http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-07-09-forum-religion-obama_x.htm Politicians need not abandon religion By Barack Obama, for USA TODAY For some time now, there has been talk among pundits and pollsters that the political divide in this country falls sharply along religious lines. Indeed, the single biggest gap in party affiliation among white Americans today is not between men and women, between red states and blue, but between those who attend church regularly and those who don't. This gap has long been exploited by conservative leaders such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, who tell evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their church, while suggesting that religious Americans care only about issues such as abortion and gay marriage. It's a gap that has also been kept open by some liberals, who might try to avoid the conversation about their religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that constitutional principles tie their hands. Some might even dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, thinking that the very word "Christian" describes one's political opponents, not people of faith. And yet, despite all this division, we are united by the fact that Americans are a deeply religious people. Ninety percent of us believe in God, 70% affiliate ourselves with an organized religion, and 38% call ourselves committed Christians. This is why, if political leaders truly hope to communicate our hopes and values to Americans in a way that's relevant to their own, we cannot abandon the field of religious discourse. My lesson I've fallen into this trap myself. During my 2004 Senate race, my opponent said, "Jesus Christ would not vote for Barack Obama." I answered with what has come to be the typically liberal response: that we live in a pluralistic society, and that I can't impose my religious views on another. I said I was running to be the U.S. senator of Illinois, and not the minister of Illinois. But my opponent's accusations nagged at me, and I knew that my answer didn't address the role my faith has in guiding my values. I, like other progressives, should have realized that when we ignore 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, when we shy away from religious venues because we think we'll 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. Moreover, it's wrong to ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square. Abraham Lincoln, William Jennings Bryan, Martin Luther King Jr. — indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history — were not only motivated by faith, they also used religious language to argue for their cause. To say men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into policy debates is a practical absurdity; our law is by definition a codification of morality. If progressives shed some of these biases, we might recognize the overlapping values that both religious and secular people share when it comes to the direction of our country. We might recognize that the call to sacrifice, the need to think in terms of "thou" and not just "I," resonates with all Americans. 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 America's renewal. But the conservative leaders of the religious right will need to acknowledge a few truths about religion as well. For one, the separation of church and state in America has preserved not only our democracy but also the robustness of our religious practice. After all, during our founding, it was not the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of this separation; it was the persecuted religious minorities concerned that any state-sponsored religion might hinder their ability to practice their faith. Universal values This separation is critical to our form of government because in the end, 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. If I am opposed to abortion for religious reasons but seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all. This might be difficult for those who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, but in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics involves compromise, the art of the possible. But religion does not allow for compromise. To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime; to base our policymaking on them would be dangerous. In the months and years to come, I am hopeful we can bridge these gaps and overcome the prejudices each of us brings to this debate. I believe that Americans want this. No matter how religious they may or may not be, people are tired of seeing faith used as a tool to attack and divide. Americans are looking for a deeper, fuller conversation about religion in this country. They might not change their positions on certain issues, but they are willing to listen and learn from those who are willing to speak in reasonable terms — those who know of the central and awesome place that God holds in the lives of so many, and who refuse to treat faith as simply another political issue with which to score points.
The Dems have to take back the moral high ground and this is the type of thinking it will take. I would personally prefer a secular party but the facts of politics in this world will not allow it. It seems people perceive that moral rightousness depends on a higher power but they seem to overlook the fact that almost every abusive regime in the history of the world has claimed sanction by a deity.
You mean like claiming he obeys the Ten Commandments while killing tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians, or are you talking about something else? Bush's spiritual value can be found here.
As I've said before, this is my guy. I really, really hope he runs in '08. Thanks for the post, Batman. Yet another example of just how special Obama is. Keep D&D Civil.
It's a fair point, but man, it is tough. Not the mocking part, but the getting shaky about someone who is comfortable with received wisdom, that sort of siding with faith over science, someone who expresses the idea that God has told him to do things... on some level, I get it - you have a higher voice or an inner voice that helps you make ethical decisions, that plays a role in your decision-making process; "what do I believe in my heart and conscience about Iraq (or whatever). Values-wise, what is my take here." That's good and human and fine. My worry about the true believers - Jeb moreso than GW, to my mind, or further down the line like Santorum and Coburn, is that the inner conversation seems to play such a big role in the decision making that it obscures things like facts, nuance, economics, detail, history and so forth. And people get obsessed with it, because, in part, it makes all these hard debates and conversations and realtionships extremely simple to deal with. "you're either for it or against it" - it makes it easy to demonize opponents, which is not healthy, or diefy same-minded people, also unhealty. Sometimes a politician's faith appears, to me anyway, as not a part of the balanced breakfast, but the ENTIRE breakfast, or close to it -- and it is somehow untouchable with logical counterlogic. With GW, it is not the be all end all, but i feel like it seems to be, from my remote vantage point, a mindset that i worry about - i see it too much in how he deals with stem cell, global warming, foreign policy - it is woven into to every element of the administration - really understanding and studying the contrary view seems too far down the decision making mechanism, and i think it is important. That "belief" - or "gut" as Colbert mercilessly mocked - is a shortcut, and an ill-conceived one, when it comes to making important decisions. So its not the faith, it is the implementation of faith that worries me, and i agree, mocking is not the best route to dealing with that, because it comes off smarmy and judgemental.
I share all your concerns just about. I am not a fundmentalist believer. What bothers me is the adoption of this kind of expression when it comes from an approved source. As poorly as GWB expresses himself, I doubt that his self-description on matters spiritual and mystical is very good.
giddy, you are missing something. As you know, I'm agnostic, but I was thrilled to read this from Obama, because the leaders Democrats have been trotting out since Clinton have been driving me crazy. They don't "get it." They don't understand that a fresh approach to so much in American life, including religion, is essential if the Democratic Party is going to work it's way back from the wilderness. Look, I know many, many religous Democrats, who will find Obama's feeling on this issue extremely appealing. I know an equal number of independents, as well as some Republicans, who will as well. It has nothing to do with George W. Bush, who isn't running for President again, thank god. It has everything to do with having a brilliant leader, secure in his faith, and actually able to speak intelligently about it to the rest of the country. That is exactly what the Democratic Party, and this country, need in the White House. A progressive who can cross all kinds of artificial boundaries set up by GOP rhetoric, and incredibly poor Democratic candidates for the highest office. Obama breaks the mold. He is exactly what this country needs, in my opinion. Keep D&D Civil.
Yeah - neither would get elected so basically they are the same. Obama is black and Rudy has a whole bunch of skeletons and positionss that are often opposed to what would need to be his power base.
You mean like Bush exclaiming that God told him to invade countries? Nah, I will probably mock that forever. And I will will do the same to anyone else that makes such claims.
No, because he doesn't have the baggage his own party would turn away from in the primaries. Obama's only baggage is his race, and unlike rimbaud, I don't think it makes an Obama victory in the primaries, or the general election, an impossibility. Maybe I'm naive to think so, but I think the man can be elected in this country. Everyone said JFK couldn't get elected President, because he was Catholic, but events proved that untrue. Folks forget just how much prejudice existed towards the idea back then. Keep D&D Civil.
I know you have used this example before but I just don't think it is the same. For one thing, Kennedy was able to promise that the Pope would not be running the White House through him. Regardless of whether people believed him he was able to say it. Obama could never promise to not be black. Also, Kennedy was a good looking charismatic guy who was ahead of the curve as far as treating running for president as an ad campaign. Easier to look past the catholic thing. Obama is and looks black. Further, on the ballot it will say "Barack Obama" which to white America means "different" possibly "foreign" and don't think there won't be some along the lines of "sounds like an Islamic terrorist" (and his father was Muslim and Kenyan). The name is an issue...look at how often he has to try to make light of it. It reinforces his non-white status. The one thing going for him is he is a Midwestern senator instead of Northeastern. Unfortunately, though, he grew up in Hawaii and Indonesia so there is nothing familiar about that. Oh yeah, he is also a liberal. I still think that both the first black and first female president will have to be conservative. I think even that is a ways away. Regardless of Obama, I would LOVE to be wrong and have a black or female president in 2008.
