama not to express his faith. So, I wish he would not tell others to express theirs in a certain fashion.
After all, he seems to define "religion" rather broadly, in such a way that can not be "left at the door." He speaks of those who "want a sense of purpose, a narrative arc to their lives." But, then confusion -- "motivated by faith" is not quite the same thing as "religious language." But, for some, religious language is expressed differently -- thus, an environmentalist might see the earth itself as something to honor -- a form of nature religion. Such an individual might even speak in such a way that annoys certain religious believers. For instance, Obama argues it is "a practical absurdity" not to allow "personal morality" to be inserted into policy debates. Sure ... but both sides do it, even if too often "values" means "certain values." A troubling code word.
He ends with a nice sentiment of respect for other person's beliefs. But, the story he ends on was a bit too cute. A primary supporter wrote to him saying that there was something on his website that troubled him. It was so troubling that it might lead him not to vote for Obama in the general election. What was this terrible thing? "Boilerplate" language mentioning "right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman's right to choose." Obama replaced that with "clear but simple terms my pro-choice position." And, he went home and prayed that "we can live with one another in a way that reconciles the beliefs of each with the good of all."
One hopes so. But, the quote was not wrong, and I do wonder if he avoids similar strong pithy language at all times, including in campaign ads and so forth. I am all for a full discussion of views, especially on sensitive subjects that touch the religious beliefs of voters, in some cases possibly leading to them voting for a candidate that at the end of the day really does not match his or her values as a whole.
Still, when one says "if you truly believe that those who oppose abortion are all ideologues driven by perverse desires to inflict suffering on women, then you, in my judgment, are not fair-minded," you can honestly say: I did not say that, sir or madam. First, "oppose" can very well mean personal opposition, not of the level that warrants criminalization. Second, you are putting words in my mouth with terms like "perverse desires." And, third, the leaders of the Republican Party are right-wing ideologues. Jesus was rather blunt too, he even might be excused of hyperbole sometimes.
But, that is not quite his way, I guess. "Fair" enough. He takes it too far sometimes though. At the very least, I question some of his language here.
----
* "Conservative leaders have been all too happy to exploit this gap, consistently reminding evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their Church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage; school prayer and intelligent design."
Note how he says that they "remind" about disrespect. This is poor use of language for a wordsmith. They "claim" that sure enough. But, it is at most a half-truth. Around a quarter of the evangelicals are left-leaning. Many who are not are Democrats. And, quite a few Democrats, thank you, share many values with them generally. In fact, others have notes "values voters" really did not effect the '04 Election anywhere as much as some claim.
It is an overgeneralization to speak of a whole party "disrespecting" and "disliking" a particular Church -- a word that is actually rather inexact given evangelicalism is not any one "church." Dare I say separation of church and state guards against official controversies arising from such sloppiness? Related sloppiness too often implies "values" really means "conservative Christian values."