At the recent Call to Renewal conference, sponsored by Sojourners, a “Christian Left” organization, Barak Obama gave the keynote address (streaming audio), and said some things about faith and politics which were excellent. Now, Al Mohler doesn’t agree, but I was so mad at Mohler’s treatment of the subject on his radio show that I sent him a letter. Here’s the stuff that Obama said, which echoes what I have often said, which I think was very good.
On Liberal Intolerance of Religion
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.
On Asking People of Faith to Leave their Faith at the Door
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….
On Appealing to the Laws of Nature, not Religious Authority for Legislation
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.
This last point is the one that Mohler disagrees with, but I think Obama is right. And of course, for the issues that scripture condemns which we can’t really make a compelling argument for or against with common reason and ethics, legislation should remain neutral, as I stated clearly in Legislating in the Moral Gray Zone.
On the Move to Completely Secularize Public Life – Separation of Church/State
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. 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.
On Abortion
My one big complaint about Obama is that he is pro-choice. Even worse, Al Mohler argued that there is no non-religious reasoning that can be used against abortion – he was trying to argue that we must be able to point to religious authority in making laws. So I wrote to him something of this order:
Are you kidding me? No non-religious arguments against abortion? I expect more from you than such simplistic anti-intellectual arguments. How about arguing that the child has a right to LIFE? How about arguing that they are a human life in the same way that we argue human life at the end, heartbeat and brainwaves. When you argue that the embryo is a life because of it’s genetic uniqueness, you are not making a religious argument at all.
Not only do I think that appealing to the bible as your authority for lawmaking is wrong, I think it is dangerous. What happens when the Muslims start quoting their book? Is it now an argument about whose book is more authoritative? The book of nature and nature’s God is common to all of us. Besides that, the danger of appealing to scripture is that we will be tempted to try to legislate religious laws (like women wearing head coverings) if we fail to distinguish between common wisdom contained in our book, and religious practice.
Obama may be wrong on Roe v. Wade, but I have to stand up and cheer for these other principles he has so eloquently outlined. Wow, maybe I’m becoming evangelical left? I’d have to give up my stances on abortion and homosexuality to do that, so probably I should not worry.
Yeah Seeker, Heaven forbid you acknowledge that gays are your equals, and are entitled to equal treatment under the law. Heaven forbidddddddddd.
OK, so instead of making every post about being gay, what about what he said about faith and politics? Is Obama now on the liberal sh*t list with Lieberman because he isn't a secular fundamentalist? Or is he ok as long as he doesn't touch the holy pro-choice position?
Alas, Cineaste, you are so narrow in your use of language. While the common usage may "usually" (did you miss that part of the definition?) be religious, it does not have to be so. One can be a fundamentalist, which includes focusing on core principles and being intolerant of others, using any ideology, not just religious ones. Now do you get my meaning?
In fact, this language is becoming more common – see the book Confessions of a Secular Fundamentalist, as well as Secular Fundamentalism and Democracy.
Keeping me honest? More like missing my point!
Alas, Seeker
Just keeping you honest, which is like trying to hold the ocean back with a broom.
Some articles of The Fundamentals did state that evolution and the Bible were compatible. The early fundamentalists wanted to defend key doctrinal points (the virgin birth, divinity of Christ) and the inerrancy of the Bible. A few of these fundamentalists theologians accepted Biblical inerrancy but acknowledge portions may be allegorical in content, such as creation and the global flood. The possibility of fundamentalists accommodating evolution existed, but the more conservative element prevailed with an emphasis on the "plain sense" reading of the scriptures.
Seeker,
Again, there is nothing wrong with people being religious Seeker. You know that I feel that way. The issue is that some of those who are religious (yourself included) seem to believe that the laws of this country must reflect religion. That's the stupid part.
Liberals have made a mistake by offending some who are religious. However, offending somebody like you isn't really the problem, since you will always be offended by people who don't agree 100 percent with what you believe. Liberals need to make sure that they communicate respect for religion while disagreeing with the idea that Christianity needs to be legally forced upon everybody.
Also, there's no such thing as secular fundamentalism. There's only religious fundamentalism, as expressed by you and your refusal to ever consider the possibility that you might be wrong.
bRegarding the use of "fundamentalist", while the early 20th century Baptists may have coopted that word to name their movment, that doesn't invalidate the other uses of that word. Hence, we use the term "Islamic Fundamentalist", or "religious fundamentalist" in the common sense of the word, not the particular usage borrowed by the Baptists. Your'e not keeping me honest, you are wasting our time.
Needless to say, the term "secular fundamentalist" is being used by many on the right, and rather than quibble over their proper (read "narrow" and self-serving) use of the language, you should understand it and engage the argument.
The issue is that some of those who are religious (yourself included) seem to believe that the laws of this country must reflect religion.
Actually, you are being too ambiguous here. We all want our values represented in government. It's just that some people, unlike me, want to overlegislate religion, while secular fundies at the other end have the mistaken idea that conservative values are religious and don't belong in public debate.
Obama was admitting such, and reproving liberals for being anti-religious, while all the time demonizing their religious opponents by grouping them into one big evil group of Reconstructionists. Rather than deal with the extremism in their own midst, they point to the extremism on the other side to justify their fear mongering. People like Obama are speaking reason.
Liberals have made a mistake by offending some who are religious. However, offending somebody like you isn't really the problem, since you will always be offended by people who don't agree 100 percent with what you believe.
No, they are making the mistake of allowing the anti-religious secular bigots to run their party, then feigning religion now that they realize their mistake. Why is it that Obama doesn't offend me? Because contrary to your misapprehension of me, I am not the enemy you seek. If you think so, then I suspect you to be one of those far left bigots who can't tell a Reconstructionist from a neo-Calvinist, and who see an enemy in everyone who isn't pro-gay or pro-choice.
Also, there's no such thing as secular fundamentalism. There's only religious fundamentalism, as expressed by you and your refusal to ever consider the possibility that you might be wrong.
That's rediculous. You don't think you are wrong. Does that make you a fundamentalist? Your convenient, narrow, self-serving use of "fundamentalist" may help you sleep at night, but secular fundamenatalism is alive and well.
And for your information, I do consider the fact that I am wrong. I have changed my mind many times in the past, and will in the future. And because I know you will ask, I'll give you some examples. I used to agree with those who say we need to protect the fetus from the point of conception, but now I take a point at about 6 weeks (brainwaves and heartbeat). That's a very unpopular position with conservatives. I take a more generous position on immigrants than the "anti-amnesty" Republicans (whom GWB has also opposed, to his credit). I don't oppose the teaching of contraception as long as it takes its place in an ABC type of curriculum – even though I think chastity is a value we should encourage, I'm not an abstinence only person because I have seen the statistics that show that it doesn't work as well as a combined approach.
And the list could go on, but if you are convinced that I am impervious to good argumentation, then I guess there's no convincing you. Just because I don't bend to the tortured logic of gay hermeneutic or the murderous pro-choice illogic doesn't make me inflexible – it just makes me disagree with you.
secular fundamentalist…
is…
an…
oxymoron.
Duh!
Seeker,
1. Wanting your values in today's laws makes some sense, except the way that you want your values "represented" is to exlude those that you personally disagree with. Laws shouldn't be written to satisfy your personal objections, no matter what you might advocate.
2. Reconstructionist from a Neo-Calvinist? I neither know, nor care, what the difference is. I care that you think of gays as second-class human beings. I care that you want laws written that are specifically designed to discriminate against gay couples. As I've written a million times, I don't care that you're religious. I care that you want everybody else to be religious too, and if you can't convince us of it yourself, you're going to legislate it onto us.
3. Seeker, be realistic. Are you ever going to change your position that gays are second-class citizens whose love doesn't deserve any legal protection? Are you ever going to acknowledge that there's a fundamental difference between gays and pedophiles, beastophiles, etc? There's no torture to my logic: gays are straights equals, and deserve legal protections. There's far more torture in saying that gays aren't your equal, and ought to be shipped off to reprogramming camps that fail anyway.
Reconstructionist from a Neo-Calvinist? I neither know, nor care, what the difference is.
That's one of the many reasons your arguments fail. You don't understand your "opponents."
Are you ever going to change your position that gays are second-class citizens whose love doesn't deserve any legal protection?
Since you can't even articulate my position correctly, I'd have to say that I don't currently hold this position.
Are you ever going to acknowledge that there's a fundamental difference between gays and pedophiles, beastophiles, etc?
I acknowledge there are fundamental differences. There are also fundamental similarities, chief of which is that they are perversions of normal (hetero) sexuality.
There's no torture to my logic
I didn't say there was. I referred to "gay hermeneutic," which means pro-gay theology which misinterprets scripture. Your logic, however, is plain, but flawed, as I have suggested repeatedly.
But this post is about what Obama said about faith and politics. Do you have anything to add to that conversation, or is it all about homosexuality?
Seeker,
Please stop being unreasonable. The difference between my disdain for religion and your disdain for those who are gay is quite clear: I'm not proposing any laws that discriminate against you. Whereas you believe that gays are second class human beings – whose love is "perverse," who ought to understand that they're "lucky they're not being killed by the government," and whose relationships should legally be worth less than yours (and that is your position) – I believe that religion is both stupid, regressive, idiotic, and bad for the country. However, I don't propose that you lose your right to marry as a result of this ridiculous "choice" that you've made concerning your beliefs. One day, you will understand what I am saying, but only after you can put aside your hatred for those who believe differently than you do.
As for what Obama said about faith and politics, read my comments. I made it quite clear that I have no problem with what he said about faith and politics. But I happen to believe that sexuality is the greatest battle being fought right now between those who are right (me), and you.
Finally, please stop suggesting that your position is anything other than gay disdain. That's what the dominant Christian position these days (well, that and missionary). You believe that gays are lesser human beings. That can't be anything but love. What's interesting is that religion is far more of a choice than sexuality ever was, and yet you demand all sorts of legal protections for it. But seriously, I'm not going to stop battling sexuality with you until you admit that you're wrong.
You believe that gays are lesser human beings.
I don't. I believe they are sinful people trying to justify their sin. That is a very human trait that we are all guilty of in one sense or the other. We are equals in that sense.
I don't disdain gays, and actually have gay friends whom I like and enjoy being with, just like I might enjoy being with family who are not Christian, or have some other persistent sin they can't shake. I just seem more militant because I have to defend our legal system from the encroachment of sin-justifying activists.
But this post is not about you, and not about gays. It is about Obama having the courage to address the anti-religious secularists in his own camp.
Seeker,
1. When you spend time with these gay friends, do you encourage them to feel lucky that they're not being killed? Or are you a remotely more reasonable human being when you're not on the Internet?
2. For the millionth time, I'm not "anti-religious." People who oppose religion in government aren't "anti-religion." We just recognize that a government needs to represent more than Seeker. Unlike, say, yourself.