Frederick Douglass and Randall Terry
The other day ‘hanmeng’ said in a comment on ‘God-talk as an unstated norm’ that the bible is Obama’s favourite book and later quoted from a keynote address he gave in 2006. The quotation was worrying – especially this bit –
[W]hat I am suggesting is this – secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas[s], Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant [Bryan], 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.
I was going to dispute that, but reading the whole address I found that Obama did some of the disputing for me. He doesn’t mean what that passage in isolation would seem to indicate that he means.
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.
Well – that’s what I was going to say, and he’s already said it, in the same address, so I don’t need to bother. I had already thought he knew that, must know that, being 1) sensible and 2) a Constitutional scholar; but the quotation worried me. But if all religious people understood and agreed to that principle, we would all have a lot less to worry about.
I was going to say that it’s all very well to talk about Douglass and King, but they are not the only reformers in American history who were motivated by their religion and use religious language. Fred Phelps and Randall Terry are a couple more; so are throngs of people who opposed everything Douglass and King stood for. It always irritates the bejesus out of me when opponents of secularism cherry-pick their reformers and movements in order to defend the place of religion in politics, as if Christian defenders of slavery and segregation had never existed. I was prepared to give Obama a damn good scolding for doing that, but he doesn’t really do that (although I think he ought to have mentioned the anti-Douglasses, since he brought it up). He doesn’t really do that and, more important, he doesn’t shy away from stating the principle involved.
Gene Robinson states it too.
The Anglican church’s first gay bishop and the United States’ first black President-elect discussed in depth the place of religion in the state. Bishop Robinson said: “He and I would agree about the rightful place of religion vis-a-vis the secular state. That is to say, we don’t impose our religious values on the secular state because God said so. Our faith informs our own values and then we take those values into the civil market place, the civil discourse, and then you argue for them based on the Constitution. You don’t say to someone, you must believe this because this is what God believes.”
Quite.
Bless Obama’s brainy little heart. And let him say it loud over and over again.
But
Robinson’s next line in the piece is:
“I think God gives us our values and then we argue for those on the basis of the Constitution and care of our neighbour.”
Gene R. is smart and he’s taken a lot of shit simply for being who he is (as gay not as Bishop. People don’t become Bishop accidentally or genetically that I know of). I kind of like the guy.
Still, as much as he may think that the imaginary friend upstairs gives us our values, the rest of us have to gently and firmly keep up the pressure so that other sources of “values” get the attention they deserve too. I don’t mind where people think they get their values from – a hopping toad, Mrs. Steen in fifth grade, an elderly relative who walked to school barefoot in ten feet of snow, my cat. It should not be treason to admit that one’s values were not transmitted directly from a divinity. Despite that god damned original sin we can still get lots of values (good and nasty) out of our own heads.
Someone needs to have a little chat w/Gene on another topic he is quoted on at the end of the timesonline.co.uk piece:
Bishop Robinson said that Mr Obama had not hesitated to talk about his faith.
“I find that remarkable, not only in a politician but also in a Democrat. For years it’s only been Republicans who wanted to talk about religion. All the Democratic candidates felt disposed to do so this year.”
It’s not remarkable in the least. For at least eight years, in some states longer, the R’s have not wanted to talk about religion in the least. So “talk” about religion has been impossible. The R’s have instead issued pronouncements, declarations, superficial interpretations of text, inventions, falsehoods, stupidity, self-congratulatory announcements about their “compassionate conservatism” and most importantly (as Gene himself comments in the piece) have had no interest in what apostates think, and no listening. So why bother to talk.
About the time Cheney told me I was a terrorist if I didn’t agree with him, I got really tired really fast of being told I was going to burn if I continued my stubborn ignorance of the truth. On Sept. 13 2001 when I finally made it home from being trapped in Washington DC my “christian” neighbor took it on himself to chat me up about how happy xtians were about 9/11!! Whooppeeee it meant that things were almost bad enough for the end of the world, with fabulous prizes available to the believers.
So no surprises. . . talking about religion has hardly been possible. And, as much as I admire Mr. Obama, and send him my very best wishes, and hope hope hope for progress, I don’t believe anyone has enough brains or persuasive powers to quickly drain off the putrid fundamentalist slime that we are knee-deep in right now.
I’ve seen the Obama quotation before. It caused me some concerns then, which remain. It may be that I’m over-interpreting his comment; I hope so. But one way to read what he said is that he thinks it’s OK to try to pass laws implementing religious convictions, with the rest being practical advice about how to accomplish that (by diffusing the underlying religious reason why you want to pass the law with some secondary secular, or secular-sounding, reasons). The idea that the “teachings of my church” or “God’s will” provide a legitimate basis for advocating legislation discomforts me some.
Yes, I had noticed this too, and I was concerned at the first hurdle as well, but then he cleared it up when he said how religious discourse can enter the political conversation. Obama’s a brainy guy, but with all the religious pressure that will be brought to bear on him, he’s going to have to be reminded of his words from time to time.
It occurs to me that the whole of Obama’s 2006 speech should be made available. You can find it at the following address:
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/
I don’t think anyone need be overly concerned by anything in that speech. Although Obama appears to suggest that the teaching of a church can be a legitimate way to inform your opinions on an issue, the section advocating presenting your beliefs using reason is really the most important part. After all, reason really is the biggest enemy of faith.
As an aside I find that speech extremely comforting, it really affirms for me that you guys seem to have picked wisely this time round.
Brilliantly said, Claire.
Jeff – I think that would be a pretty strained reading of what he said. In fact I think what he said rules out the reading ‘that he thinks it’s OK to try to pass laws implementing religious convictions.’
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.
That says pretty firmly that it’s not OK to pass laws implementing religious convictions.