Obama: Politicans Need Not Abandon Religion

[ndcohn]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-07-09-forum-religion-obama_x.htm


By Barack Obama for USA TODAY
My faith shapes my values, but applying those values to policymaking must be done with principles that are accessible to all people, religious or not. Even so, those who enter the public square are not required to leave their beliefs at the door.

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.

Barack Obama is a Democratic U.S. senator from Illinois.

[Dr Fate]

1. Which ones have, Obama? Do you have a list? Is Bush on it?

How about Cheney? Tom DeLay? Rush Limbaugh? Ann Coulter? Or KEN LAY????

Oh- you mean those immoral, unethical, Micheal Moore worshipping Liberals, dont you?

Still waiting for that list of Democrats who have done what you, Bush & the media keep saying they have done. Where is it?

WHO are these Democrats you are talking about that are hypocrites, immoral, atheists or pagans or whatever?????

[vi5]

3. I second that request....

Honestly I'm sick and f'ng tired of this line of BS. It was one thing for him to play to whatever audience he was talking to when he gave his speech on faith and all that. And I bought the excuse from his apologists about that and didn't let it bother me. And I'm not sure if this article is simply a reprint of that speech. But even if it is he likely had to consent to have it reprinted for a national audience.

[Dr Fate]

5. Obama has decided to go with Karl Rove's framing of the issue.

That we are the ones with the problem and that we are everything Ann Coulter & Rush Limbaugh say we are.

He should be saying that these are the people who need to display their moral values, not us.

So a bunch of lying hypocrites question our faith, and Obama AGREES with them instead of saying- HOLD ON- you are a liar and HYPOCRITE for making that charge- and here is why...

Which Democrats is Obama talking about- anyone have any ideas (I'm asking for names)?

[rocktivity]

13. DING DING DING! Dr Fate, you're our grand prize winner!

Obama has decided to go with Karl Rove's framing of the issue.

And here's how he should be framing it back--by driving a wedge (issue) between the religious right and the religious.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Douglas Carpenter]

29. I believe you have a wrong impression of the Sojourners movement

The conference that Sen. Obama, Sen. Clinton and Gov. Dean was speaking at was sponsored by the Sojourners movement.

Sojourners are actually fairly left-wing on foreign policy and economic issues; and moderate on social issues.

Sojourners are the group they were speaking to:

link for Sojourners


http://www.sojo.net /

link for Sojourners Magazine:


http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.home

Interview on Democracy Now with Rev. Jim Wallis (founder and leader of Sojourners) - link:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/26/1355204

_____________

"The Rev. Tim Ahrens shared Wallis' dismay: "The faith of Jesus Christ has become such a violent and violating faith in the religious right," he contended. Ahrens is the founder of We Believe Ohio, a group of 300 clergy members dedicated to promoting social justice."

"Many Sojourner supporters didn't hesitate to call right-wingers "bible thumpers" and "fanatics," and they criticized the Bush administration for not helping the poor. They gave Obama thunderous applause when he proclaimed his support for separation of church and state and giving teenagers access to contraception. " link:
http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/news/nation/14923089.htm

.

[Dr Fate]

36. So when Obama castigates "politicians"- he means the GOP, right?

Surely he is speaking of those hypocritical Republicans, not good progressives & Democrats- right?

Surely he is not falling into Karl Rove's framing of the issue, that WE are the ones who need to be more spiritual, as opposed to crooked & dishonest Repubs, like Bush- right?

I still want to know, in particular, which "politicians" need to be more spirtual according to "Reverend" Obama- my vote is that Bush & Cheney need the most work.

I would hope Obama agrees, but that does not seem to be his take, from my reading of this.

[Mass]

2. I guess I can forget Obama forever. What I care is what he believes in,

(his values) not why he believes in these values. I could not care less whether he is christian, jewish, muslim, buddhist, or atheist and I dont want him to tell me.

[The Magistrate]

4. Politicians Appealing To the Devout, Sir, Does Not Trouble Me

There are, after all, a great many of them....

There are plenty of grounds to be found in the Christian texts for support of progressive policies and programs, and no reasson whatever for Christians who find their politoical inspiration in such to keep silence over them, nor for not using them to appeal to Christians if various stripes who might be movecd to progresive directions in some matters by doing so.

Some of the flash-points of the confluct sen as existing by some between the lefta nd the devout strike me as both petty and foolish. There is no real impact to, say, a Nativity display in a city park, or a cross in an old township seal. Pitching a fight over such trifles gains nothing, and loses much.

[Mass]

6. Few people do that. More people are trying to impose their christian

values on us non christians.

[The Magistrate]

10. Your Meaning Is Unclear, Ma'am

Do you mean that few people are trying to press such points as no nativity scenes in a city park, or that few people derive their convictions concerning social and economic justice from their readings of Christian texts?

[Dr Fate]

12. Which Democrats are on record against Nativity scenes in parks?

Anyone that the average person has even heard of?

And if you hold that list up against HOUSEHOLD NAME Republicans (Bush. Cheney, etc, etc, etc) who have NO convictions concerning social and economic justice, which list do you think would be longer?

That is the mistake Obama makes in his framing.

[The Magistrate]

15. It Does Not Matter, Sir

Such things do occassionally crop up, and are circulated widely. The persons pressing them are always taken for leftists, and the attitude displayed as reflective of the left and liberals at large, and thus is laid at the doorstep fo the Democratic Party in most minds, because to the people of the cou8ntry, the Democrats are the party of the left. The sort of discussions we have here, in which the Party is portrayed as a rightist organization out to break or marginalize the left, would baffle the ordinary voter.

For better or worse, Doctor, popular perception is reality in political life, and people would do well to remember it.

[vi5]

23. So what you are saying is that...

Even though there are no mainstream household name democrats who are calling in any significant way for a hard line barrier between faith and politics, that we should....what? I'm confused here. Nobody has come up with any names yet as to a mainstream democrat in a position of power who has called for the removal of faith from the political arena in any kind of hard line way.

And that's the entire rub with this thing that you and a lot of people seem to be missing. You're right, perception is reality. But the fault of that lies in the media not in anything any of us or that democratic politicans are doing.

So why is Obama and the media more concerned with the fact that someone with zero political power, in some small town in Iowa took offense to a nativity scene, and why does stuff like that get major media play and the attention of Mr. Obama enough to address this as being a major problem, yet the fact that the republican politicians who these wonderful, pious church going religious people vote for 55 to 45 percent as you cited, and who hold real positions of power, betray their faith in any number of ways?

[The Magistrate]

30. The Senator Is Concerned Over It, Sir

Because it affects how the mass of people vote, and regard our Party. Being a professional in the trade, he is concerned with what actually impacts its successful practice, and not with what ought to affect it and would, were we in a perfect universe. He is seeking to alter the perception that you agree exists, and works to our Party's detriment, in the way seems to him to offer the best prospect for success. It hardly seems something to complain of, and certainly not grounds for denunciation of the man.

[Dr Fate]

37. Right- and Obama reinforces that Rove/media inspired perception.

He is too lazy or frightened to point the finger at the real hypocrites and un-spirtiual people- Geprge Bush, Dick Cheney and other liars, crooks & hypocrites in the GOP.

It DOES matter that Obama chooses Rove's framing over the truth.

[The Magistrate]

42. Do You Seriously Imagine, Doctor

That this orinated with Rove? Put bluntly, that is nonesense. It has roots back far before he was even a gleam in a father's eye....

[Dr Fate]

50. No-It picked up steam in the 1980's- remember the "Moral Majority"?

And I believe Rove was a grown, political operative in Texas at that point.

Obmama is playing into the more recently reinforced Rove/Media perceptions that Democrats are "against God."

Did you miss it when Rove courted evangelicals in both elections? Was Obama's opponents "Jesus would not vote for him" talking point not inspired by Rovian strategy?

Plus all the "Justice Sundays" , talking head commentary, Ann Coulter's new book, etc, etc- all of that is planned & orchestrated.

Dont downplay Rove's handiwork on this issue just to defend Obama's poor strategic rebuttle to that very handiwork.

In any event, you have failed to tell me why Obama chooses to "admit" that Democrats are what Rove says they are instead of pointing out that Bush, Rove, etc are all hypocrites & liars when it comes to spirituality.

[The Magistrate]

52. When Herr Marx Dubbed Religion 'The Opiate Of The People', Doctor

The divergence between left and liberal thought and religion in politics and society was already an antique from the previous century.

No propaganda line works if it does not appeal to a ground already extant and deeply plowed to recieve the seed. And whatever the influence of the propaganda, the existance of that plowed ground has to be recognized.

[Dr Fate]

55. That does not take Rove's more recent framing out of the picture at all.

Rove is indeed reinforcing an older idea, but there he is, doing it-I listed specific examples of his work.

Obama is too lazy or too frightened to challenge his lies and tell his audience who the REAL anti-Christians are.

You know- I was opened minded about Obama's courting of evangelicals- but he is setting us up as "Johnny come latelys", "flip-floppers" and panderers with his poor framing.

The way to frame this is to pin the hypocrite label on Bush/GOP (with specific examples) and demonstrate (with specific examples)how WE are the ones with the REAL history of following Christ's teachings.

[The Magistrate]

59. Without The Pre-Existing Ground, Doctor, He Would Be Helpless

Your analysis ignores why his line works, and so can do nothing to set it at naught.

[Dr Fate]

62. The last 30 or so years of GOP history is not Pre-Existing Ground?

The racist, anti-poor, anti-health, anit-child(growing, living children), anti environment, pro-fake war positions of the GOP are all there, fully documented- and anti-Christian by definition. But he would have to get his fingernails dirty and SAY that.

And in turn, the last 30 or so years of our own party history, where we were for peace, racial equality, helping the poor & sick, being good care takers of mother natures works, etc, etc?

The pre-existing ground is there- Obmama just doesnt seem to have the guts to lay down the charge.

[The Straight Story]

91. Let me paint you a picture of this:

Growing up we celebrated christmas in elementary school. Gifts and all that. 99% of the kids were christian. There was 1 jewish kid. We also celebrated Hannukah and played games relating to it. He went home and got an extended vacation (more than us). We had some christmas songs in choir, as well as rudolph and such, and even threw in a jewish song I cannot recall (but, it was catchy to me at the time and I liked it).

In the small town where my grandfather had been mayor there was a nativity scene.

The world had it's issues, but most people were content with such things and always thought their kids would get to enjoy the same things in the same ways.

It is different now, and people resent that. They blame the left. No names need to be associated with such actions. To us a repug is a repug, a conservative is the same. The right can be nameless without being blameless.

People see the right as wanting lower taxes, kicking ass of people who bomb us, and letting some small hick town of 100 people who all go to the same church have a nativity scene where all can see it a few days a year.

The left has a perception problem. No smoking in bars, wear your seat belt or pay up, no crosses, bibles, holiday celebrations at school, take the term god off money, toss out the ten commandments - all in the name of a few who might be offended or who feel the sudden urge that they have to convert.

People see the left as restricting things (see above, smoking, belts, symbols, etc) and telling others what is best for them. That may work in San Fran - but one band aid does not fit all things.

Add to this sex ed in schools - tame in my day but we got the picture. People get apalled at what they teach now and see it as going too far (fisting, anal, etc and so on) - again the blame the left and see the left as wanting to push it's values while restricting the values of the community as a whole (ie, diversity is out and the one way is in).

And it all sells on fear. Same as the right uses. Fear that if we let someone have a banner saying merry christmas at school the world will be a worse place for it. The right uses fear, the left uses it - and maybe obama is wanting a simple compromise so we go back to focusing on the real issues that are really hurting this country verus things like a teacher saying merry christmas and getting the aclu calling her.

[Dr Fate]

94. I agree that is how Rove/media & now Obama have framed those issues.

All those issues you named are 3rd string at best-

I'd rather hear Obama drum up the courage to discuss THE issues- wars based on lies, Katrina , healthcare & the ecomony from the POV that the GOP are spiritual hypocrites while we are on the side of the angels.

You know, MAJOR issues that are the minds of ALL people & as well as many Christians.

[Dr Fate]

8. He could frame it without seeming to admit the GOP/media is right.

He should be framing it like you did in your 1st paragraph- and pointing out that we ALREADY exibit those values. He should skip anything that suggest we are changing our stripes for political gain.

If Obama wants to get up & criticise how someone uses faith in their politics, he should start with hypocrite war-mongers like George Bush, not un-named Democrats.

[The Magistrate]

11. The Senator, Doctor

Seemjs merely to be accommodating something that is a ral phenomenon.

It is true that frequency of church attendance, or at least of claimed church attendance, shows a real correlation with whether one votes Republican or Democrat. For some proportion of this, we certainly have to accept on the left some responsibility.

[Dr Fate]

14. Which elected Democrats are not showing up to Church enough?

As opposed to which Republicans are doing the work of Satan, whether at Church on time or not?

Why isnt Obama going after well-known Republican hypocrites instead of strawman Democrats who may or may not even exist?

[The Magistrate]

17. The Correlation, Doctor

Applies to the voting public. Persons who say they attend church on a weekly basis break about fifty-five/forty-five for the Republicans. Persons who say they never attend church break in similar proportion for the Democrats. The former group, however, is larger than the latter, and therein lies the rub for someone required to achieve a majority of votes in a general election in order to take office.

[GOPFighter]

33. Excuse me, Magistrate...

You began your first post in this thread with the following: "There is no real impact to, say, a Nativity display in a city park, or a cross in an old township seal. Pitching a fight over such trifles gains nothing, and loses much."

First, is it possible that a nativity scene in a public park has no impact on you because that is your faith? It does have an impact on me, an atheist. It reinforces Christian's perception that this is a christian (town, county, country). It sometimes reinforces and encourages prejudice against those who are not christian. It is not a "trifle"! When a Jew or atheist insists that a town not endorse a religion it might anger some of the townspeople, but when the courts enforce the ban it sends three messages. One, not everyone is a christian, two, non-christians have rights too, and three, the news generated by the court action will send the message to other nearby jurisdictions that this is illegal.

It is getting harder and harder for non-christians to enjoy their right to worship as they please without ridicule in many parts of our country. You are saying we should just shut up so that Democrats or liberals won't get a bad name or lose elections? Sir, as a Democrat and an American, you have every right to oppose my fight for religious freedom but don't expect me to give up my rights so that you can win elections.

[The Magistrate]

40. My Religious Views, Sir

Are those of a hard old infidel, who has been unable to find any real principle beyond "feed the priest" in any of the world's religions, and reached long ago the conclusion that all purportedly sacred documents are merely the preparations of venal and self-interested men seeking power for themselves as they lived off the proceeds of the oldest and rawest grifter's game human ingenuity ever contrived to impose on human credulity. Though it does rather cheer me to see a crow to my left on departing my home; those are usually good days....

Assigning no reality to the phenomenon makes it impossible for its display to have any impact on me one way or another, and if you disbelieve in gods you might find that an attitude more in line with such a conviction. Further, as there are so many of these faiths, no one who adheres to any particular one can possibly expect to go through life without encountering the display of others, and would be well advised to accept same with equinamity.

There is no concrete or physical, or in other words, no real, harm, inflicted on anyone of whatever belief by an item such as a nativity scene: any harm sustained is wholly voluntary, resulting from the decision of the person involved first to take it as a serious matter, and second to perceive it as an injury. There is enough real harm inflicted on people, and even real and murderous religious persecutions, to incline me against play-acting and hyperventilation on the subject.

[GOPFighter]

45. These icons and persecution are sometimes connected

There is enough real harm inflicted on people, and even real and murderous religious persecutions, to incline me against play-acting and hyperventilation on the subject."

There is in fact much harm inflicted on people, and many who cause the harm carry those supposedly harmless icons as an inspiration. The confederate flag, the swatzika, the cross, and other religious icons that are meant to distingush between the "believers" and the infidels and to rally around. I assume you would not get upset to find a swatzika, or the confederate flag flying in your local park because the majority of your town's citizens support the Klan or neo-Nazis.

I must accept a confederate flag, a swatzika, a cross, a nativity scene on private land where those icons are covered by the first amendment. But I will not accept them displayed on public land as a sign of support (as opposed to a confederate flag carried in a permitted march down the street by the KKK for example.)

[The Magistrate]

46. But They Are Not In This Instance, Sir

A creche on the lawn of the town hall in Anywhere, U.S.A., is not a signal for the rampage of a mob through the town, hauling out Jews and Buhddists and Hindus and Moslems and Atheists, as well as Catholics or Protestants, according to local tastes, to incinerate them at the feet of the Baby Jesus. It is something most people, Christian or otherwise, walk past without a second glance or second thought, and anyone who takes the sight of it as a threat or an infliction of harm seriously needs to get some real danger and damage into their lives in order to supply the sense of proportion so essential for a bearable life. It is precisely this sort of hyperbolic exaggeration that works to our disadvantage in the nation's political life.

The other items mentioned are not religious, and the situation you envisioon concerning them would prompt me to arms or to departure, as seemed most convenient.

[Solon]

54. That's not always the case...

Darla Kaye Wynne sued the township of Great Falls, South Carolina. See, she attended a Town Council meeting and was appalled when the meeting opened to a prayer that was supposed to be non-sectarian, but invoked the name of Jesus Christ anyways. She refused to participate, and was mostly ostricized in the small town. Prayers at the town meeting were supposed to be non-sectarian, and supposedly ANY clergy can participate, so she, a Wiccan Priestess, wanted to participate, the town refused the offer, so she sued. The case went all the way up to the 4th circuit, ruling in her favor, and the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, ended the legal battle that lasted about 3-4 years.

However, during that time, many of her pets were killed, her house vandalized, and her life threatened. This included her cat being gutted and hanged in her front yard, her parrot had his heart cut out and a note written, in blood I believe, that said "Your Next", etc. Also, she couldn't rely on local authorities, they refused to investigate ANY of these blatant cases of intimidation, tresspassing, vandalism, etc. Allow me to just say that one type of "No harm, no foul" lite persecution can quickly lead to much more blatant and threatening types of persecution. I have low tolerance for the crap Christians pull that violates the First Amendment, and to be honest, I don't honestly care what the majority think in cases like this.

[The Magistrate]

58. Why Did She Bother To Refuse To Participate, Sir?

That strikes me as a very foolish and pointless thing to do. Certainly if one deliberately sets oneself up in defiance of a small and close-knit community, there are going to problems that ensue. My sympathy for volunteers, though, is very limited, and this person was a volunteer.

[Solon]

61. To ask a Religious person to bow their head to another God they...

do not worship for expediency is something that should NEVER be forced on anyone. She was participating in a CIVIC duty, as a citizen of the town, not in a religious ceremony. How is that being a volunteer?

[The Magistrate]

64. To Treat A Meaningless Form Of Words Seriously, Sir

Is a wholly voluntary act. If they are a creed you do not subscribe to, what earthly reason is there for you to take them as anything but noise?

[Solon]

66. Using that as a basis for argument means that ALL first amendment cases...

in the United States should never have been fought. Whether it was the Sectarian Bible Riots in Philly about 150 years ago, or the Jehovah's Witnesses that sued to make the Pledge voluntary. All those cases were those of volunteers, the Catholics and Protestants decided to make which version of the Bible that should be used in Public Schools an issue, the JWs could have just put their hands on hearts and just took it, but they all decided not too. The fight for ANY type of freedom requires volunteers. Hell the Founding Fathers should have just accepted no representation and never fought the Revolutionary War, using your argument.

[The Magistrate]

68. It Is Not Required Of Me, Sir

To support or even to take seriously all actions some other person regards as a fight for freedom.

[Solon]

74. I don't understand this...

A citizen decides to stand up to something that I would think even YOU would think is wrong, and the response is violence. How is this not "creeping" theocracy?

[The Magistrate]

78. Part Of Fighting, Sir

Is making a judgement of whether it is worth a fight in the first place. It is not a thing to be done lightly.

This matter does not strike me as having been worth a fight, and so the person who pitched it does not much engage my sympathy.

[Solon]

79. Its almost as if you think she asked for what she got...

Do you really think she had the foresight to predict how the community would react to her lawsuit? The suit itself was rather simple, and she won it anyways, despite the violence the town fosted upon her, so, taking that in outside the reaction of the town, it was worth it, she won, got some restitution(not much), and the town now cannot open its sessions with sectarian prayers. Also, remember this, its was the actions of the town that are truly what caused the suit, they could have accepted her as just another cleric to open a session with prayer, a truly non-sectarian one at that. The lawsuit, and costs to the town for the lawsuit, could have been avoided if THEY caved, now, the town actually went bankrupt because of the suit, to me, they garner much less sympathy than she does.

[The Magistrate]

80. Being Appalled At The Prayer Was A Choice, Sir

All else flowed from that initial choice to indulge in the joys of being outraged.

The court ruled correctly, of course, as a matter of law, and some people in the town behaved abominably and clearly need their knees smashed, but the whole matter is blown up from something of truely monumental insignifigance.

[GOPFighter]

69. I assume then

that you do not support a seperation of church and state since the church and it's teachings are just noise? I assume then that a theocracy would not alarm you since the theocrats are mere pretenders? I wish you luck because the theocrats may be blowing smoke but if they make the laws, you obey or suffer the consequences.

It's a given that some Christians assume this is a Christian nation or are working hard to achieve that goal. A nativity scene at the town hall reinforces that notion for the fanatics. The fanatics will probably never get control of this country, but they have been far more successful than most of us ever dreamed. You may be comfortable living in a theocracy, inwardly ignoring their religious icons and artifacts and bowing insincerely to their gods, but my constitution guarentees my right to believe or not believe and I refuse to give that right up, even if it means Democrats find me embarrassing.

[The Magistrate]

71. Theocracy Is To Be Opposed, Sir, With Violence If Necessary

But calling a teddy bear a grizzly will not get me reaching for a shot-gun.

[GOPFighter]

72. We're not talking teddy bears...

...we're talking more like about grizzly cubs - which have been known to grow to adult grizzlies and doing much harm.

[The Magistrate]

73. So Far, Sir

This conversation has been concerned with teddy bears.

[Solon]

75. Teddy bears that happen to have knives and guns...

may still be teddy bears, but are no less dangerous than Grizzlies.

[Solon]

76. How is theocracy to be opposed if not by anyone...

You claim that such things as Nativities on public property, to the exclusion of ALL other religious symbols, or prayers in town meetings, to the exclusion of ALL other religions ISN'T worth fighting for. When would you fight? When its already too late?

[Zhade]

77. So being concerned with the illegal endorsement of religion by government

is 'play-acting'?

No, I think it's standing up for civil rights.

[The Magistrate]

82. To Treat Meaningless Form, Sir, As A Matter Of Substance

Is play-acting.

A matter of substance would be mandating religious instruction or prosetylization in schools, restricting the operation of houses of worship different from the prevailing local orthodoxy, differential action by the police towards persons of another faith by municipal directive, that sort of thing, that has real impact on people and their lives.

[Solon]

84. Those "Meaningless forms" are what inspires the lynch mob mentality...

and should be fought on all fronts.

[The Straight Story]

92. My Take:

It does have an impact on me, an atheist. It reinforces Christian's perception that this is a christian (town, county, country).

And if such a town is mainly christian then one might say it is a christian town. Just like if I went to some areas of NY and there were Jewish symbols I would take it that it was a jewish town.

If Every single home in a town and shop owner displayed something like a nativity scene that would not impact you but if one place, town square let's say, do you feel more threatened by that? Is it because you see the government there as saying it is the only faith around that is welcome? I don't see a problem with a town allowing religious symbols which represent it's makeup at various times in the year. Might promote some damned diversity in a place like Columbus where I live. Islam, Judaism, Christian, Wiccan, Atheist, etc - we are a melting pot and that is one good way to drive home who we as a people are and what we value.

In such a town as well if such evil and insidious devices are forced off the land then who do you think many will blame? The repugs or the dems?

And how much money is spent on filing and fighting such law suits? If we took all such money we could probably put a huge dent in homelessness in some areas, or feed the poor, etc.

I think, perhaps, Obama is seeing that some things are really a lot more big and important and resources used elsewhere could be turned to those things which have a bigger affect.

Hell, we have statues of Christopher Columbus here. He was a christian. He was also an explorer. I might look at this as something which bothers me and makes me feel that our local government endorses killing indians, stealing land, and so on. I could go file a lawsuit to remove all statues so I would not have to suffer so horribly by them. But I look, shrug, and move on.

Even when I was an atheist I did not care about such things. To me, most the people around celebrated christmas and as such it was a reflection on the majority of the working people in the city. The people who paid the taxes and bought the land for a common meeting place.

We have bigger issues - and we need people from 'the other side' to help us solve them and get on the band wagon. They are a real majority of people who are not going to go away. We fight the big fights like a woman's right to choose, gay marriage, etc, and let the little shit slide for another time and another place.

[Dr Fate]

38. You would rather back Rove's framing than give me those details.

Because you know those details dont exist- and so does Rove/media.

Not to offend you, but I think that going with Rove's/MSMs framing instead of RE-FRAMING it to expose GOP spiritual hypocrisy is lazy & cowardly.

[The Magistrate]

43. You Know, Doctor

A casual reader might gain the impression you were calling me a witting pedlar of rightist propoganda....

[Dr Fate]

48. You are defending the Rove/Obama framing of this issue...

... instead of insisting that he re-frame it in a more accurate light.

I'm not saying you are peddling RW propaganda, I'm saying OBAMA is- and you are defending Obama's laziness/cowardice.

It's either laziness, or Obama is frightened that if he was to frame this in a more realistic way, the media will attack him.

Which they would- if he was to dare to attack Bush's lack of spirituality the way he does us. But I dont care-they will attack him anyway.

I'm tired of the "media will be mean to us if we tell the truth" excuse.

The way Obmama/Rove frames this makes it look like we just woke up one day and started pandering to Religious people- when instead he should frame it as something we have always done- and that the GOP/media has been dishonest to these people.

[The Magistrate]

49. The Senator, Sir

Is dealing with the actual popular perception in the matter, and doing so with fair accuracy in my view. Why calling the real state of affairs "Rove-framed" should alter its existence or character in any manner escaps me.

[Dr Fate]

53. He is reinforcing a FALSE popular perception.

It was a "popular perception" that Saddam had WMDs too.

I'm tired of Democrats acting on "popular perceptions" instead of telling the truth and doing the right thing.

How about CHANGING the perception by setting the record straight? (If we had done this on Iraq, we would not be "flip-floppers")

The TRUTH is that Bush & Cheney are about as far from Christian ideals at it gets-while we are much closer to Christ's teachings- on almost every issue. Obama is too lazy/frigtened to say that- much easier just to concede.

I like Jimmy Carter's framing much better- "We worship the prince of peace, not the prince of pre-emptive war."

[The Magistrate]

60. That, Doctor, Is An Argument You Will Not Win

Christians are quite unconcerned with what people they do not regard as Christians say concerning who is and is not a "real" Christian, whatever that animacule may actually be.

[Dr Fate]

63. Oh- you mean THOSE Christians- the ones who will NEVER vote DEM.

If these ultra-conservatives already regard us as fakes, a brand-new "Johnny-come-lately" speech or two wont change that.

I actually thought we were talking about the rational, Jimmy Carter/Civil Rights era style Christians who may have voted GOP the last couple of times-(I'm sure you are aware of this trend in some of the traditionaly Democratic Black & rural white churches in the South.)

You are wrong- Bush is at 29% or so- and you cant tell me that w/i other 70% there are not rational, practicing Christians who are aware of or open to the notion that Bush has not been straight with them.

They saw Katrina, and they see now how Bush lied to them over the war.

[The Magistrate]

65. The Problem Goes Far Wider Than That, Doctor

And we have clearly reached the point where we are simply talking past one another to no good purpose.

Be well, Sir!

[Dr Fate]

67. You be well too.

But I'm not talking past anyone- I'm bringing in specific, documented examples of issues and voting demographics while you are being very broad.

The voters you speak of are locked in with those "Thirty percenters"- I thought Obmama was reaching out to Christians, not right-wingers.

Take care.

[Hippo_Tron]

88. That is because Republicans hold political rallies in churches

Which was never done until very recently. Instead of spending out time talking about faith to religious voters, we should talk about how the Republicans are exploiting faith for political gain to religious voters.

[jumpoffdaplanet]

7. Obama must stop using this rethug talking point

It's the slow road becoming another Zell Miller/ Joe Lieberman kind of politican.

[Mandate My Ass]

9. They need to abandon legislating morality based on subjective religious

beliefs. Period.

Deeper discussions about religion and the ramifications on political positions can carry on in the private sector and in the churches, as they always have done.

The only prejudice that needs open discussion is the prejudice that one's subjective religious beliefs should negatively impact fellow citizens who may hold no beliefs or ones that are diametrically opposed to theirs.


Total separation of church and state takes care of that predicament rather nicely.

[cantstandbush]

16. I belive Obama is absolutely correct. He is a wise, sincere man.

The only thing a politician should abandon is lying, stealing, and whoremongering.

[The Magistrate]

19. That, Sir

Would leave many of the tribe with an abundance of time on their hands, and is not the idle hand that is the devil's plaything?

[1932]

25. ...and WARmongering.

[Douglas Carpenter]

18. RE: the Evangelicals that sponsored the conference Sen. Obama spoke at

The conference that Sen. Obama, Sen. Clinton and Gov. Dean was speaking at was sponsored by the Sojourners movement.

Sojourners are actually fairly left-wing on foreign policy and economic issues; and moderate on social issues.


Sojourners are the group they were speaking to:

link for Sojourners


http://www.sojo.net /

link for Sojourners Magazine:


http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=magazine.home

Interview on Democracy Now with Rev. Jim Wallis (founder and leader of Sojourners) - link:

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/26/1355204

_____________


"The Rev. Tim Ahrens shared Wallis' dismay: "The faith of Jesus Christ has become such a violent and violating faith in the religious right," he contended. Ahrens is the founder of We Believe Ohio, a group of 300 clergy members dedicated to promoting social justice."

"Many Sojourner supporters didn't hesitate to call right-wingers "bible thumpers" and "fanatics," and they criticized the Bush administration for not helping the poor. They gave Obama thunderous applause when he proclaimed his support for separation of church and state and giving teenagers access to contraception. " link:
http://www.grandforks.com/mld/grandforks/news/nation/14923089.htm

[ndcohn]

20. No wonder they vote republican

atleast the right respects politicans who speak about their faith and the role of their values

[Skittles]

21. oh PLEASE

the same people of faith who apporve of an incompetent piece of SHIT outing CIA agents and starting wars based on LIES?

[Bridget Burke]

28. Al Gore & Bill Clinton were both raised Baptist....

They've avoided the current Southern Baptist Conference, but both can quote the Bible--at length. Kerry spoke of his Roman Catholic faith--but said he would not let it get in the way of the rights of others.

Bush is a phony Christian. What sort of "values" are represented by starting an illegal war?

[Totally Committed]

22. Again with the freaking religion thing, Barack...

Give it a rest, fercripessake. After a while, it's just nagging.

People who talk about it this much aren't more "religious" than others, they simply want to give the impression they are. In Obama's case, I'm left asking WHY? Is he getting set to run for POTUS? Is he trying to reassure his "base" or what he thinks is his "base"? What?

I am turned off, a little put off, and even a little scared off by candidates whose "big thing" is their religion. I think religion is fine, but with a politician who talks about it this much, I'm never certain he doesn't want HIS religion to be MY religion a little TOO MUCH, you know?

Seperation of Church and State, please... especially from elected officials.

TC

P.S. There is also an element of "Thou protesteth too much." in it all too. Just makes me uneasy.

[Juffo Wup]

24. What exactly is wrong here?

Is he saying we should oppose abortion? No.

Is he saying that we should start enforcing Christian theocratical law? No.

Is he asserting that Christianity is the only legitimate religion? No.

Is he arguing that the Democratic party should move to the right? No.

It seems to me that a lot of you people here are buying into the carefully crafted conservative mythology that religious people can't be liberal, can't vote for Democrats, and have to support conservatives by default. When we buy into that myth, we reinforce it and turn it into a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Yeah, I didn't really appreciate the crack about "biased progressives" either, but Christ, just because a Democrat mentions that maybe religion isn't necessarily a bad thing doesn't mean they're suddenly a DINO.

[1932]

26. Good post.

There's also something knee-jerky about the criticisms. They're mostly exclamations that are furious in the first instance in sort of a way that indicates that they know they really couldn't carry out their arguments beyond one post. They foreclose discussion with crassness and anger...because they don't have much of an argument to make.

[Hippo_Tron]

89. He's saying that liberals are wrong not to talk about faith

And I think that he's wrong about that. What is wrong with keeping one's religious beliefs to yourself. Religion is a very personal thing for some people. He's saying that people are going to judge us on our faith so we need to talk about faith so we can appeal to them. I would rather that we work to return to a society where people don't judge us on our faith.

[SaveElmer]

27. Obama is right on target here...adjunct to the 50 state strategy

Simply pointing out that one need not be religious to share values with religious people.

That not only does the seperation of church and state protect the state, but more importantly protects religion.

That liberals of faith should not be afraid to discuss their faith, and where its values overlap those of society.

People like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have had the playing field all to themselves for too long. Like Dean's 50 state strategy, we know that our faith is just as important as those of the far right, and its about time we gave those to whom they have been speaking an alternate perspective.

[Solon]

31. Which liberals of faith, which values?

This is something that always confused, or angered me, depending on my mood, but really, why the FUCK should any politician CLAIM TO SPEAK FOR ME? I'm a Liberal of faith who actually WANTS the Pledged changed or abandoned, who actually doesn't want Nativity scenes on public property. I want a REALLY STRONG WALL between the State and Religion, no exceptions, no compromises.

[Juffo Wup]

34. You're still letting the other side frame the argument

Letting your religious values guide you in politics does not mean arguing for nativity scenes and UNDER GOD everywhere and so forth, and to believe that it does is to buy right back into the right-wing wedge issues that have caused this nonsense in the first place. It means using government as an instrument to help those who need it, to craft a compassionate society, ensure justice, and so forth.

Republicans want religion to mean wedge issue bullshit, so they can keep using religion as little more than a tool to exploit the proles into voting for their corporate overlords.

[Solon]

35. My problem stems from the fact that religion shouldn't really be...

inserted into political discussions. If I were to say that the Goddess's teachings means we should support Universal Healthcare in this country, that sounds crazy, but if Christians say the same thing, but insert Jesus Christ into the argument, that's good politics. For me, both are wrong, because its a simple matter to actually just say its the RIGHT thing to do, no religious values NEED to be inserted into such arguments. Same thing for arguments of peace as well.

[The Magistrate]

44. But It Is A Part Of Politics Here, Sir

It does no good to say it ought not to be. A great many people are, as a matter of practical fact, moved in their political decisions by religious views and concerns. Some are moved in ways that align with secular progressive views, and some in ways that range against them. What is needed is to increase the number of the former group, and reduce the number of the latter one.

[Solon]

47. We should probably divide this up into Sectarian versus Universal...

religious/political thought. I guess I could explain better, a Sectarian political position would be something like advocating for mandatory pledge recitation in school, or school prayers being required, rather than by student's discretion as now. Universal political positions would be those that don't really require religion itself to be discussed, for example, in the pursuit for peace, or helping the poor, is a position that by and large crosses many sectarian/religious lines.

I just never would ever feel comfortable with anyone who says "Elect me, I'm Christian" or carries a Bible in one hand and a Constitution in the other. That seems pretentious at best, and hypocritical at worst.

[The Magistrate]

51. It Makes No Appeal To Me Either, Sir

But life has taught me many have tastes very different from my own....

[Solon]

56. I guess part of it is that appealing to Authority of any sort...

just rubs me the wrong way. Think of the fad of the WWJD?(What Would Jesus Do?) bracelets and necklaces that were popular for like a couple of years. The problem I always had about things like that is that that question doesn't really matter, the one that DOES matter is WWID(What Would I Do?). Even I, a person who DOES worship beings considered by many as greater than Humans thinks appealing to Them for mundane things is ridiculous, for the matters of Gods should be only left to Gods, the matters of Humans should be left to Humans.

[Hippo_Tron]

90. But what if liberal candidates don't want to talk about faith?

What if they don't want to be judged by their religious beliefs? What if they want to be judged by their prior experience, their views on the issues, and their character. Why do you have to talk about faith to appeal to religious voters? When Jimmy Carter ran for president he was very religious but that didn't necessarily help him with religious voters because nobody gave a shit about candidates' faith back then.

Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and others have created a society where candidates for political office always come under scrutiny about religion. Obama is saying that to combat this, we need to talk about religion. I would rather combat this by returning to a society where candidates don't have to talk about faith to get elected. Now, if a candidate feels very passionately about his/her faith like Jimmy Carter did, then I have absolutely no problem with him/her sharing his views. But it should NOT be required to get elected.

[GOTV]

32. Thank you Senator Obvious n/t

[AtomicKitten]

39. I like Barack Obama. n/t

[Zhade]

41. Sounds nice, but plays into the fake "Dems are against believers" meme.

Not that helpful, though some of it is decent.

[Dr Fate]

57. He is too lazy/frightened to put out a "Bush is against believers" meme.

So instead he goes with Rove's framing.

He should be attacking Bush/GOP's lack of Christian values, not agreeing with Rove that we dont exibit them enough.

[ShortnFiery]

70. MANY solid Democrats are *Christians*

Don't let the Republicans DEFINE the issue.

What's wrong with these people?!?

It's losing strategy to go into explanation mode OR accept the premise of a erroneous arguments to suggest a change that is NOT necessary.

Again, what's wrong with moderates like Obama?!?

IMO it seems as if they WANT the Republicans to CONTINUE to control *All Three Branches of our Government* as long as they PERSONALLY keep their blessed seats. :( :grr:

[Radical Activist]

81. Actually, he's talking about refuting that meme.

That seems to be the entire point he's making.

[The Magistrate]

83. Quite True, Sir

The Senator begins by laying out what needs to be opposed, and suggests means for doing so.

[Hippo_Tron]

87. But he's talking about refuting it by talking about faith

And that accepts the premise that we are doing something wrong. How about we combat it by convincing people that candidates who don't openly talk about faith aren't hostile to religion?

[Dr Fate]

95. Because that would require fighting the GOP/media-Obama 's too lazy.

It's easier to agree with the media than to get your fingernails dirty & fight the false perceptions they present.

It's the same reason so many DEMs went along with Bush/media on Iraq- it was too much work to do a google search and then go on TV and demonstrate how Bush was lying about the WMDs- easier just to pretend the perception was correct.

[Dr Fate]

96. Read this paragraph and tell me what GOP meme he is refuting:

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.

Take out the pleasant manner in which he said these things, and this is Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly or Karl Rove speaking.

What dressing down/criticisms of GOP religious hypocrisy does Obama offer- why is it all on "some Liberals?"

That is my problem with Obama- he lays the blame at "some Liberals" and refuses to even discuss Bush's & the GOPs religious hypocrisy.

[Radical Activist]

97. Baloney

He spends much of the speech condeming the hypocricy of the religious right. Does your eagerness to proclaim Obama a sell-out blind you to that? What about this:

"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."

Or how about when he talks about Republicans "who cynically use religion to justify partisan ends."

The hard truth is that Obama describes a lot of liberals I know who are atongonistic toward bringing up religion at all. Obama thinks that is a mistake, so do I, and that doesn't mean either he or I are repeating Republican talking points.

[Dr Fate]

98. He does not bring up GOP hypocrisy at all.

"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."

What GOP hypocrisy does he expose in that paragraph?- it is nothing but a factual statement about their successful strategy.

"who cynically use religion to justify partisan ends."

Cynicism? HOW is it cynical- Obama gives no details. What nefarious partisan ends? Details?

No, Obama makes no mention of how the GOP is hypocritical on the war, the economy, healthcare, Katrina/NO, none of it. Instead he seems to be focusing on O'Reilly's "war on Christmas" type crap. Piddly, 3rd string issues.

Take out the nice lanuage and you cant tell me how that paragraph I posted is virtually identical to what FOX news pundit would say about "some Liberals", can you?

I'm not against discussing religion either- I'd LOVE for Obama to say that Bush, not Liberals are the ones who abandon Christian ideals.

[Radical Activist]

99. Yes he does. He does it right there.

You've got a mental fixation that plain words and facts won't deter.

Ultimately, its not supposed to be a speech about Republicans. Its a speech about how Democrats can win elections and combat the religious right. If you're interested in Democrats winning, then Obama has some great things to say here. If you've just got an axe to grind with Obama then you'll view it any way you want.

[Dr Fate]

100. Where? I'm slow. Break it down for me.

What is hypocritical about Ordained Ministers saying "some Liberals" are against God? Unless you you demonstrate that the person saying it is indeed a hypocrite-but Obama failed to do that.

He accuses them of using religion to appeal to religious voters (Which is what he is doing too)- but does not claim they are hypocrites.

He also accuses them of being "cynical"- but does not explain HOW it is cynical for a religious person to use religious values to get religious people to agree with them.

I am very much interested in winning elections- and I note that we LOST the last 2 elections due to trying to imitate Republicans.

You dont win elections with "me too"-thats just going along with your opponents framing- you win by drawing the proper, factual, distinctions between you & your opponent, on the major issues.

This is basically "war on Christmas" type crap- Obama fails to draw any distictions or to connect this to any major issues of our day.

[Sam Odom]

85. Maybe Obama missed his calling

should have been a TV preacher, come to think of it he looks like one.

[IndianaGreen]

93. Yep, Obama should be a TV preacher like TD Jakes

I would rather rebuild the wall to separate church and state, and any politician should confine their religious crappola to the pulpit!

[Hippo_Tron]

86. Sorry but I think that Obama is dead wrong

The idea that Democrats don't appeal to religious voters is a lie. No we don't win the Christian fundie vote no we don't have to win it to win an election.

Here's some of the rhetoric from the 1992 Democratic National Convention

"So you see, I know what Dan Quayle means when he says it is best for children to have two parents. You bet it is. It would also be nice for them to have trust funds. But we can't all be born rich and pretty and that's why we have a democratic party." - Zell Miller

"I'm sick and tired of politicians in Washington lecturing us about family values. Our families have values but our government doesn't." - Bill Clinton

In 1992 Democrats weren't trying to establish credibility with "religious" voters. Democrats assumed that they had credibility with most religious voters and attacked those who said that they didn't as absolutely full of shit and out of the mainstream. We said loudly and proudly that we were against school prayer, for a woman's right to choose, and for allowing homosexuals to serve in the military. We knew that people who vote Republican because they disagree with us on those issues are not only not a majority of the country, but they are also the Republican base that we can not and should not try to win over. It worked perfectly fine in 1992.

Not only that, but candidates being judged on their religious views is a very recent thing. Jimmy Carter was easily the most religious president since at least the beginning of the second half of the 20th century and when he ran for president, nobody gave a shit what his religious views were. I want to return to a society where candidates can be as religious or as non religious as they want and people honestly don't care.

Oh yea, btw, Obama you were right in the 2004 election. That's why you won in a landslide and your batshit insane opponent became a national joke.

[OzarkDem]

101. Obama: Enough with the praying - talk about health care and jobs

Now.

[Dr Fate]

102. REAL ISSUES? Not when "some Liberals" have a "War on Christmas"!!!!

Sorry, but Obama cant tie Christian values to those major issues- to do so would be to accuse Bush of being a hypocrite.

Much easier for him to attack "some Liberals" on the Rovian, pre-fab issues like "The War on Christmas" or the pledge.