About That Public Prayer
At the risk of being made the wanker of the day, I thought Nathan Newman made several good points about Barak Obama. To make a more general point, while I appreciate blogospheric concern about re-enforcing conservative talking points, at the same time it's obviously the case that liberals aren't going to be able to improve either our electoral performance or our policy performance if people aren't going to be allowed to criticize what they see as broad tendencies in progressive politics. To make a more specific point, on the particular issue of allowing prayer or other religious gestures in official facilities and at official events, I tend to agree with what Obama is saying here -- that liberals should ease up on this.
Now, to step back, I'm an atheist -- don't believe in God. I'm also Jewish in some sense and certainly go through the key rituals on the High Holy Days and Passover which includes some praying. But I'm not basically inclined to pray and, obviously, given the demographic realities public religious displays are going to wind up being Christianish in nature ("non-sectarian" religious events in the United States all have a distinctly Protestant vibe to them even if Jesus doesn't get mentioned -- non-sectarianism itself is really a kind of Protestant idea) so it's not like I'm desperate to see public schools start holding fifteen minute prayer sessions or whatever. Personally, I'm fine with America's robustly secularist public sector status quo.
But, obviously, a lot of people aren't fine with it. To a lot of people, it's quite important that we allow more official acknowledgment of religion in this country. I think that's a bit odd (see my mockery of the "war on Christmas" controvery). But it's a real sentiment. And I don't honestly see a major cost to giving way on this point. If it's really important to the majority of people in School District X that they hold some kind of prayer before high school football games -- let them.
A little perspective. Officially established religions -- something that goes way further than anything contemplated in mainstream American politics -- are reasonably common in Europe. England has one, they're all over Scandinavia. France has religious instruction time set aside in the school week. And it's all basically fine.
More publicly funded nativity scenes and allowing "voluntary student prayer groups use school property to meet" (as Obama proposed) isn't going to put us on a slippery slope to a theocratic dystopia. Some concessions need to be made to public opinion, and it's smart to make them on basically symbolic issues (I would add the flag burning pseudo-issue to my list) rather than on consequential things like reproductive rights, gay and lesbian rights, and who runs the economy.
Compare two imaginary utterances by Obama:
We should move to allow prayer in public settings.
and
Liberals have got to stop alienating people of faith! We should move to allow prayer in public settings.
No-one's saying he shouldn't rock the boat, merely that he shouldn't frame his remarks with "We have too long been afraid to rock this boat".
June 28, 2006 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
One problem with this policy suggestion is that there is little liberals can actually do to implement it. Most of the issues you bring up have been resolved in the courts, not legislatively. So how can liberals prevent them? Take for example the "under God" phrase in the pledge of allegiance. As an atheist Jew like yourself, I agree that this is a symbolic issue, well worth giving ground on. But we can't stop someone who cares from bringing suit about it; and, whether or not we think it's important, it does seem to rather straightforwardly violate Church-State separation. We certainly can't ask judges to put aside their legal understandings to aid our political compromises! So there is little we can do -- but since conservatives repeat the "liberal judges" refrain, we carry the baggage of these issues even if we do little to promote them. Obama's speech does little to help on this matter -- and there is little we can do to help on it, so raising it simply does harm.
(There's also the question of whether, given how culturally linked the issues are, giving ground on the symbolic stuff might not actually undermine substantive church-state issues, or even issues that are fundamentally about religious disagreement even if they're not always framed as such, e.g. gay rights or abortion. But even if you disagree with this, the above still stands I think.)
June 28, 2006 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
OMG!!! You used the term "wanker". Would that make you one of them thar "blogofacists"?
I look at it this way...you basically said, and feel free to correct me if I misread you Matt (and God knows I am very capable of and have done that (the fault on my end) in the past, lol), that if the American people feel like it we should disregard the 1st amendment (or any amendment) of the Constitution. I am a full supporter of the "will of the people" but that support ends at the waterline where the will of the people meets the Constitution. Other then the constitutional ones, imo, all other matters are left to the states.
June 28, 2006 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fights over school prayer, the ten commandments, etc. have a way of getting under my skin, but I recognize that it's just the symbolism rather than the substance that bugs me. As a result, I'm coming around to Matt's point of view.
What won me over was the realization that these issues don't just resonate with the Dobson-Robertson nutjobs who are lost to us anyway. In particular black and latino voters are, on average, much more religious than the white secular liberals who dominate on the internet. And without their continued loyalty, the Democrats do not exist as a national party.
More to Matt's point, it seems a little silly to worry about "re-enforcing conservative talking points" when it comes to the left's supposed hostility toward religion. The right wing has been playing this card since the days of FDR, and everyone susceptible has already heard it enough times for it to sink in. And they've largely bought it. If we want to bring religious voters back, we need to either (a) start choosing our battles, or (b) start finding new ways of talking about the moral dimension of politics. Obama is fighting on both fronts.
So is Hillary. Only way, way less effectively.
June 28, 2006 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I'm an atheist -- don't believe in God. I'm also Jewish in some sense and certainly go through the key rituals on the High Holy Days and Passover which includes some praying. But I'm not basically inclined to pray..."
I would hope not - I'd have to revoke your self-described "atheist" badge...
I don't know ANY "atheists" who pray, Matt - other than you. On the odd chance that there may be a God, I've often cursed his ass for being an asshole and threatened him with a violent demise, but I've never prayed - not since turning atheist, certainly.
As for the rest of your post - no, you are utterly and completely wrong.
Yes, allowing public-supported nativity scenes and prayer time in school WILL put us on a slippery slope to a theocracy. That is EXACTLY how we ended up on the CURRENT slippery slope which is now an ice cliff right in front of us. And we'd better slam on the skate brakes or we're going over very shortly, if we haven't already.
And anybody who says it's okay to ban flag burning has no conception of the First Amendment or intellectual freedom.
I suggest you rethink your position.
As far as Obama's position, he is a black politician who is playing the religious card, just as King, Jackson and Sharpton has. This is almost always intellectually dishonest.
He ignores where a religious approach to politics would be "reasonable" for a politician. It's not appropriate for discussing your given political theory, or social theory, or political action program. That is either pandering or admitting you have no rational arguments for your positions.
The ONLY place where it might make sense for a politician to bring in religion is when addressing a demographic which can be reasonably expected to include religious people, and for the purpose of establishing your PERSONAL CHARACTER in THEIR TERMS. And then only when you actually HAVE those qualities - which I suspect most politicians don't.
Here's another problem: if you can't argue cogently against state-supported displays of religion, how do you expect to argue the much more serious and complicated issue of reproductive rights with the SAME RELIGIOUS audience?
THAT is a slippery slope.
As an aside, Matt, in the last few days, you've been posting a lot of "quickies" - and the quality is going down - as this one shows. I'd suggest you think more carefully about the positions you're committing to here before "whipping them out."
June 28, 2006 11:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
. . . for the purpose of establishing your PERSONAL CHARACTER in THEIR TERMS. And then only when you actually HAVE those qualities - which I suspect most politicians don't.
Who's to know? Believers are so wonderfully gullible; it goes with the territory.
June 28, 2006 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude. The kind of atheist fundamentalism you're advocating here--no talk of religion by politicians basically ever--would be unacceptable to a majority of Democrats, let alone a majority of the electorate. I happen to be an ACLU member myself, and I understand slippery slopes. But if you want to hold everybody to this standard, you'd better be willing to accept the consequences: continued political domination by evangelical Republicans.
In my mind, a city-funded nativity scene presents the same level of threat to free society as "In God We Trust" on dollar bills. In a perfect world it wouldn't be there, but somehow, somehow, democracy has managed to survive.
June 28, 2006 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't say anything about "no talk of religion ever" - I said you have to distinguish between arguing a political program based on reason - assuming there is such a thing, which in my view is hypothetical in the extreme - and arguing for your personal character based on your religious beliefs. The latter is obviously acceptable, the former is not.
"you'd better be willing to accept the consequences: continued political domination by evangelical Republicans."
Not being a Democrat, I don't have to accept anything. However, the argument as stated simply means that you believe it's okay to babble religious beliefs in order to win votes. Fine. No problem. MY point is that if you DO that, you will find yourself outgunned by the Republicans at every turn because you will be unable to match their religious bullshit with your religious bullshit.
Your point also appears to be that if one doesn't argue on religious grounds, one will lose the election. Fine. No problem there either. It merely makes it clear that the US public is a religious bunch not amenable to rational political argument. No surprise there to me.
The problem of the city-funded nativity scene is exactly the consequence of what I said before - if you try to match irrationality against irrationality, you'd better hope your irrationality is more irrational than your opponent - or you're going to lose. And if you can't cogently argue why a state-funded nativity scene is a violation of church and state separation, then you are going to lose any other argument over religion. And that means that the state will go from nativity scene to school prayer to punishment for non-participants in school prayer to Chancellor Sutler in due time.
As for "democracy" having survived, that issue has not been resolved for all time since the "In God We Trust" was put on the bills - otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion.
June 29, 2006 2:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Indeed.
Which is why I view politicians who are also preachers as the worst possible combination - lying and irrationality in tandem. OTOH, most politicians combine lying and irrationality, so maybe it doesn't matter.
It's just that religious irrationality when taken up by politicians tends to end up being really bad for those not believers in the particular religion involved.
June 29, 2006 2:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
You end up compromising on style, or on substance.
I'd rather compromise on style. And for Dems, that means compromising on the tone of God 'n' Country issues.
Control of the budget, the military, and new judges are why I fight to win elections. Compromise on the symbols. Control the substance.
Dems are in the minority of the electorate on God 'n' Counrty issues. Show respect for the majority, even if they're idiots.
June 29, 2006 3:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you really saying that nobody who doesn't believe in God (which is, as I understand it, the definition of an atheist), prays? This is ridiculous. Sure, people who are inclined to call themselves atheists also are often ragingly self-righteous about it in the way that you seem to be, but there's a lot of atheists who aren't Atheists, if you know what I mean.
I also think, if I may say so, that there's a strongly Christianish tone to your atheism, and even, perhaps, a Protestantish tone.
Are you at all familiar with prayers in Judaism? In Judaism we don't have personalized prayers where we say things like "Dear God, we thank you for the food we are about to receive" and then go on about God protecting little Joey, and so forth, the way Protestants (and to some extant Catholics) seem to. Rather, we read (or chant, in the case of Conservative and Orthodox Jews - but I'd imagine there are fewer atheists there) a prescribed liturgy written in an ancient language, now dead. I don't see how mumbling some thousands of years old lines in a foreign language can be cause to take away one's atheism card.
June 29, 2006 3:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
> I'd rather compromise on style. And
> for Dems, that means compromising on
> the tone of God 'n' Country issues.
.
Are you familiar with how a ratchet wrench works? As soon as Democrats start speaking in Radical Republican frames and agreeing to Radical platform planks, the "center" will get pushed over another 27 notches to the right and the process will start all over again. That is the kind of behaviour Rove and Norquist live for.
sPh
June 29, 2006 4:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Matt,
Could you give me 10 examples of significant Democratic political figures who have been disrespectful to "people of faith"? I imagine they are all from the Some Democrats(tm) faction, so you will be performing a double service as we can then get to work exiling all the Some Democrats to France.
Thanks.
sPh
June 29, 2006 4:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
The holiest prayer, the Shema, is a pure invocation in Hebrew, much as the Shehada is in Arabic. I'd agree that the Mourner's Kaddish, in Aramaic, certainly qualifies, and there are some others not in Hebrew. Yes, the written form of Hebrew found in the Torah is not the modern form (e.g., no vowel marks, vowel sounds being implied), but I would hardly call Hebrew a dead language.
Actually, some religious practices make a deliberate and not-unreasonable point of using dead languages. A number of Catholic seminaries conduct their theology classes in Latin and in Attic (classical, not modern) Greek, so the nuances of discussion are not confused by evolving meaning of language. I don't find that practice all that unreasonable, given the use of symbolic logic and formal languages in varied branches of mathematics, linguistics, and computer science, again to avoid ambiguity.
Affirming the power of a deity, somehow just isn't quite congruent with what I think of as atheism.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
June 29, 2006 5:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama or Dean want to pander to fundamentalists, well, why not? Why shouldn't they give in and push for prayer in school or public religious displays? After all, they've got the "pwogwessive" vote no matter what they do.
Hell, Obama could go on TV tomorrow and declare Christianity the Official State Religion and pwogwessives would nod their heads sagely and comment on his wonderful 'framing' of the issue. Concessions must be made! Principles must be abandoned! Screw the 1st Amendment, we wanna win!!!
June 29, 2006 6:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
The point about judges having to decide cases in conformity with their view of the constitution is absolutely correct. MY says that if people want to have organized public prayer at football games, let 'em. Well, the Justices of the Supreme Court have ruled that that is unconstitutional. So, MY, my question to you is, what are you (and Obama) calling for here? Confirming new Justices who will overturn the prior rulings? Amending the constitution? MY has often (correctly in my view) railed against people who urge greater "sensitivity" or "concern" or what have you without actually backing those up with policy proposals.
So, Matt, and Obama, what's the plan? Where's the beef? Let's hear some concrete proposals for how you plan to accomplish this breaking down of the church-state wall.
June 29, 2006 6:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
FOREIGNID: 136999
FOREIGNPARENTID: 136920
FOREIGNCOMMENTERID: 276
AUTHOR: Emma Zahn
DATE: 06/29/2006 07:03:17 AM
June 29, 2006 7:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't there room for some middle ground here? The first amendment is obviously important but some atheists and their allies seem to get needlessly worked up about really stupid things. The pledge of alligance is a good example. Four formulaic words that few people notice much anyway. I never understood anyone who could muster any indignation on that issue at all. Ditto for people who get worked up about a minute of silence, christmas trees in town squares or religuous groups meeting on school ground as long as everything is entirely voluntary. I just don't buy the absolutist position here than anything that constitutes religion and the state having anything to do with each other is a violation of the first amendment.
Its better to save powder for the serious issues, like attempts to have creationism taught in school or to teach sunday school as part of some faux religuous studies class.
Actually Nativity scenes are a little much for me. Christmas trees don't much bug me, but nativity scenes are explicitly religuous enough as to send an unfortunate message to anyone who isn't Christian.
June 29, 2006 7:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
You think we should concede the flag burning issue? Really? I mean, I'll probably go through my entire life without ever burning a flag but I think the principle that the government has no right to tell me not to is a pretty important one.
thosethingswesay.blogspot.com
June 29, 2006 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, Matt, but you're 100% wrong on this one. There is tremendous potential harm, from the point of view of those who would be directly affected by increasing the amount of explicit religious activity in, say, public schools. You're missing the point by approaching this as an abstract sorting out of political rights. In fact, if you look at it from the perspective of a religious-minority teenager in a high school with an overwhelmingly dominant majority (which is most places in this country, and they're mostly Protestant), you'll see a very great amount of potential harm. First, there's the simple exclusion on religious grounds. But more than that, there's the social dynamic of high school itself, where most group activity centers not around the fulfillment of some overt desire, but rather to establish social boundaries and reinforce in-group/out-group distinctions. Kids don't wear certain clothing because of some innate aesthetic fashion sense, but rather to demonstrate their access to popular-culture information, in short, to show that they're cool. So, by bringing prayer into public schools, you're more likely to be encouraging social stratification than to be promoting the sincere cultivation of faith.
June 29, 2006 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
A famous nineteenth century agnostic began wedding service with the prayer: "O God, who may or may not exist ..."
I am also fed up with Atheist and other fundamentalist iconoclasts who object to Christmas trees and Easter eggs. But I agree that having God on the dollar bill or in the pledge of allegiance is tasteless (the whole idea of compelling people to swear allegiance implies that their loyalty is open to question and seems to me to falls into the category of an unconstitutional loyalty oath. At minimum it amounts to a horrible trivialization -- as does putting God on our currency).
I also tend agree that liberals make to much of a big deal about prayers at public events, though I can't stand most prayers.
In my experience, however, it is religious people who violently object to accepting that religion is a significant component of our culture. Wasn't it the Church of England attending W.H. Auden who wrote: "Thou shall not be one of those, / Who reads the Bible for its prose"? Yet Lincoln, Melville, and Whitman followed the advice of Blair's famous book on rhetoric and assiduously studied the Bible for the magnificence of its prose (and poetry, which all agree is among the most sublime in the world past or present).
June 29, 2006 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
If it's just "four formulaic words that few people notice much anyway" then there's no harm in getting rid of them, no?
June 29, 2006 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's have both more public expressions of devoutness, and more public mockery of them! This is the land of free expression, after all.
Officially established religions ... are reasonably common in Europe. ... And it's all basically fine.
Hear, hear! Everyone I know is just fine with this, as long as it's their religion, of course. Surely you meant my religion, didn't you? (Oh btw, I'm a Pastafarian.)
June 29, 2006 10:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Um, if it tends to make a lot of people angry for no particular purpose, then yes there is some harm. The more important point is that there isn't much harm in keeping them there either.
Its wise to have a little discretion about picking your targets. I believe in separation of church and state too, I just don't think saying "in god we trust" really does much to endanger that. Other things do and we need to focus on them instead of picking stupid symbolic battles. People who sit around moaning about the pledge of alligance just damage their own cause when it comes to fighting creationism.
June 29, 2006 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maintaining the seperation of church and state is a matter of eternal vigilance, I would think. Just think, a powerful reason we have to suffer the likes of Bush is that conservative evangelical preachers began holding political rallies in the pews several years ago, instructing the faithful how to vote.
Here's a parallel situation - Iran and Iraq. Amazingly, of all the sects of Islam, the Shi'a were the most adamant in holding the seperation of church and state. When Ayatollah Khomaini rose to power in Iran it set off a religious war over this issue and many Mullas were defrocked, murdered or imprisioned by Khomaini's minions. The issue:
Most of us wish to see healthy, productive secular governments in Western Asia - why not here in the USA also?
Neoboho
June 29, 2006 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interestingly, in the state of Ohio at least, most of the lawsuits to stop recognition of religious holidays have come from Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists. In fact, wasn't the first lawsuit filed to stop the mandatory recitation of the pledge filed by Jehovah's Witnesses?
Liberals - they think everything is their fault...
June 29, 2006 11:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have been trying to launch a campaign to change the motto "In God We Trust" to "Christ, What Next?" Something more fitting to the times.
June 29, 2006 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
"As soon as Democrats start speaking in Radical Republican frames and agreeing to Radical platform planks, the "center" will get pushed over another 27 notches to the right and the process will start all over again. That is the kind of behaviour Rove and Norquist live for."
Actually, Rove plays the exact same 'compromise on style' game from the other side. What do you think the whole "compassionate conservative" bullshit is all about? What do you think NCLB was all about?
Just like Dems are in the minority on God 'n' Country issues, Republicans are in the minority on economic and social justice issues.
When you're in the minority in some area, compromising on style so you can not compromise on substance and still win elections is just smart politics. It beats all the alternatives.
June 29, 2006 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am the demographic of which you speak - female, Hispanic, Catholic and a Democrat. My grandfather had a framed portraits of JFK and the Pope in his house. It used to be, at one time, that if you were Catholic you were a democrat. Republicans have put a lot of money into aligning Catholic views with their own. The main consistency being pro-life activities. There are many aspects of Catholic teaching that Democrats can better relate - such as social justice. I think it is good political strategy to appeal to what was a strong base of voters who are increasingly voting more Republican.
June 29, 2006 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do we legislate, and how does the judiciary enforce, allowing "just a little, but not too much" religion into schools, government, and other public functions?
The Air Force Academy is a pretty good example of "just a little." So is "teaching the controversy."
June 29, 2006 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
We could have a [....] fill in the blank Pledge. My daughter, learning the Pledge at school, for at least a year said "One nation, under guard." If the Bill of Rights and Constitutional history got a fraction of the attention the Ten Commandments get, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Historically, it has been the religious who have fought for and benefitted most from separation of Church and State.
June 29, 2006 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
She may have been on to something...
June 29, 2006 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. One reason the founders wanted religion out of the public square is because they'd had too much experience running away from people who wanted to kill them over their faith.
And who are we kidding? Do we really believe the folks pushing for this stuff are really going to be tolerant of building a city statue to the Virgin Mary or the Pope or to some non-Christian deity or prophet? Are they going to let you lead their children in the rosary at public school?
Sheesh, it might not trouble me to bow to some benign Anglican religious symbols in the public square, but that's not what we're talking about today. We're talking about vociferous advocates for very specific religious sects wanting to push their sect to the center of the square to the exclusion of yours.
June 29, 2006 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, but isn't the real problem walking the walk, not talking the talk? Democrats have stopped talking about social justice and have stopped working for social justice. Senator Tom Harkin, a Catholic, is one of the most liberal members of the US Senate and he still walks that walk. I'd believe the Democrats are still the party of good Catholics if they talked more about the poverty and less about welfare reform. I don't see that happening. It's easier to just mention Jesus half a dozen times in your speech.
June 29, 2006 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh c'mon. He didn't go on Fox News, he gave a speech to a conference organized by Sojouners, the left-liberal Christain magazine. The "rule" that Democratic electeds should not criticize the party only applies to external audiences; we need to allow for internal discussion and debate if we're going to get anywhere. Anyway, if you read his actual speech, the bulk of it is a challenge to religious people both the live up to the commitments of their religion and acknowledge its shortcomings. Its a demand that religious people recognize the necessary limits on the role of religion in a pluralistic society. What few mildly critical things he has to say about progressives speak more to an unwillingness to keep a discussion going when religious views are expressed, rather than chiding progressives for supposedly insulting believers. Check the speech out, its better than its press coverage.
June 29, 2006 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
When a leading Democrat pulls a Lieberman and criticizes fellow Democrats knowing full well that the WaPo's lede will be the Big Dis, he doesn't get to hide what he did and his supporters don't get to excuse what he did by saying that -- what? -- it was an "internal discussion"? -- sure, and so's your uncle.
June 30, 2006 2:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did you read the speech? It doesn't sound like it. He spend very little time discussing progressives, liberals, or Democrats in even vaugely critical ways. I don't see how any fair reading of the speech leads to the conclusion that he was dissing Democrats.
Religious conservatives, on the other hand, he was clearly dissing. And he presented a serious challenge to religious people more generally, insisting that it is illegitimate to justify political positions on sectarian grounds:
This seems to me to be such a far cry from "pulling a Lieberman" that the comparison is silly.
But more to your point, if the Sojourner's conference doesn't count as an appropriate forum for an internal discussion, what does? Yearly Kos? The comments page at TPM Cafe? What fora exist, other than liberal-lefty conferences and blogs where a person can speak critical - but measured - words about his party? I know you're not suggesting that criticism should be out of bounds, but in what forum would it be acceptable, if not one such as Sojourners?
June 30, 2006 6:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did I read the speech? Better you should ask whether independent voters read the speech. Do you think they did? Or do you think they read the WaPo article and articles in their local paper that picked up the WaPo feed or listened to talk radio to learn that even a star Democrat agrees with the host that his party hates religious people.
June 30, 2006 7:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
How can that be Barrack Obama's fault? The Washington Post, as Brad DeLong among others has been demonstrating for a while, has no committment whatsoever to telling the truth. Do you really believe that if Obmama had omitted even mildly critical comments about Democrats that the Post would not have spun the story in a GOP friendly way? When have the facts ever got in the way of their doing so? And if the facts don't constrain them, how does it matter what Obama says? Really, you should read the speech. Its right here.
After you read it, let me know in what forum even such mild criticisms as these could be put forward. Are there any you can think of? And if not, why do you believe that Democratic discourse should be hostage to the venality of the Washington Post?
June 30, 2006 7:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt. He's more critical of a straw man, the Democrat who disdains nonsecular voters, than I can accept. He's surer than I can accept, too, that all one has to do is pronounce one's belief and not denounce the beliefs of others, and those minor extremist distractors like abortion won't matter. He's less aware than I'd like that some disagreements don't turn on my religious convictions, which are none of your business, than on the first amendment, which is a core American principle. Still, I understand the speech as a whole and its context.
I make no such excuses for Nathan. I think his post was shameful. It's entirely about the straw man. Those who stretched the debate out with not unreasonable positions contrary to his religious perspective have a point, and well, ok, I do share it, but ultimately an irrelevant one. He's denouncing a nonexistent cable of left-wing conspirators in old McCarthy style, and that's that.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
June 30, 2006 7:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, what you're asking for is actually what Obama's speech was about.
That's also what the conference was about:
"Call to Renewal, a faith-based movement to overcome poverty."
http://www.calltorenewal.com/
That's what he was obviously trying to do here, what you wish for.
He went to a religious conference about working to end poverty, to accept an award from them for his work against poverty,
a conference to gather the political action coalition sponsored by the liberal group Sojourner's, to show his support for reviving this kind of activity.
His appearance there was against what right wing religious political organizations have been doing,
and in support of the kind of things are behind this organization:
June 30, 2006 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Folks, please read the entire speech by Obama. I was at the gathering and would not recognize his speech from the press coverage. For example, he also had words for the Christian right about separation of church and state. Here is an excerpt:
For one, they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. Folks tend to forget that during our founding, it wasn't the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment. It was the persecuted minorities, it was Baptists like John Leland who didn't want the established churches to impose their views on folks who were getting happy out in the fields and teaching the scripture to slaves. It was the forbearers of the evangelicals who were the most adamant about not mingling government with religious, because they did not want state-sponsored religion hindering their ability to practice their faith as they understood it.
Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.
And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let's read our bibles. Folks haven't been reading their bibles.
June 30, 2006 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm actually a fan of Sojourners and I admit I didn't hear Obama's speech -- but I think Democrats are mis-diagnosing their problem. They don't have a faith problem, they have a character problem. Their faith nust be evident in their actions. It's in their actions and lack of actions that they've disillusioned Americans.
It's the difference between a Paul Wellstone who ran for the Senate because of what he believed and a Norm Coleman who wants to be Senator and lets Karl Rove tell him what to believe. Wellstone had faith. Coleman has religion.
June 30, 2006 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
How can that be Barrack Obama's fault?
All speakers and especially, savvy politicians are expected to know how their words will be taken.
And let's not forget that Obama intended his slur against other Democrats to gain him access to those evangelicals. He might as well have said, "Hey, I'm one of you; I believe those liberals (Oops; some liberals) are just as bad as you think they are."
June 30, 2006 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re:Yes, allowing public-supported nativity scenes and prayer time in school WILL put us on a slippery slope to a theocracy.
No one so far has addressed every crucial piece of real world that Matt mentions in passing: the experience of Europe. There we find actual official churches along with religious rituals all over the place in public life. If the above poster is right about slippery slopes I'd expect Europe to be a Christian version of Iran. But instead the exact opposite has happened: secularism has triumphed in those areas where it matters.
Maybe the answer to Christianism isn't to fight it tooth and nail but rather to feed it a steady diet of political junk food until it grows so fat and lazy it can no longer bestir itself at all.
June 30, 2006 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, Ellen, not having read the speech puts you in a poor position to defend the charge that Obama made "slurs" against Democrats or Liberals. Mild criticisms aren't slurs.
More to the point, what do you mean by "those evangelicals" and why would you conclude that they think ill of liberals? Don't you know what Sojourners is? If not, its a longstanding left-liberal Christain magazine. Its very, very left (and not necessarily evangelical). If people at a Sojourners conference are unhappy in some ways with "liberals" its likely because those people are socialists who think the liberals are too conservative. I would think it likely that everyone at the conference would be willing to identify as a liberal, at least for purposes of broad, conventional political classification. Obama, obviously, already has access to "those" conference attendees, and so has no reason to curry favor with them. He was challenging them, which you would recognize if you bothered to read the speech.
Again though, I ask you: in what context is is appropriate for a Democratic elected official to voice criticisms of his or her party, if not in a setting like the Sojourners conference?
June 30, 2006 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
"All speakers and especially, savvy politicians are expected to know how their words will be taken." I want to say yes and no. The media's willingness to distort everything and anything can make saying anything of value pointless or impossible, and it may have encouraged certain Democrats we love to berate here for saying nothing.
If Obama had said something Ellen or I might really like, he'd be labeled an extremist or, like Gore until this movie, not covered at all. You can't always win. I don't say we shouldn't ask politicians to try harder to win, just dubious about what we can hope for.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
July 1, 2006 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Political junk food? ARRRGH at your giving me an even worse mental image about a not-uninteresting Catholic church my ex-used to atttend unti, as she put it, she gave up Catholicism for Lent.
It was in an area that mixed, fairly successfully, populations of immigrants with rather upscale civil servants and the like (Falls Church, Virginia). The interesting thing was that they had a large rectory, so a number of priests having organizational, political, or educational assignments in Washington DC lived there. These "priests-in-residence" occasionally gave lectures in their areas of interest, where they'd encourage active discussion with an often-packed house.
Still, there was a widespread opinion that the mixture of priests-in-residence and the more upscale parishioners resulted in a secret word that let you get Brie on your communion wafer, and the priests tended to assess the wine before transmuting it.
Now, you have given me this horrible image of Twinkie Hosts.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
July 1, 2006 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
July 1, 2006 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
The US is not Europe - no matter how many descendants of Europe live here.
Europe has an entirely different social and cultural setup due to having many nations crammed alongside each other. The US doesn't have this - we have something similar with our various state regions, but it's not the same.
Europe also has a much longer experience with the problems of religious wars and the like - with the result that religion in politics is taken seriously there. In other words, the populations are more wary of it than the average US citizen is.
July 1, 2006 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
None of what you said makes any sense.
Atheists do not believe in God. Atheists do not pray in any conventional sense of the word "prayer".
As I said, there have been many times where I, in an emotional fit, have cursed the God I don't believe in. This doesn't make me any less of an atheist.
Matt's post was entirely different. He called himself an "atheist" and then babbled on about praying in the normal, conventional sense of praying. This is not an atheist by any definition I am aware of.
And talking about Jewish prayers in this context makes no sense at all.
UPDATE: Ah, wait, I see why you referenced Jewish prayers. That was in response to Matt's following:
"I'm also Jewish in some sense and certainly go through the key rituals on the High Holy Days and Passover which includes some praying."
Okay, fine. The problem remains - what "atheist" is going to participate in "key rituals" on the "High Holy Days"? I don't see it happening. I can understand being involved in certain ETHNIC "rituals", but when they cross over to RELIGIOUS "rituals", you stop being an atheist and become a hypocrite.
This isn't Winona Ryder drinking Maneschevitz in the Adam Sandler song we're talking about here.
July 1, 2006 4:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
. . . what "atheist" is going to participate in "key rituals" on the "High Holy Days"?
An atheist who's keeping his head down in temple? And anyway, what's so wrong with being a social "hypocrite" on occasion?
July 1, 2006 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink