The objection to Obama's speech is not the content of his speech, but that he seemed to walk down the tried-and-true path of blaming the progressive base while not holding the conservatives to similar scrutiny. He uses the word "secularists" to describe people who want to keep government free from religion. How about "supporters of the First Amendment" instead? That's what is annoying everybody. We'd like to see leaders of the Democratic party actually standing up for the traditional positions such as separation of church and state, instead of caving on yet another brick of our foundation as part of an ill-conceived attempt to woo "swing voters". To be fair to Obama, that emphasis is hardly the sum of his speech. But he needs to be aware that the political enemies of the progressives are going to twist it that way, and use his equivocation about separation of church and state as a wedge issue to divide Democrats.

As always, Obama just took the words out of my mouth.  (Clinton did a pretty good job a few weeks ago too).

 Anyways, as I've mentioned before (and been lambasted for doing so), there are elements in the left that feel any expression of religion- particularly Christianity- is per se dangerous, and that the person speaking must be stupid.  After my experiences blogging about this issue, I'd say it's quite possibly one of the greatest self-destructive forces at work within the leftist/democratic sphere today.  And it's something we have to get over, for several reasons: 1) The sort of absolute stereotyping at work is totally incompatible with a truly liberal viewpoint, and thus should be against all liberal principles and 2) We're shooting ourselves in the foot by alienating voters and groups with whom we agree on a whooole lot more issues then we disagree.  So the good stuff we agree on doesn't get done, and we never reach a conclusion on the areas where we disagree.

What I can't quite figure out is WHY the absolutists react with such hatred.  Most blind prejudices are based on fear and ignorance.  Ignorance I get- a lot of it comes from the fact that only the "anti" platform of the right wing comes out. And that's a lot of their (meaning the right wing's) fault, along with the media. But what is the left wing so afraid of?

Excellent points. As a Black Democrat, I have often been concerned that the party allows the GOP (who only read the Old Testament and the hardline of Paul in the New Testament) to usurp the message of hope and joy in the Bible. MLK is a hero of mine. Black and White church members worked towards insuring voting and housing rights in the US, often risking life and limb. There is a clear division between the "fire and brimstone" message I here coming from right wingers like Dobson, and the newly more racially "refined" Southern Baptist Church. (You're gonna die versus you can attain a good life)
Those who consider religion to be fantasy and science fiction for the feeble-minded are welcome to their positions, but should not invade my rights.
How can you have free speech if you're told to shut up if you mention God in public?
People of all faiths (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc) will be important to the party to understand the feelings of others who occupy our world.
"The Mighty and The Almighty" by Madeleine Albright gives some insight in the the problems that can occur by discarding religion when negotiating with different peoples.
Paying heed to religion doesn't require conversion to a particular religion, but a realization of it's importance and influence on the opinions of others.
It's a practical matter.
Bravo Obama

Two quotes illustrate the reason that many of us reacted negatively to Obama's speech:

First.

The WaPo states that Senator Barack Obama chastised fellow Democrats on Wednesday for failing to "acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people."

Which of his "fellow Democrats" have done anything remotely like that? Not one, of course. The truth is that Democrats are as shameless as Republicans when it comes to public displays of piety as a substitute for moral actions.

The meme that comes out this is that Senator Obama says that Democrats fail to acknowledge God and people who care about God. This is not only a lie, it is a damnable lie.

Second, again from the WaPo story:

"Obama mentioned leaders of the religious right briefly, saying they must 'accept some ground rules for collaboration' and recognize the importance of the separation of church and state."

The right wing Christian Separatists do not believe in the separation of church and state. They do not acknowledge any legal, political or moral basis for such a separation. They also do not believe in collaboration with anyone with whom they disagree.

Was Obama asleep during the Schiavo episode? Did he follow the Justice Sundays? Where has Obama been for the last twenty years?

As a practical matter the central premise of Obama's "chastising" of fellow Democrats is the same as the central premise of Ann Coulter in her book Godless. Democrats are anti-God and anti-religious people.

We object when she does it. Why should we remain silent when he does it? It's a lie when she says it and it's a lie when the new rising star of the Democratic party says it.

For me, I can work with people who say they are inspired by God, no problem. I hesitate to work with people who insist that WE must be inspired by God. Some people are inspired by God to be moral and ethical, some people are inspired by Morality itself to do the same. If Christians wish to chuckle that inspired non-theists are secretly being inspired by God in disguise, so be it. Like Obama says "In fact, because I do not believe that religious people have a monopoly on morality, I would rather have someone who is grounded in morality and ethics, and who is also secular, affirm their morality and ethics and values without pretending that they're something they're not."

I also don't think there's anything inherently wrong with refusing to talk about faith in public. Sometimes keeping one's faith secret is a sincere part of their faith, especially for Christians of the Midwest and Northeast U.S., who recall Mathew 6:6 "But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."

I think Obama's off the mark on things like the pledge. No, I don't think we should campaign against "Under God", but I respect those who do. Those words are a disgrace to the principles on which our country is founded, and the idea that theism is something sacred and magical that non-theists have to regard with deference is unacceptable to me--people can be inspired to disbelieve just as much as they can be inspired to believe. I am not an athiest--I believe there is something extra-logical on which our visible world rests--but to call that extra-logical quality "God" strikes me as blasphemous to something which should be beyond all names.

We shouldn't campaign against it, because even a single child going without health care is a greater evil than a couple of words for some pledge, disgraceful or not. But those who oppose those words do so for what they believe is Moral and Good, and they are entitled to just as much respect as the believers who insist--contrary to our Constitution--that the words stay.

If the option is NO religious expression by any member of the party rather than SOME religious tolerance, and > 80% of voters consider themselves to be religious. Do we ask them to give us our votes, but keep their opinons to themselves (since religion plays a role in some of their decisions)? Is that a winning strategy?
Does it not just push some people to the theocrat(GOP) party, and tell others to just stay home, because they have no true representation?

Clever politicians who aspire to higher office know that making ambiguous statements about fundamental issues is a way to create a body of quotations which can later be used during campaigns. Really clever politicians manage to sound like they favor both sides of difficult issues, some even manage to vote on both sides of controversial legislation.

Obama is pandering to the religious center, but he is correct that he will need their votes in the future.

--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape

Religious conservatives have monopolized the public discourse of religion for a generation. Secular progressives have unwittingly played into religious conservatives hands by presenting themselves as the only authentic progressive voices on issues of religion and politics. Obama is providing a necessary corrective service, by sending a clear message that religion in the public sphere in America need not be sectarian and exclusive, but rather pluralistic and inclusive. 

Any progressives serious about labor reform, environmental reform, criminal justice reform and reducing poverty will need to make room for faith-based social justice movements.  The reason why Obama is the "rising star" of the party is that he speaks in faith-based language naturally, and he can tap into the deep well of non-fundamentalist evangelical support for social justice.   

Obama wasn't going after his audience - he was preaching to the progressive religious choir as it were. These are people who feely doubly excluded in that both religious conservatives and secular liberals are insistent that they don't exist.  If you read his speech, he takes religious conservatives to task for being sectarian and ignoring social justice concerns.

(You don't have to answer this, but if your church is taking such a blinkered view of Jesus' teachings, why not vote with your feet and attend a place more in line with your beliefs?  I can't imagine being a member of congregation which disdained the equality of women or served as a megaphone for conservative political views.) 

There is a tale of three souls that showed up simultaneously at the Pearly Gates, each looking worried. St. Peter asked the first what was his religion and why he was so worried.

The first tortured soul said that he was a Catholic, and used artificial birth control. St. Peter smiled and let him in.

In more discomfort, the next explained he was a Baptist who enjoyed demon rum. The good Saint waved him in, saying he was generally a good man.

The third seemed as if he was already down below, tormented by devils. Eventually, he sobbed out, "I was an Episcopalian, and I used the wrong fork."

We can switch now to Shi'a, Sunni, and Mahdist Muslims, and perhaps make the Sunni Salafist or Qutbist.

Here we have a few Buddhists, Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana. All believe they can attain Buddha-nature. Suzuki-san, the Mahayana, follows the Zen practice but is also a Shintoist. None believe in what we call a personal deity.

Oh, over there, we have some polytheistic Hindus.

Now, does any of these have the truth and can prove it? They are all people of sincere and wildly different faith.

Let's elect two to office, a Jain and an Odinist. How do they vote on the defense budget?

To try to answer your direct question, for purposes of faith and government, they are all the same -- as is a militant atheist that wants government to tell people there is no deity. There's no profiling here, just the separation between church (and in the broadest sense to include the atheists) and state.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

No, Sundog, it is you that misses the point.

At present, your fanatical anti-religious screeds repel more people than they attract. Since the real point is to win elections for the party most likely to allow you to continue your rants, you aren't really helping the cause now, are you?

...

But he needs to be aware that the political enemies of the progressives are going to twist it that way, and use his equivocation about separation of church and state as a wedge issue to divide Democrats.

Actually, "secularist" antireligous bigots, who sometimes style themselves as "progressives" do everything in their power to divide Democrats by making religion a litmus test -- according to them, if you are religious, you are variously a fool, an ignoramus, a coward, a loser who "can't face reality," even an enemy of the State. In his book The End of Faith, Sam Harris suggests that it might be acceptable to make religious belief a capital offense, and imprison or execute those who refused to surrender their beliefs.

I think that it is quite likely that Obama is the future of the party and not the bigots who use the "separation of powers" argument as a shibboleth to further their private animus against believers. The numbers are on his side, not yours.

mp

debcoop

Barack Obama "Having voluntary student prayer groups using school property to meet should not be a threat, any more than its use by the High School Republicans should threaten Democrats."

I disagree heartily with this statement. And I base it on personal experience. I grew up in a small, very small town. I was one of 3-4 Jewish families in one town and the only one in another one. We were the only ones who were religiously identifiable---my parents as Holocaust survivors were easy to spot --- mostly because of their Yiddish accent.

Being forced to say Christian prayers offended my parents greatly. They understood the real end result of religious discrimination.

There was mostly ignorance of what Judaism was---I was asked what Jews did for Christmas!!! And then there were the times that I was actually persecuted --- emotionally and once physically because I was Jewish.

Before the Supreme Court decision I would just sit there during the prayers---but the kids noticed and once a teacher asked why I was silent. I stayed in stunned silence. Doing this in school is obviously inherently coercive

So let's get to a more recent instance---The Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs actively allows the airing of Christian views. It is so active that Jewish students and one Protestant chaplain at the Academy have complained that they were being subjected to coercive proselytization. The Academy superintendent was reprimanded not only for allowing such active persecutive preselytizing, but for encouraging it.

That is exactly the danger of introducing this into the public square. Those who actively advocate putting religion into public life are just the stripe of religious fundamentalists --from Evangelical Christians to Hasidic Jews --who have no tolerance for other people's faith. (As a Jew who has gone from Orthodox to Reform, I am well aware of what the Hasidim feel about the rest of their co-religionists and besides I understand Yiddish so I know what they really feel about the rest of you) If religionists like them are in the majority than the rest of us ought to fear for our own free expression to our own religion.

Keeping religion out of the public square protects everyone's right to observe their religion.

So, what's the "message," naugiedoggie? And does it come from God or Jim Wallis?

I'm all ears.

I disagree. I don't agree with everything he said, but I believe his heart is in the right place (even though I know that sounds like a Bush voter thing to say).

He said some stuff about religion in his Democratic Convention speech that everyone so loved, so I don't see what the surprise is at him trying to thread this needle. If he's successful, it would mean Dem majorities as far as the eye can see, and we share more in common with all but the farthest right-wing Christians than they do with the money-hungry parts of the GOP.

naugiedoggie, you falsely imply that on one side there are religious belivers, and that on the other side there are Democrats. Most Democrats are religious, and Democratic values are a lot closer to the values of the Sermon on the Mount than Republican values. Also, it was Jesus himself who gave the order to his disciples never to pray in public (Matthew chapter 6, verses 5-6). So why pander to those who want to defy the words of Jesus Christ and pray publicly in schools?

Aren't you conflating "voluntary" and "coercive" religious activities?

And for that matter, isn't Obama erecting a straw man? How many Democrats are spending time fighting those who'd like to use school premises for voluntary religious activities? About as many, I'd guess, as are invested in removing "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.

I don't think all Christians want the same things or are treated the same way, despite some of the comments on this site.

Anyway, I agree that is the root of the problem, and the conservative Catholic and evangelical alliance (despite their lack of communion), is much different from, say, mainline protestantism or unitarianism.

"attacking large portions of their own base in a vain attempt to get votes from the other guys' base"

Why not be specific. Which portions of their own base do they regularly attack? Oh you probably mean the Republican leaning centrist, warhawk portions, right?

It's completely unclear how paragraph one leads to paragraph two. However, it is clear that the purpose of the comment was to leverage an opportunity to sneer at "the religious." Here's some links to a handful of "ethnocentric Protestants" (according to you, there being no other type of "religious" person in America). Well, I'm going to cheat and include a Catholic. So, sneer at me.

Joan Chittister
Chuck Currie
Street Prophets
God Is Still Speaking
Church Folks For a Better America
Sojourners: Christians For Peace and Justice
UCC Action Center
Southern Christian Leadership Conference

I could keep going. I think this short list is sufficient to demonstrate that your position is merely that of the petulantly bigoted.

For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? -- Matthew 5:43-44

The rightwing bigot wants to rid the world of atheists and the leftwing bigot wants to rid the world of theists. You're equally self-congratulatory and equally deluded. You both want to deprive me of my liberty, differing only in particulars of the rhetoric aimed at achieving that end. The rightwinger wants me to acknowledge "his" God and the leftwinger wants me to pretend God doesn't exist. The origin of these countervailing demands is the same in each case: moral timidity that leads to a perceived need to enlist the power of the State to suppress the offending belief.

The big difference is that presently, the rightwingers have the political means to actual complete the job. So, what happens when/if the leftwing bigot gains the ascendancy?

Meet the new boss, Same as the old boss.

I know that, under particular circumstances, I am capable of great evil. Therefore, I strive to humble myself and never allow myself to enter into those circumstances. Sadly, and dangerously, the bigoted "progressive" believes that by aggrandizing power and suppressing me and other believers, in the name of the "greater good," he will be ushering in the Golden Age. Instead, it becomes yet another ritualized slaughter of innocents.

I do not care about the supposed purity of your motives. I care only about the certain destructiveness of the results.

mp

debcoop

I am saying that what is said to be voluntary really becomes coercive in milieus in which one religion faith is heavily predominant.

I am saying in real life that there is no meaningful difference between voluntary and coercive.

As a Hindu who grew up in the South, I may have a different perspective on this than many of you. I strongly agree with Senator Obama, at least as far as his statements on religion. I don't know exactly how much he "chastised" other Democrats (that seems to be the author's phrasing more than Obama's intent), but if we can't have an open forum of views then we're through as a party anyway. This is something we need to talk about, as it is clearly a real division in the party.

Part of this is cold pragmatism. Frankly, this is not simply an issue of "secularism" vs. "Christian theocracy". There are millions of Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Wiccans, Jains, Buddhists, and members of other faiths in this country, all of whom lose out nearly as badly under one ideology as the other. For those of us who are religious minorities, we're stuck between people who think we're infidels and people who think we're childish morons.

I guess the biggest peeve with me is the fact that people who strongly advocate a completely secular political debate tend to have very asymmetric reactions to people of faith. If the word "God" is just meaningless gobbledygook, why is it such a big deal to just utter the loathsome syllable and get on with your life? I'm not advocating some kind of theocratic state, and I would stand up to anyone who tried to implement any coercive practice of religion, but I have a hard time seeing the deep existential harm that supposedly arises from simply mentioning the concept in passing.

From a coldly pragmatic perspective, I think Obama's strategy is frankly the only one that can work in the long term. If liberals/progressives really want to purge religion from the public square we will frankly lose. However, every fight we pick over small issues like the Pledge or like voluntary prayer groups just radicalizes more Christians and moves us further from the far more achievable goal of pluralism, in which all religious beliefs are valued. In effect, they shuffle coal into the Religious Right's furnace. Americans are usually pretty tolerant, but if their only choices are to take a hard line on something they believe in OR take a hard line on something they disagree with, of course they're going to stick with the former. I just don't understand why liberals should be interested in replacing Christian fundamentalism with secular fundamentalism.

Barack Obama did not not use a Republican frame.

The AP hack writer used a Republican frame to take Obama's quotes out of context.

If you'd read the actual speech, you'd know that the heart of Obama's speech was telling the Religious Right how separation of church and state is necessary. To say that Obama addressed the Religious Right briefly is to totally miss the entire point of what he was saying.

naugiedoggie, you falsely imply that on one side there are religious belivers, and that on the other side there are Democrats. Most Democrats are religious, and Democratic values are a lot closer to the values of the Sermon on the Mount than Republican values.

No, actually, I believe that it is the antireligious "progressives" who want to make the distinction between "religious" and "Democrat." That is why they are making such a stink about this speech. They're claiming that Obama is talking "like a Republican."

The percentage of Americans who admit a religious belief has remained consistently high throughout the 20th and into the 21st century. There may be some petulance among certain disbelievers, who just can't accept what they perceive as "irrational" belief systems.

Leaving aside the consistently rude, derogatory blogging by this group, what is truly offensive and disheartening is the way they attempt to undermine the core political power of the Democratic Party by submarining openly religious candidates. As, in the present instance.

Thanks.

mp

Once upon a time separation of church and state was the cry of religious groups all across the nation. Nobody gave a damn about the athests, agnostics or unitarians. They were worried about each other.

The Baptists in particular wanted to keep churches out of the schools. Why? Well in those days there were lots of denominations with more members than the Baptists. One of them would have assumed the role of "state religion" before the Baptists. The idea of an Episcopalian state church was appalling to them. Hell, they fled the old country to get away from the Church of England.

Protestants were really afraid of the Catholics. European wars between Protestants and Catholics went on for centuries. Until I was full grown, the very idea of money going to Catholic schools was renounced not only as being unconstitutional, but as being evil. Jack Kennedy had to declare himself free of Papist loyalties to have any chance of election. On hearing his comments some Catholics smiled knowingly.

Well those other Protestant denominations have slipped. The Baptists have increased in numbers and political power. Guess what, they want to be the "state religion."

They seek to both rally and poach on the other, now defanged, Protestant denominations. For now they don't want an open fight with the Catholics.

To advance their political agenda and to reintroduce the idea of a state religion, the fundamentalists (mostly Southern Baptists) have cleverly declared "secular humanists" to be the enemy of all "religious people."

How well have they succeeded? Well enough that a lot of non-religous progressives now identify themselves as "secular humanists." They write silly blog posts attacking religious progressives. The non-religious progressives forget that the "fundamentalist" politicians are really enemies of the religous progressives.

The funny thing is that the fundamentalists defined (or perhaps, redefined) term "secular humanist" to describe their enemy in their quest for policial power. I find the willingness of some progressives to trash talk other progressives using fundamentalist vocabulary surpassingly odd.

Ron Byers

The issue is that he repeated a GOP talking point.

What if Obama just said, We Democrats are going try to reach religious and invite you to join us because the Democratic Party values are Christian values of charity, mercy, helping the poor, etc and because people benefit more from Democratic Party policies than republican policies. Something positive. There are many stereotypes and I would like to dispel them. etc.

Instead of chiding Democrats and reinforcing a stereotype.

There were several Democrats who were in that Sojourners meeting reaching out to religious belying his gop talking point claim.

So what's all the hubub, bub? If Obama wants to pander to rightwing fundamentalists, like Dean going on Wacky Pat's 700 Club, so what? It's not like they have any principles anyway. Sheesh! Democrat party voters aren't going to make any demands of them one way or the other, so why not suck up to the theocrats?

Come on, people! Get a clue! You're going to vote for Bob Casey or Hillary or Lieberman or whatever anyway. Why all the phony outrage? Why should you care what Lieberman's Apprentice does or doesn't say about anything?

In Europe, most of the "Christian Democrat" or "Christian Socialist" Parties are very conservative. Case in point is the Christian Social Union of Germany/Bavaria.

So, what's the "message," naugiedoggie? And does it come from God or Jim Wallis?

I'm all ears.

Thank you for making my case, with your absurdly useless comment.

You remind me of a line from Shakespeare, another author I feel sure you haven't read:

Dost thou think, because thou art virtuous, there shall be no more cakes and ale?

In that particular case, the individual being satirically pilloried was a malevolent and obtuse Puritan named, of course, Malvolio. Do you recognize any spiritual affinity in yourself to that "paragon of virtue"?

Do you really think that you are smarter than, better educated than and a better human being than I, simply because I believe in God and you don't? Do you have any conception at all, just how foolish that belief makes you look?

"I believe in the brotherhood of man and the uniqueness of the individual. But if you ask me to prove what I believe, I can't. You know them to be true but you could spend a whole lifetime without being able to prove them. The mind can proceed only so far upon what it knows and can prove. There comes a point where the mind takes a higher plane of knowledge, but can never prove how it got there. All great discoveries have involved such a leap." -- A Einstein

mp

What if Obama just said, we Democrats are going to try to reach religous and invite you to join us because the Democratic party values are Muslim values of monotheism, prayer, charity, fasting, and pilgrimage, and because people benefit more from Democratic party policy than Republican policies.

What if Obama just said, we Democrats are going to reach religious and invite you to join us because the Democratic party values are Wiccan revival values of "an it hurt none, do what thou wilt" and "actions reflect threefold on the actor", and because people benefit more from Democratic party policies than Republican policies. (threefold reflected evil is quite nasty)

What if Obama just said, we Democrats are going to reach religious and invite you to join us because we recommend following the 613 mitzvot (commandments) incumbent on Jews but not Jews, compiled by the Rambam. Please make yourself comfortable and take notes as we review the Democratic mitzvot, because people benefit more from Democratic Party policies than Republican policies.

What if Obama just said, we Democrats are going to reach secular ethical humanists and the Democratic values are the values of the Ethical Culture Resolutions and because people benefit more from Democratic Party policies than Republican policies.

Am I making a point here that there is no unanimity on faith-based policies? In fairness to Obama, he did point out the inherent conflict between absolute faith and pragmatic politics.Was anyone else thinking he was talking about other than some value of Christian values? Was anyone thinking that he was appealing to all faiths being better served by Democrats?
-
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Come on!

The Jerry Falwels, the Bush's, and their ilk have forever tainted religiosity.

6 years (or, if you want to get picky and start from Reagan, 26...) overwhelm several millenia of religious discourse? That's pretty extreme.

I understand your desire for us to base our positions on "morality" rather than faith. That would seemingly eliminate the problem of sectarianism inherent in using religious discourse.

The problem is that to the vast majority of the Americans, the two are connected. Most Americans will recognize that people from other faith traditions can be moral, but few will understand arguments for morality that don't incorporate SOME sort of appeal to faith. Sure, there are secular arguments in favor of "religious morals", but most people don't know them and can't articulate them. It's certainly a lot easier to explain the need to help the poor, prosecute corruption, and fight for civil rights by appealing to standard definitions of "right and wrong" (which nearly all voters associate with their faith traditions) than some abstract, scientifically determined, quantifiable morality.

I also think the idea that this can only result in theocracy to be unpersuasive. A lot of the reason that Catholics, Protestants, and Jews (and even some Muslims) are working together now after thousands of years of conflict is that they all perceive a common enemy in people who are adamant about purging religion from the public sphere. Let any one of them gain an upper hand for even a second and we'll go back to a "mutually assured destruction" model in which minority faiths strongly advocate for pluralism. To me, pluralism is the best we can expect.

Given the general quality of the negative comment on his speech, I think his point was well made. He's not saying that members of the party should stop spouting antireligous opinion. He's suggesting that the party leadership should stop catering to them.

I agree. I find it hilarious that many people will go to great lengths to celebrate exotic cultural differences...except the religious ones. To a great extent, religion and culture cannot be separated.

The extreme positions of the religious right are best addressed and discredited by christians from the left, not by the antireligious left. Those positions are frequently inconsistent with biblical christian values. Let the debate be framed in that context, and it can be isolated as a christian debate. Muzzle the religious left and intellectual dismissal is spun into religious persecution, which is what the religious right wants. It is you who are playing into their position, not Barrack Obama.

The fact that evildoers publicly justify their psychopathology with religious cloaks is not the fault of religion. The absurd premise is that if there were no religious believers, these evildoers would somehow cease doing evil. The history of the 20th Century ought to be sufficient proof against that theory.

Or, have the chanters of "never again" yet forgotten Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot? And the millions of apparatchiks that carried out their evil plans?

Harris at the outer fringe of that group of self-styled progressives who merely use that label as a cover for their deeply antireligious prejudices. When I read that passage in his book, where he suggests criminal penalties not just for those who commit crimes but for those who "enable" criminal behavior by believing in God, it was a real eyeopener. He and his crowd have no more respect for individual liberties than Jerry Falwell or James Dobson. And yet, the fact that he uses the progressive doublespeak gets him a free ride within these circles.

I do not doubt that leaders of the so-called religious right are evil men. But it is not religious belief that makes them evil, it is their choices of behaviors and lifestyles that make them evil -- they are so by action and by intention. I, for one, look at the actor and the action, not at the justification.

And, as many comments in the followup to the original article have evidenced, the rightwingers do not have a corner on vindictive self-righteousness.

thanks.

mp

My problem with what Obama said is that he seems to think Democrats aren’t religious. He also seems to think that if Christians are allowed to pray, they will act like Christians.

The public high school my daughters go to has had a Gay Straight Club for a few years. This year a Christian Club was formed. The Gay Straight Club held a “Day of Silence” at the end of this year so that students that empathized with the plight of gay students could show support by being silent for the day. The Christian Club was offended by the Day of Silence, so the school allowed them to have a “Day of Truth”. The Christian club students handed out pamphlets stating “facts” such as the large number of partners that gay men have and the short lifespan of gay men due to their lifestyle.

Obama says, "I think we should put more of our tax dollars into educating poor girls and boys, and give them the information about contraception that can prevent unwanted pregnancies, lower abortion rates, and help assure that that every child is loved and cherished. " I doubt that the right wing Christians that Obama wants to appease in school would agree to this. Real Christians would tolerate others’ beliefs and realize that they don’t have to check their own beliefs at the door. Their faith is within them and cannot be taken away. Like the song says, “They Will Know We are Christians by Our Love.”

Naugiedoggie,

I don't know Ellen. I have never met her. I have seen her post several messages, and I have sometimes disagreed with her. But I do not think that her, or her comment, deserved these viscious comments that you just meted out to her. She never said that she was smarter than you. She never said that she was more educated than you. And she never said that she was a better human being than you. You are just assuming that she said or believes these things. Just as you seem to assume that most "progressives" adhere to this hard-line, anti-religious stance. And to be honest, after reading some of your posts, you seem to act like the very people that you are criticising.

If you are religious, whatever your denomination, that's fine. I respect that. But you should show some respect to those who do not have religious beliefs at all. I like to fancy myself progressive and a firm believer in the separation of church and state. I am also agnostic (a lapsed Catholic), and I have never thought that I was smarter, better, morally superior, or more humane than you or anyone else - whether they adhere to a religious belief or not. And I have many "progressive" friends and I know they all feel the same way.

But there is another item that I want to address. Specifically the treatment of agnostics, athiests, and "non-religious adherents." Many people - both left and right, seem to automatically think that we are smug, elitist, contemptuous of people of faith, without a moral center, immoral, etc. Somehow, by just being agnostic, and somehow, by just mentioning that you are agnostic makes people think that you are elitist and other things. I will state that this is not the case with a lot of the people that I know. I am sure that there are some religiously intolerant progressives, but most of us believe that religion is a personal matter, and respect other people's beliefs. Yes, I am aware that I do not have other facts or statistics to back this up.

I would also like to state that it is very difficult being agnostic in the U.S. right now. I constantly feel like my beliefs are under siege. I constantly feel like the government, especially this administration, is trying to impose their beliefs on me and dictate what I can and can not do. And I constantly feel marginalized in the public debate (such as when some conservative Christian pundits talk about, and imply, how "morally superior" they are). And I constantly feel like I am less of an American then others. Maybe this is the reason why many agnostics, atheists, "non-religous people," and people who are religious minorities are so defensive about this issue. There was another poster above who mentioned being one of the 3-4 Jewish families in his/her small town, and the difficulties he/she faced. As Bill Clinton would say, "I feel your pain."

Anyway, naugiedoggie, I apologize if I seem to be picking on you specifically. It is 8:00 pm and I am still at work, and I have not had a chance to read every post. And your post just stood out to me. And if there are anti-religious posters who were contemptuous of people's faith, well, they are wrong too.

Or, have the chanters of "never again" yet forgotten Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot? And the millions of apparatchiks that carried out their evil plans?

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"aid and comfort"? What kind of phrasing is that? We're not talking about some kind of terrorist, we're talking about people who share my opinion about an issue but differ with my opinion on its importance and on electoral tactics. I might suggest that they should focus on bigger things than two words in a pledge. But we should respect that the Bill of Rights is simply more important to those folks than it is to either of us, just as I must respect that someone's prayer is more important to them then it is to me.

You say that having it both ways doesn't work anymore, but what exactly do you want to do? Non-Christians are always good to be with us, they aren't going to go away and they aren't going to be quiet. What exactly do you intend to do with them? They aren't going to listen to a memo from either of us or Senator Obama.

If you want the non-Christians to respect Christians, then you have to respect the non-Christians. But I think one of Obama's points holds true--people will respect someone who stands up for what he or she believes even if they don't share faith. Most liberals believe that people of all faiths or the lack thereof are entitled to respect--if we turn from that principle for pragmatic reasons, that could very well backfire.

I'm not particularly concerned if a candidate, when asked directly, comes out in favor of "under God", but if a candidate, on their own initiative, campaigns against seperation of church and state or secularists more broadly, they will certainly lose my respect if not my vote.

Please explain in concrete terms how 10 kids holding a prayer meeting in a classroom before school is "coercive."

IMO, the whole argument is absurd. You want to coerce me into pretending that I don't believe in God by never mentioning my faith or acting on my religious beliefs in public. Because if, say, you saw me and my family praying at table before a meal in a restaurant, you would feel -- "coerced."

And, if your kids walked down the hallway in school and looked in a doorway and there were ten kids in an otherwise unused classroom holding a Bible reading or praying, they'd feel "coerced."

And yet, you have no problem with invoking the power of the State to coerce me into public repudiation of my faith.

It is just beyond ridiculous. No wonder this F'ing party can't win an election.

mp

"90 percent of us believe in God, 70 percent affiliate themselves with an organized religion, 38 percent call themselves committed Christians, and substantially more people in America believe in angels than they do in evolution."

I guess Obama believes in my moron theory.

Given this religious demographic, there is no way Democrats - even religious ones like Obama - are EVER going to be able to compete with the rightwingnuts.

Irrationality responds to irrationality - not rationality.

It's that simple.

America is doomed because it's people are lost. Big surprise.

MaryH makes a strong argument. One comment, though, stood out to me: "I doubt that the right wing Christians that Obama wants to appease in school would agree to this."

Perhaps this is the purpose of Barack Obama's remarks or ideas -- to appease the right-wing. But such a comment assumes that Obama is not motivated by genuine conviction. (I almost typed "belief," but that was too punny even for me.) It implies that Obama's suggested approach and policies cannot be intellectually valid; they can only be ploys, tokens in a political game.

I've seen a number of comments akin to this on "the left," among "some Democrats." I can't say whether their authors intend to delegitimize religiously-informed thinking. But that is the effect of these comments. It is chilling and makes the progressive left -- or even the Democratic Party -- an uncomfortable place for many religious folks of a variety of faiths.

I don't mean that people with strong feelings against political uses of religion, like Sundog or hcberkowitz, shouldn't express them.* But I worry that "some Democrats" don't realize the implications of their comments on religion and politics. Or rather, that they don't realize how their comments sound to the moderate middle. In other words, if you think that conclusions derived from a religious background or perspective cannot be legitimate, say so. But if that's not what you think, be careful to not say that.

It's a strawman to say that Democrats a) have no faith and b) want to purge any religious thought from the public sphere. But it's also inaccurate to claim that "religious people" want to impose a theocracy. In both cases, some members of the group do pursue an extreme agenda. But neither stereotype is correct.

*Apologies to Sundog and hcb for taking their names in vain and for lumping them together. I don't intend to misrepresent the position of either one, but I couldn't come up with a better shorthand.

There are actually Christian Anarchists - and they aren't taken seriously by just about any other anarchist faction, because to be submissive to ANYBODY - including "God" - simply isn't in the anarchist lexicon.

Bakunin once wrote a paen to the Devil for exactly that reason.

And the individualist anarchists have been reading Nietzsche for decades.

The point is that talking religion when you are discussing politics or society is either obvious pandering or demonstrating that you have no rational argument to make for your political positions.

If you want to talk religion TO religious people for the point of establishing your PERSONAL CHARACTER in THEIR TERMS, then it would make sense to do so - provided those are actually your beliefs (the point where the Republicans fall down, since most of them are hypocrites.)

But religion and political philosophy do not mix.

You seem to be mixing the public and private spheres. I certainly wouldn't feel coerced by your family praying, at reasonable volume, in a public restaurant. "Reasonable volume" is a social matter that applies to prayer or quarterback controversies; it's when your sound intrudes into my reasonable expectation of privacy.

Not long ago, I had dinner with the parents of one of my housemates. The son and the parents are Greek Orthodox, and the wife is neopagan. It is customary, in their family, to hold hands in community while the elder asks a blessing. It was understood and accepted -- and in a private setting -- that the personal relationships are such that all join hands, but those not of the religion do not repeat the prayer. The grandfather had the elegance to ask God's blessing on those present, but as his request, not implying that the unbelievers also asked the blessing. Personally, I feel it the height of poor taste to ask for the blessing of a being I do not acknowledge.

Now, let's take the school example. Under some circumstances, it might be harmless, if children always respected the autonomy of others. Let us say, for example, that among those doing bible study are the head cheerleader and the quarterback. Might there just be a bit of social, not theological, pressure to participate? What if a believer asks a youngster, eager for approval, to join? At the K-12 level, I'm concerned about peer pressure. I'm less concerned about a similar activity at a public college, just as I think that college students usually are mature enough to study comparative religion. Enrollment in such a class is voluntary.

How I am I asking you to repudiate your faith when you commune, in your mind and heart, with your deity? Why must your prayer be heard by other mortals? Is your deity not strong enough to be heard inside by those she desires to contact?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

You are attacking a straw man.  Everyone can find individuals in every political party who are anti-religious or anti-Christian.  There are just so many of us in total, that it wouldn't be possible not to be able to do that.  The stereotype the Republicans most certainly have set up is that the Democratic Party is anti-Christian, and that just isn't true.  My experience is that most Democrats, or at least those I have known, oppose mixing religious beliefs in government.  And, that includes Democrats who are devout Christians, as well as those who are not.  None of us, to my knowledge, has said that announcing that you believe in Christ means you are talking like a Republican.  In fact every Democratic president I can remember has announced that he is a Christian, and most Congressmen and Senators likewise.

Of course we need all Democrats to vote for Democrats in order to win.  That is a given. 

Hoppy in Sacramento

Her specific example demonstrates how it is "coercive".

If someone is unable to follow along in a group religious exercise because of their religious beliefs - or lack of any such - then they can be and will be singled out by such inability to participate.

This will INEVITABLY result in a negative reaction from the primates who are participating. This is basic human nature.

Your argument that you are being "coerced by the state into publicly repudiating your faith" is bullshit. By not requiring you to publicly declare your beliefs in a state forum (the classroom), you are NOT being prevented from declaring your beliefs OUTSIDE that state-supported public forum, let alone being required to "repudiate" anything. You can run up and down the street declaring your beliefs like every other religious nut in the country. Who cares? But banding together with other nuts and then singling out the lone recalcitrant who doesn't agree with you IS coercive when it is mandated by the state.

The fact that you don't even know what is and is not coercive clearly shows where you stand on coercive religion.

You're either missing or disregarding the point that this was a political speech by Obama. No one has problems with his faith or his being "openly" religious. He has talked about his faith generally or to private audiences before. So? This was a speech about instituting Christianity into progressive politics. George Bush is the president of the most powerful country in the history of the world. When he talks about crusades and missions and listening to God, he is not just a street corner preacher.

P.S. I don't think people are that rude here. Believe me, I've looked at some of the right wing sites... 

I must preface this by saying it is a dark and stormy night to be lumped with dog(s). At the moment, my hosts are with grandchildren at a lake. I am taking care of seven dogs and one cat.

Roc is a Labrador Retriever "puppy" of, oh, 70 pounds or so. He has been having friendly dominance battles with Logan, the alpha Golden Retriever of 90 pounds or so.

It is hot here, and I keep refilling a 4x2 foot tray of water. As I brought it to the top, Roc and Logan started wrestling, Roc overbalanced, and 70 pounds of dog flailed backwards into the water trough.

S*p*l*o*o*s*h

There was an awed silence. I may have seemed supernatural in canine terms, when I picked both up and dried them.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

DucKofDeath saiD:
"Secularists have moved mankind forward, all the while fighting religion and superstition."

Some of know the history of the Civil Rights movement in the Black community, and how it was church-centered and pushed the US forward.
Pure secularism has led to the development of music that went from Black Pride in the 60's to a belief that somehow a "battle" was fought and won by taking a word, n....., and freely using it in song to describe people you are gunning down or threatening. Women are described as female dogs. A timeline could be drawn from the onset of a decrease of religion in the public square to increased drug use, decreased desire for education, and increased hopelessness
While some may feel that religion is the "opiate of the masses", others feel that a decrease in discussion of religion in the public square has been disasterous.
I too fear religious right zealots, but I fear secular humanist zealots equally.

I agree. However, we Transhumans won't be using bullets - we will be using technology way more effective than that. The religious morons will be using bullets - or maybe clubs, since that's where their technological sophistication seems to match their intellectual prowess.

As the Church of the SubGenius says, the "Rapture" will turn into the "Rupture".

Correction here I was replying to Transhuman's post
regarding Obama. There are Whites, Latinos, etc in the political arena who value there religion.
Transhuman's Obama-Black politician comment comes off as unintentionally offensive and condescending.
I think that's how moderate and liberal Christians are interpreting some of the posts here.
Transhuman is not a rascist, but his comment is so dismissive that it could be seen as such.

debcoop

I suggest you go back and read about the Air Force Academy at Colorado Springs. The upperclassmen, ( the officers) and therefore more powerful people in the academy would enforce prayer (Christian) at the communal dining tables. Tell me how that was voluntary. Tell me how that is not coercive for a Jewish or Muslim cadet sitting at that table.

Or being asked, while standing at attention and saluting, if one is "right with Jesus" and why don't you attend the Bible study group-- is that voluntary?

The social ostracism in school for those who don't participate in that Bible study group in that unused classroom is the same kind of, if lesser, coercion.

I am an observing Jew, a synagogue going Jew; I care enough about my religion that I even, with much effort, learned Hebrew. The separation of Church and State has allowed America to be the kind of country where I can worship God in the traditions my faith --- not the dominant religion's faith.

The person in question made a sarcastic reference to God and Jim Wallis and, as far as I am concerned, her direct intent was to ridicule my statements both with respect to my faith and with respect to my political position.

You are free to make some other assumption, but in my experience, people make those kinds of snide commentaries directly from a feeling of smug superiority.

No, not every progressive is to be condemned, of course. I'm pretty specifically addressing a branch of what I would call pseudo-progressives who self-identify with their antireligious sentiments. They're all over the "blogosphere" and, it seems, seldom miss an opportunity to dump some contemptuous remark on religious believers.

What incenses me is that they are directly destructive of the best chances the Democratic Party has of achieving success at the polls. There is, perhaps, a kind of "dog in the manger" attitude among them. It's as though they'd rather see a Rick Santorum elected than a Barak Obama who professes his religious faith. For them, profession of religious faith in a Democrat seems akin to apostasy. You'd have to be dumber than a box of rocks to think that any candidate is going to get elected by alienating people who have religious beliefs of any kind.

Three passions, simple but overwhelming strong, have ruled my life: the longing for love, the search for knowledge and unbearable pity for the suffering of mankind.

I've found love, achieved a tiny measure of knowledge and every day am overwhelmed by pity. What I have, is not by justification but by grace. And so, I give thanks, every day and every day do something to make the world a better place for someone.

But, I am not a patient man or even, frankly, a particularly "nice" one, and I'm just fed up. Last Sunday, after church I gave a presentation about my trip to New Orleans to help with the post-Katrina rebuilding in March. You know what I didn't meet when I was in Chalmette, LA? Droves of pseudo-progressive atheists and their various fellow-travellers, sacrificing paychecks and time to relieve one of the great disasters of modern times. No, the tents were filled with Christians of every denomination, though.

So, that pack of Christian bashers wants me to not pray in public or even mention the word "God" within their hearing -- well, they can go piss up a rope. It's a free country ... they're free to leave the room if they find my profession of faith so offensive. Just as I'm free to tell them to zip it when they come on with their Snidely Whiplash routines.

Thanks.

mp

Please feel free to apply my favorite definition of zealot to the extreme secular as well as the extreme religious. "A zealot is one who would be happy to explain, to an omniscient deity, what the deity's correct action should have been had the deity been in possession of all the facts."

A key problem is that much public religious practice is not discussion. It is coercion. If we were talking about true discussion, I might come to different conclusions.

A sectarian prayer, offered in the name of all present at a public event, is coercion, especially when the option of silence is discouraged.

Considering Aquinas' Principle of Double Effect, along with Sufi traditions of the transcendental value of suffering, and the views on death and dying of Elizabeth Kubler-Ross, at a hospital medical ethics committee grappling with specific comfort issues, is discussion.

Aside from being incredibly inflammatory, George W. Bush describing American actions in Iraq as a "crusade" is not discussion. It is assigning religious value to political actions.

There can be respect that is not discussion. I'm reminded of Saladin the Kurd sending a gallant charger to Richard the Lion-Hearted, so they could fight honorably for their opposed faiths.

Telling a Jehovah's Witness or Buddhist or Hindu to pledge allegiance "under God" is coercion.

I offer the advice of Talleyrand to young French diplomats, "above all, no zeal." Talleyrand spoke of the realities of diplomacy and politics, not of what Otto called the numinous experience of the holy.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Let’s don’t go PC here. This is a place of open discussion and debate. I think Transhuman’s comments are often intentially offensive and condescending (tho not racist). I thank him for that.

mlk is a hero to many of us. I will never confuse MLK with Obama, even if you do. I remember King stepping out from the comfort of a relationship with LBJ to speak about the injustice of the Vietnam war and how it diverted and corrupted the focus of the US from the injustice at home and abroad. I am open to your helping me understand just when and where Obama has similarly stepped out from the comfort of his centrist positions? I would really appreciate your pointingme to where Obama showed leadership; probably with his stand against filibustering against Alito. Or maybe his record vis-a-vis Iraq?

Can't say much about the rebuilding groups, but I do know a fair bit about medical, veterinary, public health, and other specialized volunteers. There were everything from atheists to physician-priests.

If I may, I would most sincerely like to ask you a question. Correct me if I misunderstand, but my understanding of most Christian belief is that God is omniscient. An omniscient being knows what is in your mind and heart. Why do you feel the need to pray aloud? That utterly baffles me, unless it's an attempt to influence other human beings.

If it is such an attempt, and it's intended to proselytize, I'm still puzzled. I can think of several devout friends, one Southern Baptist, two Greek Orthodox, a Mormon, a Buddhist, several [deist] Unitarians, and a couple of Catholics. Their commitment, as well as what seems to be their inner peace, says more to me about the strength of their faith than any formal liturgy.

In some neopagan traditions, liturgy and ritual are ways to focus one's concentration. My own experience there is that silence, and sometimes movements, is more profound than speech.

I really don't know what you mean by a Snidely Whiplash routine, or if I can do one. In a disaster situation, I'd be the last in the world to interfere with whatever comfort the victims can get from religion. That needs to be voluntary, or at least where the religion of an unconscious victim is known.

For the opposite extreme, I happened to be working in a Catholic hospital, where a Baptist nurse unilaterally decided to baptize every newborn, in no special danger, in the nursery, including some that she knew were Orthodox Jews. As soon as this was discovered, she was removed by security, and that was probably as much for her protection from outraged clinical Jesuits as from parents. Her acts, to me, were utterly reprehensible.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

What incenses me . . . I am not a patient man or even, frankly, a particularly "nice" one . . . they can go piss up a rope.  Naugiedoggie

I guess we should thank our lucky stars -- or something -- that naugiedoggie, as he says, "found love."

I don't think it is what he says, its what he doesn't say. I don't know what it is about Obama but I feel as though I am waiting for him to say something profound, and every time he opens his mouth nothing comes out. It is dead silence on the major issues of the day, not in a literal sense, but he adds nothing to the great debate. If he continues to do that, people will begin to read whatever they want into what he is saying. If that happens he will be defined in the worst possible light. The Obama honeymoon is over, he needs to start speaking more aggressively or I think he will find his future opportunities and outlook begin rapidly contracting. The myths about him as a warrior poet are deflating. He is becoming the cardboard man, a prop, a doppelganger, a shadow of himself.

he was preaching to the progressive religious choir as it were

Apparently in a black evangelical church with a gospel choir at that. You know, the kind of people that used to be called "the base" of the Democratic party, that was before a bunch of more "highly educated" bunch of white guys created something called the liberal blogosphere in order to do things like assist the downtrodden ignorant religious minority masses, whether they like it or not.

:-)

You are implying things I did not say or imply. By now, you should know I'm not shy; if I want to imply something, I'm apt to be as subtle as a baseball bat. If I had said that the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church, had come up, it certainly would be reasonable to assume that I was considering his Christianity. Even if I had cited the title of his major work, Summa Theologica, one might make that assumption.

But I didn't mention either, did I? I spoke specifically of the Principle of Double Effect, which you'll find in a great many secular writings on medical ethics, because it is an excellent structure for real-world decisions.

The most common example of its use is whether it is ethical to use large doses of opioid painkillers, if:

1. The primary effectis to relieve suffering


2. There may be a second effect of reducing respiratory drive, which may hasten death. That second effect is not the principal purpose.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

The last time I was at a religious memorial service, it was, in principle, Christian-Muslim. This is a clan from Sierra Leone, now ranging from immigrants to second generation, who I'm proud to call extended family.

The Christian preacher managed to offend everyone, one way or another, with his sermon. We only really grasped fire and brimstone, however, when he grabbed a microphone and made squawking noises that he confused with singing.

Most of the inlaws of the immigrants are long-time Philadelphians. One of them nudged me, and with a big grin, whispered "How did a white boy like you learn to sing gospel so well?"

Believe me, if there was any chance to drown out the idiot shrieking into the microphone, that was enough to inspire my voice. I suppose I got too wrapped up in the music. If I had used good sense, I would have excused myself and killed power to the PA system.

The Muslim part of the ceremony, incidentally, was dignified and warming.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

P.S. to my comment: I must confess I made a big mistake & went over to Kos to see what was being written there on this, got all riled up. I did find a comment I liked very much, tho:

....i'm so sick of this. y'all self-proclaimed "netroots" representatives of the Dem party are so full of shit you don't even realize that another base of the party--minority evangelicals, doesn't agree with the secular white blogosphere....

:-)

Howard: to your Sierra Leone family story--interesting stuff but my experience is that any church that does gospel music is not compatible with the "fire & brimstone" variety--the latter types don't go in for all that naughty dancing in the aisles & stuff.

Yes but in the speech he testifies to a born-again experience, so I tend to think this is not so much a case of "pandering," that it comes from his core beliefs. And if that part was in fact, cynically conceived, that would be a pretty serious example of dishonesty, not merely Bill Clinton flashing a bible on the way to church during the Monica crisis.

Someday perhaps one of these Christians might even aspire to the highest office in the land!

why does Obama have to read the "Democrats are uncomfortable with religion" script? It's just ceding ground, it's unwise, unnecessary, and a betrayal of many of the people who support his party.

Well, you prove the point, you seem very uncomfortable with religion. So are many commenters on this thread. So are the blog links Nathan gave. Can't you see you're proving Obama correct?

First, I don't believe you read the speech in full, it happens to be an attack on right wing fundamentalist Christianity. You bring all kinds of points that don't even relate to his speech at all; indeed even if you had read Nathan's summary

Second, you seem to be upset that atheists are not being pandered to. Atheists are a tiny minority in this country. I hate to tell you this, but the Democratic party has never been anti-religion. Matter of fact, a big part of its base used to be Catholic, now a lot of its minority base are church-going Christians. (I myself am an atheist some days, an agnostic on others, so I've paid attention to such matters.)

Um, the situation is that electoral politics in this country are all about "majority rules," you know, democracy. Your protection as a minority is in the courts, the judiciary, interpreting separation of church & state. If you want a political party that panders to atheists, it will surely not win many elections in this country.

I read the speech. I thought it nice, full of old time sappy sentimental old liberal classic themes (certainly not up to my own cynical elitist cosmpolitian snob standards, but I am not foolish enough to expect that in a speech from a politician who wants to win elections.)

Al Gore said it so much better in 9 simple words in 1999:

...freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion...

There was no breech of separation of church & state in anything Obama suggested, not as it has been interpreted since the founding of this country, a country that the founders wanted to make sure people could practice all kinds of religion in. They weren't concerned about too much religion, they were concerned about a single state religion preventing others from practicing.

Where have so many people on the left gotten the idea that the Democratic party is "the secular party"? It seems almost crazy to me. And where have you in particular gotten the idea that atheists are a significant constituency for them? We are a tiny tiny minority! This is a religious country! Leave the echo chambers accessed from the keyboard once in a while, take off the blinders, see the reality.

Serious problem?

Not until a reliable poll tells us how many voters who pulled the lever for the Republican would have voted for the Democrat if only the voters' perception had been different.

For all any of us knows, the number may be vanishingly small and not a "serious problem," at all.

Indeed, there was no "racist" intent - simply a recognition of the fact that black politicians and black preachers seem to go together, certainly in the three main examples I gave. I could also cite Cecil Williams here at Glide Church in San Francisco, who is known for combining the two in the service of his church and ministering to the poor here in San Francisco.

And as an atheist and anarchist, I consider a preacher-politician to be the worst of all possible combinations, representing lying and irrationality at its finest.

I think the word you're searching for is - politician.

Heh, at this point, I probably would have shot the dog...

:-)

Or died laughing myself...

There is a big difference between admitting the place of religious belief in public life and putting religious behavor in government.

Naugiedoggie would you agree to substitute agnostic for religious in that sentence ? Or do you believe that the beliefs of agnostics have less of a place in public life than do the beliefs of those who are religious ?

My 16 years of Catholic education left me with the beliefs that:

o there is no god

o that many believers do great good and that

o the position of the Church is that a Catholic Government must discriminate in favor , not just of believers , but of Catholicism because "Error can not be granted equal standing with the truth"as was well demonstrated in 2004 by the Bishops who , in effect , campaigned against Kerry because of his position on abortion.

Certainly other religions are more tolerant but when you state that religious belief has a place in public life you are stating that for all religions , tolerant or not , that place is elevated over the place accorded the beliefs of the non religious, like me. Can you understand why that is to ask me to accept second class citizenship ?

"Militantly secularist - a cultic religion"

Good morning, GOP talking point!

one is free to leave

Religious people need to keep their fantasies out of my life. I guess I'll just formulate a religion, Church of Mars, and make all of their kids pray to it in school. If I wanted prayer, I'd go to church - which is where religion and its gods belong. And may ET bless you and be with you. Just keep him away from me.

The closed-mindedness of the zealot secular humanists is identical to that of the wingnut religious right. Similar condescending verbal venom from both groups. I would probably feel equally comfortable in their company.
Doubt that I would want members of either side making political decisions for me.
Religion is not going away so there willbe ongoing intra-party and extra-party battles.
Such is life

First of all, we are not really talking about religion here. Obama is a politician talking about politics. This is about conservative, born-again, evangelical, religious-issue voters. They have taken over the Republican Party, destroyed what it stands for, and split it apart. The one thing these voters do not understand is compromise. They will never accept any kind of wall of separation between church and state, not even a weak one. It's Yahweh or the highway. I am all for reclaiming the moral and/or liberal religious high ground on issues that affect the American people. But I am not interested in pandering to religious right voters by telling them Democrats will work to create a stronger religious presence in public policy. The Republicans can tell you what happens when you try that.

Discimination? Really? And yet every candidate that the left runs for national office always claims to be a "person of faith." If anyone's being discriminated against, it's the secularists. Our party never even runs agnostic candidates, much less athesists.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

Here's what I believe.

o It's a free country. If you feel like being religious , be religious. If you feel like being an agnostic , be an agnostic.

 o There are religious believers who do good, and ones who do harm.Ditto for agnostics.

o There is no "place" for religion in public life . There is no "place" for agnosticism in public life.

Finally , at a time when we are  worried by what we consider  the harm done by the "religious" eduction in the madrases isn't it more than a little contradictory to also say OBTW we ought to have more religion in our schools  . Just asking.

[I preface my remarks with the disclaimer that the Canine Comedy Channel gave me three hours of sleep, probably an hour of sweeping up shredded napkins and unidentifiable things, and a greeting of large paws in a very uncomfortable place. This may be a progressive hell.]

Are you not confusing minority protection in the Constitution with the "majority rules" political process? First, there's nothing wrong with a political party pushing values based on a religion. For instance, if you as a minority feel that the school prayer laws enacted by the majority in your locality infringe on your constitutional rights, your recourse is the courts if politics isn't working for you.

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Mike

I've heard Obama live and read his texts, and his autobiography.  This isn't enough to say I know him well, and he hasn't been on the national scene long enough for anyone to really say he/she knows him well.  I've come to think a lot about  rhetoric and rhetorical styles lately, and my tentative conclusion is that Obama uses (revives?) a rhetorical style with which we've become unfamiliar: the narrative.  Obama tells stories, perhaps the oldest narrative style of all.  The point of the narrative is the story told, the moral.  Like good storytellers, Obama doesn't slam the story home by saying "this is what the story means".  He assumes we're intelligent enough to deduce that for ourselves.  And mostly we are, I think.

IF we expect a policy-wonkish bullet-listed, power point presentation of great ideas, and great sub ideas (test to be given later) we won't get it from Obama.  If we want loins-girding, whack the political enemy hip and thigh, brilliantly forumulated rotweiller-type attacks, we won't get them from Obama, either.  But this isn't important,  We've got others on the Democratic/liberal team which are very good at those sorts of things.  We need people who can do those sorts of things.  I value those sorts of things  I need those sorts of things to keep me focussed and energized.

But I think that the liberal side of the political spectrum is lacking in good storytellers.  We've become  less aware of how important the story is as a tool.  Stories may be the keys which open minds to considering issues, policies, and the like.  If one doesn't need having one's mind changed, one may get bored and think that nothing profound is being said.  But then, we have a phrase for that, "preaching to the choir".  We already know what we want the storyteller to tell us, so we don't need the story ourselves. 

But we're not the only ones here, and if all we want are political leaders to convince us of the rightness of what we already know we're going to keep losing elections.  The last time I heard Obama speak live it was a really amazing experience.  Other poitician-speakers had their applause lines down pat to the very gestures they used, and they worked.  The crowd (this was at the Take Back America Conference a red-meat crowd if there ever is one) responded enthusiastically and physically to Kerry and Feingold, less so to Clinton, whose waffling on Iraq went over like a fart at a funeral, and talked right through Tom Vilsack as if he simply wasn't there. 

When Obama spoke, the room fell silent, and it was the silence of absolute attention.  People responded to what he said by nodding almost to them selves, and what was interesting in my part of the room, by catching each other's eye and nodding to each other.  Those nods said "he's right".  When he finished speaking the audience went wild. 

What he said was compelling, though I couldn't tell you precisely what he had to say. I  know it connected to most of that crowd at the emotional level as much as the intellectual level.  I'm convinced that a story is the way to make the minds of the those unconvinced by the the kind of speaker pjv wants open to the ideas which seem so self-evident to us.  Warriors aren't always the most successful vote getters.  People resent being whacked, whacked, and whacked again.  If they get too many bruises their minds shut off.  

When I was a kid in the 1950s my high school invited Hubert Humphrey to speak to us.  He was Senator of Minnesota at that time...just about a the start of his national career.  My school was a private Christian Pieteist school, and Iwould guess that 90% of the parents were republicans.  The administration was so worried that Humphrey would get a rude and rowdy welcome that it called a pre-assembly assembly to warn us to be on our best behavior.  Well, of course Humphrey had us eating out of his hand within two minutes, and by the time he finished we were on our feet cheering.  He never bashed republicans.  I don't think he even used the word democrat, except perhaps in a self-deprecating joke.

A year later, I wore a button "If I were 21, I'd vote for Nixon". (blush)  A year after that, I was a democrat, and I've been on the  left of the party ever since.  Humphrey started the process and set me on my current path by proving that democrats weren't demons; that they were thoughtful, and even funny on occasion. 

If Obama can convince enough moderates, traditional conservatives, (i.e. people for whom conservatism is a family position--the my grandfather voted republican, my father voted republican, and by golly, that makes me republican too) that left liberals aren't baby-eating ogres, and may just have some ideas about social justice worth listening to, then he may just help us win an election and become the majority voice in this country.  The more policy focussed, the more "aggressive" speakers will be able to perform their functions slipping through the openings created by Obama's stories.

Mike

How many times does a local majority get to bring up variants on a process about which the Court has been quite clear, such that the minority has to incur the cost of challenge?

As often as they want.  Of course, the court retains the right to refuse to hear the case, or overturn the process, or maybe decide the new variant is appropriate.  One perhaps wishes they wouldn't, but courts have been quite clear about things in the past and perhaps we're happy that they later decided they were quite wrong.  Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education come to mind.  No, I'm not advocating public prayer in the public square.  I don't approve of it.  But I  do  approve of our system which never accepts a received truth as an absolute truth. 

You are expressly taking things out of context. What I wrote was:

That isn't to say that theologians don't contribute to secular ethics; Aquinas comes up in almost any discussion of bioethics or just war.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

If you'd read the actual speech

The speech is irrelevant. The point of the post to which you're responding is how the WaPo reported it.

That's how politics works. It's the media's representation of the speech that helps shape opinion.

Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.

First, let's be clear about what he did and did not say.

Prayer in schools: He said we should not be threatened by voluntary student groups praying in school buildings. He did not even hint at supporting organized, school-sanctioned prayers. This position is consistent with both the Supreme Court and the ACLU.

In School District of Abington Township v. Schempp (1963), the Supreme Court ruled that a Pennsylvania law requiring Bible reading and the recitation of the Lord's Prayer every morning violated the Establishment Clause even if students are permitted to leave the room during the recitation. In Engel v. Vitale (1962) and again in Lee v. Weisman (1992), the Supreme Court said that even a "non-denominational prayer" is unconstitutional because government has no business writing prayers.

The ACLU was a staunch supporter, along with groups like the Family Research Council and the Christian Legal Society, of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act that was passed in 2000, as well as the Equal Access Act, which guarantees that religious groups have the same access to public facilities that any other community groups do.

In 1993, The ALCU filed briefs defending the Lamb's Chapel in support of their claim against a school district for not allowing them access to school facilities to show a series of anti-abortion films (all other community groups were allowed to rent school facilities and the Equal Access Act says they cannot discriminate against religious groups).

In 2005, the ACLU joined a lawsuit supporting second-grader's right to sing "Awesome God" at a talent show.

In 2004, the ACLU of Nevada defended a Mormon student who was suspended after wearing a T-shirt with a religious message to school. That same year, the ACLU threatened legal action against the Falmouth Waterside Park, a government-run state park in Virginia, because they had told a the minister of a local Baptist church that they could no longer baptise people in the park.

In 2003, the ACLU defended the right of an elementary school student who wanted to hand out candy canes to his classmates with a card attached that had a Christian message on it.

In 2002, the ACLU supported right of Iowa students to distribute Christian literature at school.

The pledge and "under God." Obama said he didn't think non-believers should take offense, because they're not being brainwashed by these words. Unfortunately, he misses the point that some of us are offended because of the passion of our religious belief. We do not wish to either have our religious language watered down to meaninglessness or pay homage to some empty, nationalistic diety.

Let me explain (I'm not the origin of these toughts):

The Supreme Court’s recent ruling on whether “under God” should be part of the Pledge of Allegiance passed with relatively little notice, since the case was rejected on procedural grounds, but if we consider Elk Grove Unified School v. Newdow theologically, with the conviction that God ultimately refers to the Creator-Redeemer met in Israel and Jesus Christ, then the “God” Americans are to pledge their nation to be “under” is at worst an idol and at best the true God’s name taken in vain.

Although the court did not officially rule on the pledge’s inclusion of the God-phrase, some justices took it upon themselves to argue in favor of it anyway and their reasonings are theologically telling.

Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s opinion summarizes the basic attitude underlying the theologically germane aspects of the government’s argument and the court’s response. Mindful of legal and constitutional precedents, Rehnquist knew that the God-phrase must be stripped of theological content to qualify as an admissible declaration in a government-sanctioned pledge. He asserts bluntly that the pledge, with the God-phrase, is not a “religious exercise.” The pledge instead “is a declaration of belief in allegiance and loyalty to the United States flag and the Republic that it represents.” As a “commendable patriotic exercise,” the object of the pledge is to unify and otherwise promote the good of the nation.

It is not just that the pledge as a whole is something other than a “religious exercise”—no part of it, including the God-phrase, can be a religious exercise. Rehnquist writes, “The phrase ‘under God’ is in no sense a prayer, nor an endorsement of any religion . . .” In reciting the pledge, “participants promise fidelity to our flag and our Nation, not to any particular God, faith, or church.”

However the chief justice’s reasoning stands up legally, it is incoherent as a theological statement. Along with the other monotheistic faiths of Judaism and Islam, albeit in its unique way, Christianity professes that there is only one true and real God. To cite or refer to a “God” who is not the subject or object of “any religion,” who is not the “particular God” of any given faith or church, is to introduce a “God” additional to and apart from the “particular” living God of the Christian church. This puts Christians (and other monotheists) in an awkward position, since we worship and acknowledge the existence of one God and one God only.

A related aspect of Rehnquist’s opinion is more coherent but hardly theologically satisfying. He declares that the God-phrase in the pledge is a recognition of America’s history, a history that demonstrably includes, time and again, reference to “God” (Christian or otherwise). As he parses it, “under God” is not in any sense a current, efficacious act of religious devotion; it is rather a historically “descriptive phrase,” taking account of the attitudes and beliefs of our ancestors.

The solicitor general who argued the case on behalf of the U.S. government, Theodore Olson, mounted a vigorous case for retaining the God-phrase. Its theological assertions and implications are quite significant.

He argued that “under God” has no faith or religious content. He is explicit that it does not even affirm “monotheism” but declares only a “belief in allegiance and loyalty to the United States flag and the Republic that it represents.” As such it serves—“clearly” and “solely”—a “secular purpose.” Citing former Supreme Court opinions, Olson declares that the reference to the deity “may merely recognize the historical fact [that the U.S.] was believed to have been founded ‘under God.’”

In short, the God-phrase in the pledge is not a matter of theology but of historical sociology. It makes no reference to the true or any actual God, but only to the deity (or deities?) Americans once believed in.

Furthermore, the brief makes it clear that the God-phrase does not intend or attempt “communication with...the Divine... The phrase is not addressed to God or a call for His presence, guidance, or intervention.” In other words, if this “God,” who is met in no monotheistic faith, who serves a “solely...secular purpose” and is located only in the past should somehow attempt to be present, to guide or to intervene in the affairs of those reciting the pledge, that “God” (who sounds rather like the God of the Bible and Christianity) would be distinctly unwelcome.

Note that this is the case put forward by the representative of a strongly “conservative” administration, one deeply sympathetic with American evangelicalism and at least some form of Christian orthodoxy. It is not the argument of an administration indifferent or inimical to traditional faith. Yet the best case it can make for keeping “under God” in the pledge clearly empties the phrase of any substantive theological content. It makes “God” a museum object confined to the dead past and effectively (if inadvertently) posits polytheism in place of monotheism. Not only that, it makes clear that the deity cited in the pledge is appealed to instrumentally, in service of the flag, and has no presence and may offer no guidance. God is put at the service of the flag, not the flag at the service of a real, present and intervening God.

In her opinion Justice Sandra Day O’Connor underscores how the deity is emptied and instrumentalized in and for the pledge. She says the phrase is a “simple reference to a generic ‘God,’” and is “inconsequential” in any religious weight or effect. Citing formerly wrought judicial language, she calls the reference “ceremonial deism” and pointedly insists that it does not intend to place the speaker or listener in “a penitent state of mind,” create “spiritual communion” or invoke “divine aid.” The speakers of the pledge refer to a “generic deity” without any expectation or concern that it or any other deity will actually interfere with their own purposes.

Like Rehnquist, Olson and O’Connor would retain the God-phrase in the pledge. But they can do so only by expressly denying that the God here referred to is the God of Israel, met in Jesus Christ. And they can do so only by admitting outright that for such a pledge they want an amorphous “God” who is always and only on the side of the flag and the Republic for which it stands. They frankly argue not for a Christian (or Jewish or Islamic) monotheism, but for henotheism, that is, loyalty to the “god of my country over all others.”

Henotheism in premodern times, centered on clan or tribe. Its pervasive form in the modern world is nationalism. Henotheism is not the theism of any stripe of serious, intentional Christianity—especially not after the German church’s experience under Nazism. What Olson and O’Connor propose at worst is idolatry—if they mean to posit a henotheistic and false “God” of the American flag in addition to the one and true living God. At best, if they mean merely to allow or encourage professed Christians to confuse the Living God with the “generic God” propping up the pledge’s “ceremonial deism,” they propose a taking of the Lord’s name in vain. Either way lies serious theological error and offense.

Newdow exposes the theological incoherence and dubiousness of “ceremonial deism” in its many forms. American civil religion, and its construction of “God,” has necessarily always been a vague, makeshift affair. Though many early Americans surely heard patriotic and public references to “God” as a reference to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit of classical Christianity, it is clear that Founding Fathers such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin intended the word less specifically, regarding “God” as a more removed, impersonal and deistic entity. The unfolding, increasing pluralism of the U.S. population has meant that national, official references to “God” have had to become more and more plastic and elusive. In today’s America, the word must be stretched to include not only Protestants, Catholics and Jews, but significant numbers of Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu and other citizens representing various world religions. If that is not enough,official references to “God” must be capacious—or insignificant—enough not to disenfranchise those citizens who are not believers of any sort.

Many of us who love God believe that we are on much more solid theological ground if we recognize what the Bible and such exemplars of the Christian tradition as Saint Augustine have taught us: to see and trust that the church and not any nation-state is preeminently the social agent through which God works God’s will in history. The church stretches throughout the world and is its own “public,” crossing the comparatively sectarian boundaries of nation-states. Knowing themselves first of all as “citizens with the saints,” Christians may then, like the Babylon-dwelling Israelites counseled by Jeremiah, work and pray for the welfare of the cities (and nations) in which they now dwell, but never confuse those cities with the kingdom for which the church stands.

This means many things. In the case of the pledge it means that many faithful and thoughtful Christians can also support returning the pledge to its pre-1954 form, and thereby end any pretense of embracing a henotheistic God or cheapening our own faith language.

To paraphrase a writer that I heard it from: "A story is a way of saying with words what you can't say with words."

I'm personally a stickler for separation, but I think Obama is smart enough to know what he's doing.

I would argue that it is both possible and desirable for the Democratic Party to separate itself completely from divisive moral issues like abortion rights and gay rights. How might it do such a thing?

Well, formally, by declaring in its platform that the Democratic Party has no identification whatsoever with either the pro- or anti-abortion positions, or the pro- or anti-gay rights positions. It should also formally state that Democrats welcome opponents of abortion and gay marriage into the party as long as they sincerely identify with the Democratic Party's historic mission to pursue economic justice and improve economic security. We want them to feel free to express their opinions on these hot topics as individuals, but not as Democrats

If we can do this, the Democratic Party will succeed in becoming a true Big Tent Party, since it will become more inclusive than ever before.

It should not be a secret any more that there are gay Republicans who like the GOP's anti-tax policy, and anti-abortion Democrats who believe passionately in the goal of economic justice. In distancing itself from any specific position on the most polarizing of social/moral issues, the Democratic Party would be telling the American people that it recognizes (1) that these divisive issues cut across party lines, and (2) that none of the positions on any of these moral issues is necessarily connected to either the economic agenda historically pursued by the Republican Party or the economic agenda historically pursued by the Democratic Party.

Yes, Values Liberals who currently identify with the Democratic Party can be expected to scream and yell and protest this proposal vehemently, but nothing is stopping them from focusing their energy on building up a strong, passionate non-partisan Advocacy Movement that would promote their agenda across party lines.

After all, we have to ask why those who are passionate advocates of, say...gay rights...would want to intentionally alienate those Republicans who might be sympathetic with their cause? There is a reason why there are Gay Republicans. It's because they do not agree with the economic agenda that the Democratic Party has historically pursued.

If gay rights advocates were to separate their cause from the Democratic Party and make it `non-partisan', they might even find that their funding would improve substantially. Why intentionally alienate potential financial contributors by unnecessarily connecting your cause to a particular economic philosophy?

It is certainly not dishonorable to promote a moral cause you feel deeply about in a non-partisan fashion. Indeed, doing so tends to give your movement a claim to moral superiority above partisan interests.

In order to successfully pull off this identity makeover, all Democrats--no matter what their persuasions---would need to zealously defend the Party's non-partisan stance on divisive social morality issues. Any Democrats who try to represent their personal views on these hot-button issues as the views of the Democratic Party should be zealously reprimanded by the party faithful.

We should encourage those who feel strongly about Abortion rights, Gay Rights, etc. to speak loudly for their causes---not as Democrats---but as advocates of certain causes who also happen to identify with the Democrats' economic agenda.

What we're talking about, people, is tolerance. Tolerance of differing opinions on `peripheral' topics. Democrats already have to tolerate different viewpoints within the party on foreign policy and other issues. Why shouldn't we be tolerating different opinions within the party on the issues of abortion and gay rights?

It's a solution that I think almost all parties would benefit from. Gay Rights and Abortion Rights advocates would be free to directly appeal to sympathizers in both parties and the Democratic Party would be able to escape the branding that has worked so well for the Republicans for so long.

Nontrivial Pursuits

I think this discussion proves Obama's point. The interface of politics and religion is clearly something we, as a party, are ambivalent about. And there is a strong anti-religiousity bias on the left that believes that it's okay to not just disagree with religion, but actually insult it and its practitioners. Scroll on down, or look at my earlier blog entries if you don't believe me. These things are problems that we need to figure out internally if we are to move forward.

A lot of people seem to be primarily upset that he didn't help maintain some sort of facade that the Dems have it togather- that he played into Republican's hands. In my mind, actually figuring out these things is more important then looking like we've figured them out- particularly considering the fact that nobody believed that anyways. And it's not like ANYTHING said by Obama was going to be cheered and applauded by the Fox contigent anyways. So why even bother trying to please them. I may be naive, but I happen to think (hope?) that if we can show real efforts towards substantive progress, on this and other issues, voters will react positively to that.

Very Liebermanesque
GOP: Democrats weak in National Security
Lieberman: Democrats weaK in National Security

Reframe: Democrats are stronger and smarter in National Security because.....

GOP: Democrats are hostile to Religion
Obama: Democrats are hostile to Religion

Reframe: Democratic Party have been stereotype wrongly. Majority of Dems are religuous. In fact Democratic Party policies and philosophy is closer to Christ teachings than GOP--feed the hungry, cloth the naked, heal the sick, etc.

No. This isn't (never has been) about religion and spirituality. It's all about social politics -- my way of life vs. your way of life, clothed in the wrong labels "religion" vs. "anti-religion." Religion has been so useful to the right even though they wouldn't know it if it walked up and slapped them in the face. That's precisely why those intelligent wiggy men over 200 years ago opted for a secular government.

We screw around with secular government at our peril.

It's our own fault Barack offended us. We made him a kind of hero and he went and betrayed us. Hero? Gee, we thought he was cute. The just-got-over-racial-prejudice among us could glom onto his darker skin. He dresses nice and went to a good university. What a treat! But guess what! He's a craven pol, ambitious, a man on the way up who knows how to play it both ways. Well shoot! That's so annoying for those of us looking for a saviour (speaking of "religion").

I'm a liberal Christian who supports the Democrats (although I definitely don't agree with all Democrat positions), mourns what the religious right has done to Christianity, and believes that Bush et. al. are as deeply anti-Christian as I am likely to see in my lifetime. The abuse of Christianity to attain raw naked power has been worth of Caiaphas.

That said, I don't understand the seemingly desparate need (by folks who I largely agree with on political issues) to eliminate all references to God in national discourse. Should we rewrite the Declaration of Independence? This document, written by a Deist who did not believe in the divinity of Christ, states that the source of the human rights we fight for as progressives is the Creator. That is to say, God (whoever that may be, whether that's YHWH, Christ, or a mythic view of humanity itself) granted humans rights; our fight for Liberty as a nation begins first with our respect for the concept of our Creator as the source of the rights we fight for. I don't believe the God of the founders is the God of Dobson, but just because the powerful today have it wrong doesn't mean that the founders had it wrong. (I would highly recommend "American Gospel", by the way, both to the left & the right.) Congressional prayer seems to be appropriate in a country who believed at its beginning that its Liberty was the result of the grace of Providence, without whose active involvement America could have never thrown off tyranny.

It's also very important to keep in mind that the Dobson's of today were empowered as a result of secular advancements in the 50's that were beyond what the founders had ever envisioned (the same argument I would use to argue that the 2nd amendment doesn't mean that every American has the right to own a semi-automatic rifle or concealable handgun without restrictions). Karen Armstrong's, "The Battle for God" is an excellent read on the rise of fundamentalism across religions, BTW. I think it's fair to say that middle-class Christians felt that they had one of two very stark choices: an America where, for the first time in its history, their children were going to be taught things in federally funded community schools that they felt went against their religion or an America where Christianity is the official state religion. Neither of those approaches characterizes the Religious Liberty established by the first amendment (and clearly supported by founders as a way of protecting religion from government interference as well as the other way around), but those have been the false choices that many Americans have felt are the only options available.

When it comes to divine right, it's also interesting to read Lincoln (who also was clearly a believer in deity) discuss the Civil War in this regard: both sides believed they had the favor of God.

As a person of faith, I need a party that returns to the founder's view of faith. As a Christian in a democracy, I'm faced with some historically unusual choices. I can't behave like the early church, and avoid politics altogether, because a democracy offers a unique opportunity for people of faith to act in the world. However, I don't want a theocracy any more than I want communism (although both are Biblical ideals) because of the inherent tendency to corruption & lack of accountability in both. I want someone to address my faith concerns, but who has the humility to understand that they do not have a complete understanding of the reality of God. I am more likely to vote for a leader who publicly claims that he/she wants to be on the side of God than I am for one who dismisses God or who claims that God is on their side.

The irony here is that in many ways (and in many more ways than the conservative movement), the progressive movement embodies the message of Christ. I don't understand why the leaders of the movement should run away from any attribution of that message to a heritage involving Deity. The founders of our country - all children of the Enlightenment - certainly didn't.

I think what most disturbs me about all of this is that the very canny, very irreligious (yes), very political right has turned religion, like so much else, into bait. And they've thrown it at us. And we've taken it.

And now we've picked up the whips of the penitentes are lashing ourselves and others in our vicinity with fervor. But for the wrong reason. We should be throwing that bait out. We should never respond to the false issue again. We should be very careful to use the ballot box to eliminate politicians who use it.

J. McCutchen "JmacSF"

San Francisco. CA

Don't take my word for it.

Transhuman around?

elements in the left that feel any expression of religion - particularly Christianity - is per se dangerous, and that the person speaking must be stupid

Yes, I'm sure that's true, but have you ever heard _any_ politician say such a thing? I can go on Yahoo message boards and read 'elements on the right' (Nazis and KKKers) spout all kinds of offensive filth, but they're not relevant because they have virtually no political power, no control over my life.

Religion believers, on the other hand, has massive political power in this country. Here are some examples: You have to profess an earnest belief in god to get elected to nearly any political office in this country. You have to be a regular churchgoer too. (Notice that this makes non-believers second-class citizens.) The two new Supreme Court justices are Opus Dei quality Catholics. The President has launched faith-based social services across the country that provide those services along with religious advocacy. Government denial of abortion is on the increase when obviously it is a religious belief to grant a day old microscopic zygote 'human' life rights.

And now Mr. Obama, who we hoped would defend the First Amendment, supports prayer in public schools. Why, I have no idea. Can't religious kids pray before or after school, or on their own, and not rope non-religious kids into their prayer services? Who is the victim in that scenario? You would say the religion believers.

That's what we're talking about here: religion increasingly seeping into core government activities. And Obama throws down the victim card... for the believers? So who is on the non-believers' side when both major parties have abandoned us? Where is our power base? Who is the victim, and who should fear for their future, in the real, big, political world?

secular liberals are insistent that they don't exist

Perhaps you just need to use language with more precision, but the above is false. No one on the 'secular left' (I'll let you define it) insists religious progressives do not exist.

Once again we see the victim card played illegitimately by one of our society's most powerful groups, believers in god. Yes, non-religious people do not believe, and many of us believe that believers are wrong on the 'god exists' issue. So what? This doesn't victimize anyone, and yet we hear the victimization lament over and over from the right, and apparently now from Obama and some religious progressives. How far will the non-religious have to bend over backwards to make you not feel like a victim?

This was a speech to other progressive religious people and I really find it hard to believe people are trashing it so hard, given that he upholds almost all progressive principles and mostly accuses secular folks of "avoiding the conversation about religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that - regardless of our personal beliefs - constitutional principles tie our hands." Hardly a Republican talking point, just a statement that most liberals don't feel comfortable engaging in this religious debate, which is not inaccurate I think.

What utter nonsense... Obama's statement, quoted about, is completely consistent with GOP talking points about the Democratic left (there is a reason why Coulter named her book "Godless")-- and is completely untrue as well.

But not only did Obama spew false GOP talking points, he did so in the context of supporting one of the far-right's favorite wedge issues "prayer in school." The end of prayer in schools was one of the great victories for religious diversity and tolerance in this nation -- no longer were children of "minority" faiths being indoctrinated into Christianity, and schools placed all religions on an equal footing.

Obama wants to eliminate that, forcing parents who do not want their kids indoctrinated into Christianity to either withdraw their children from public schools, or have their children face ostracism because they have been instructed by their parents not to participate in the officially sanctioned prayers.

There is no impediment to schools implementing a period of silent reflection, during which those children who wish to pray can do so. We shouldn't be forcing children to recite (or listen to) prayers to a deity that is foreign to their parents belief.

What Obama has done is endorse a giant step toward a very slippery slope that could lead to what the right-wing wants --- for the US to become an "official" Christian nation. It would be one thing if he'd advocated allowing the 10 Commandments to be displayed in public buildings, or allow nativity scenes on public property during the Christmas season -- advocating that the state recognize the role that religion plays in citizens lives while unnecessary is not a radical position to take. Advocating that Democrats endorse prayer in school is a radical notion that is in direct opposition to the ideas behind the "no establishment of religion" clause of the Bill of Rights.

The idea that you can convince white southern christians to vote Democrat is a laughable waste of time.

White Southern Christians:

Bill Clinton
Al Gore
John Edwards
Max Cleland
Jimmy Carter
Robert Byrd
Michael Moore (AG of Mississippi who was instrumental in taking down Big Tobacco)

Oh but these all don't count as Christians, right? They don't fit the crazy stereotype.

It may be upsetting but just because a criticism comes from Republicans or echos Republican criticisms of Democrats or liberals doesn't make it untrue. to be so close minded is not only Bush-like but also makes it very hard to correct the problem.

As for politicians speaking about religion the issue is authenticity. Dean, Kerry both do not usually talk about religion. Obama, the Clintons may do it more regularly. Those who are not comfortable talking about religion should not start because it will seem phony and pandering.

I do know if the United States is a religious but it a pious one. Americans go to church, believe in God, the Devil and Angels far more than Europeans. This is in a country without a history of a state religion or other mandatory religious practice.

There is far too much focus on protecting the rights of athetists and other types of non-believers. It is not because their rights shouldn't be protected but because it is the devout who are likely to suffer more. Whose Ten Commandments will be posted, there are three versions, what prayer? How many of the devout want to say a bland nondemoninational pray? Democrats can speak to the devout by saying their right to their faith as they wish to practice it will be threatened by any encrouchment by government into religion.

Think about what conservatives normally think about the interference into any area of civic life.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

I'm jealous of your approval ratings...;)

I agree that mandatory school prayer is wrong. I'm a Swedish Baptist Pietist and so I tend to draw quite a bit from Anabaptist thought on this regard and think that the Constantinization of Christianity in the 4th ctry CE was a terribly tragic development, although Church-state relations were bound to change after Xty peacefully became recognized as a legit religion, despite its controversial opposition to Emperor Worship and other empty rituals to "the gods".

I also agree that Judicial language shd be matter of fact and pragmatic and generally neutral on matters of faith, as part of the importance of commanding respect widely from society.

As for Congress, I think that informal norms would suffice. What matters more is that we do not give more authority to a politician for simply using the language of faith, apart from what they are saying.

To the extent this happens, it is more a reflection of more shallow habits of political deliberation/action among religious people than a problem with the inclusion of some such language in speeches.

The real problem, as it seems to me, is that we need to get the foot soldiers of the Religious Right to scrutinize their and their leaders' decisions more, rather than forward attack their use of the language of faith in their activism.
dlw

A blog-activist dedicated to the reduction of the faith-based political acrimony in the United States of America so as to make our political system more democratic and just and to improve our witness to the rest of the world.

We are a "Nation of Christians" and not a "Christian Nation"...big difference.  This whole debate seems to be centered around one religious group's desire to breach the Wall of Separation so their religious values can be elevated above all others.  That is exactly what our founding fathers didn't want to see happen.  There are religious groups who have opposed the Separation of Church and State since day one.  The refused to acknowledge their side lost the debate and are trying change the Constitution.  So these religious groups which are trying to establish their American Theocracy characterize and smear the opponents of the attempted breach as "godless and God hating heathen" for defending the 1st amendment.  And either knowingly or unwittingly Mr. Obama is assisting them...plain and simple.

If you're not going to concede the point that prayer in school is unconstitutional, there's little point in further discussion.

In areas like speaking profane or vulgar words, we have come down on the side of protecting that speech nearly anywhere (AFAIK you cannot be arrested for speaking profanity), even though its offensive to many, many people. So we require non-swearers to put up with swearing in the name of the swearers right to fulsome and hearty expression in all places. Is that coercion of these people into being swearers?

Unquestionably, when rewards, advancement, grades, social standing, etc., are linked to professing belief in a certain religion the constitution is certainly being violated. But when those of us like myself who are agnostic have to mumble "watermelon, watermelon, watermelon" at a prayer at public event, the case is not so clear.

Sadly, the government is not very good at legislating subtle differences like this. But if the side effects of a blanket ban on prayer in schools is loss of support for separation of church and state, I'd say we need to shake the blanket a bit.

I've seen the number of atheists in America range from 10 percent to 35 percent, depending on the survey. According to the US Census, the percentage of people reporting themselves as atheists increased from 8.4% in 1990 to 15% in 2001. This percentage increase was by far the largest of any categorization in the census.

Is it OK that Obama is religious? I don't hold it against him. Is it OK when he bad-mouths "secularists"? No.

This part is a waste of time:

But the problem isn't that prayer is happening in the schools, as it undoubtedly is. The problem is when authority figures in the schools -- teachers, principals, school boards -- are leading children in prayer who are non-believers, or coercing them, even subtly, to violate their religious or anti-religious beliefs or those of their families.

"As Democrats, we need to provide a bigger, not a smaller tent."

I don't even see how this is relevant. Nobody who wants the government to remain secular is hostile to anybody else being a Democrat unless they are interested in underming the separation of church and state. How does insisting on separation of church and state keep the tent small? I can only see this happening if the people being sought are people who don't believe in separation of church and state. And those people are going to vote Republican anyway.

It's sad to see this as a wedge issue, just as it was sad to see gay marriage being used as a wedge issue in 2004. But I think the best long-term response here is to stand up for what the base of the party wants, rather than the swing voter.

That's an excellent argument against prayer in schools. I have two questions:

1) How many of those students would you say were genuinely devout, or came from devout families? How many were simply traditionalists, and liked doing things the Southern way?

2) How many of the non-devout students and their parents would have been up in arms over changes to the Lord's Prayer?

I think a lot of this is about people's traditions more than the particulars of religion. Cutting them off from any sense of religious grounding fuels the perception that "traditions are under attack". This is particularly true of ceremonial contexts - it's more rankling to have to wade around invoking a graduation with a prayer, or remarking on parents in Iraq with a prayer for their well-being.

I would also argue that in a lot of places in the US, the notion of pluralism has advanced a decent bit since the 50's. That's not to say that there aren't plenty of people interested in squelching minority religions, but given that an awful lot of people come in contact with different religions and denominations these days, many environments are naturally more open to respect for others' faiths.

Dems need to affirm the role of people's traditions, including religious ones, while reminding people why protection of all religions is important. There would be no evangelicals had we not had freedom of religion. Maybe I'm naive, but at the very least, the subject deserves debate about the message and a new effort to explain to people why we stand where we do.

"Finally , at a time when we are worried by what we consider the harm done by the "religious" education in the madrases isn't it more than a little contradictory to also say OBTW we ought to have more religion in our schools . Just asking."

 Again it appears to be profiling. Discussion with church-goers might enable one to differentiate fundamentalist madrasses from a moderate/liberal church. If AFTER the discussion you conclude that no difference exists-GREAT

I wonder whether the word profiling is useful . The question is whether we should change a long standing policy with respect to religious education not how to differentiate among the various religious groups which might want to become involved in such education. If we were trying to address the second, how , question "profiling" might apply . I don't see how it applies in addressing the first, whether " question.

How can you have free speech if you're told to shut up if you mention God in public?

So defense of the First Amendment, that the government can't support religion, with the government telling you to shut up if you mention God in public? No one ever said that to you, and you hear GOD all the time in public, you can't shut the politicians up about it.

What kind of madness is it when the victimizers think of themselves as the victims? When a public school teacher leads her students in reciting a prayer to 'God' (as Obama advocates) what do you think that makes my nonreligious child and her nonreligious parents? Victims, and it makes you anti-First Amendment 'Christians' victimizers. In the real world.

You've swallowed the right-wing line that defense of the First Amendment is victimization of Christians. You're walking on their road to a post-Constitution era.

this thread itself is sorely in need of some reframing about what Obama said. Seems to me all the paranoid "slippery slope" talk on this is what is feeding GOP talking points. There's no there there, many of you commenting are the ones unwittingly providing the damaging spin, not Obama or his audience:

He also offered advice to conservative Christians, asking them to recognize that the separation of church and state doesn't just protect atheists, but the robustness of their own worship.

"I do not believe religious people have a monopoly on morality and ethics."

He got his biggest applause of the day when he pointed to the passage of a bill that would reduce the estate tax for the children of millionaires as a reason we need religious people in Congress. "We need an injection of morality in the debate," he said.

From coverage By MARA LEE, Scripps Howard News Service, 28-JUN-06

But spin away, don't let facts get in the way of working yourself into a paranoid tizzies about slippery slopes, and continuing to provide evidence for the right wing machine message that liberals are ogres about religious cultural traditions.

I'll be honest: being an avowed moral relativist, one of the things that makes me queasy is when liberals in politics talk about the need for some morals in this country. I'll vote for the amoral wonk over someone who wants to see "values"-based government nearly every time. (I have my own values, don't need those imposed by a bleeding-heart style liberal, like Nathan Newman--or my own very emotional mother--- thank you very much.) But I'm of a very small minority, and realize what that means politically, that sometimes I might have to go along with bleeding-heart-liberal values talk to get some halfways decent government, just don't overdo it (like Nathan Newman often does, mho :-)) and I'll go along.

The fear of Obama's theme is based on misplaced spin and is getting ridiculous. He's on the liberal side (maybe too much for my own taste! We'll see.)

Many of the comments allover the liberal blogosphere are indeed going to feed the right wing message; many seem bound and determined to be their own worst enemy. (The reason I have been so interested in this is that I see ominous warnings in the response, ala "oh no, the lefty net activist contingent is going to require Sister Souljah'ing again and again and again in order for the dems to have a chance at winning some power back....and it may not work.") Obama has nothing to do with it, left wing paranoia about religion does have something to do with it. Someone said he took the right wing bait. Wrong! It's lots of commenters in the blogosphere who are doing that, buying into the initial A.P. wire spin on his speech.

Since some in the liberal blogosphere seem bound and determined into making this liberal politician some kind of straw man for all their fears, my only hope is that the dem party and Obama is actually smart enough to be doing that on purpose, making him a sort of sacrificial lamb to get the Sister Souljah'ing going and well over with by the time important votes come up.

What he was arguing was that Democrats shouldn't be afraid to show that liberal values reflect and even emerge out of Christian values. And that Democrats shouldn't be unwilling to use religious terminology to inspire the public to fight for progressive issues.

The Democrats do this all the time (!!), this is just standard, counter-factual Republican 'Democrats are against God' b.s. In fact, Democrat politicians are afraid _not_ to display their Christianity in our ever more officially hyper-religious state. And this makes Christianity ever closer to a state religion, it makes all non-Christians and non-believers ever more ostracized, and yet we are _still_ supposedly the victimizers and not the victims.

The beef in the speech is that Obama backs prayer in schools, a First Amendment back-breaker and yes, a violation of my right to keep my child free _from_ religion.

=== We now have 207 comments to a post decrying the obvious. Whether GOP talking point or not, Obama's case is established. ===

Always a fun tactic: when you are losing the argument, redefine losing the arguement as proof that you have won. It really flummoxes 4th graders in their first exposure to public debate.

Now, same challenge I gave to Big Media Matt: please provide links to quotes from 10 significant figures in the Democratic Party being disrespectful to religion.

sPh

I believe that your last para is exactly what prompts Obama to speak and exactly what he hopes will occur.

Faith informs us but particular religious doctrine should not be used as a club in the polical and policy sphere.

He wants to take on the toughest fight. He wants to address those who believe that they must support political positions that are based in and absolutely driven to match their religious doctrine.  He has an approach that makes sense to me but since I am not a fundamentalist I don't know if it can be practical.

As I read the speech he talks to me since I have been one who wants to see the religion dividing line as the starting point for discussion.  Putting up that wall was insurance for me. Instead he asks that people like me think and discuss with the openness that I tout when criticizing others for their dogmatic views. Touche.

Obama impresses me almost everytime I read about his thinking and often how he got there.  He speaks from his view and anticipates what others will say. He tries to address those who disagree and offers ways they could come over to his view.  He expects respect and is quick to ensure that he demonstrates his respect for others who differ from him. 

At a minimum, we need to applaud that he contributes to civil discourse.  At best he influences the content of the discourse. And in contrast to some of the agitated here we should never understand that he is attempting to directing how we should think. 

Harris- I would suggest that the secular progressive side does not adequately distinguish in its words the difference between church state separation and that of a hostility to public faith of any sort.

I agree that it is certainly perceived that way by many who want to see religion in the public sphere (and we're talking state institutions not the public square). Even labeling what I called "proponents of church/state separation (many religious)" as "secular progressives" hints at a bias (of representation, I mean). There has been an intense propaganda campaign to conflate the defenders of Constitutional separation as hostile to public faith of any sort. I keep hearing that 80% of the country is Christian and 10% have other beliefs. Is some small percentage of the 10% that’s left subjugating 90% of the country?

The Christian Right carefully planned and carried out a decades-long campaign to develop a public image of Christians as victims, and they were very successful. They overreached six months ago with their annual “war on Christmas” show and we glimpsed the wizard behind the curtain. But, overall, it has been a triumph just as the incremental chipping away at separation (10 Commandments, etc.) and deception about original intent (the Founders intended religious values in the state) have been sold to the public. How Christian is the mendacity of these people?

Do you feel chastised by Obama??

What do you think of his approach to deal directly with religious right???

As to Schiavo I don't remember what he did, if anything. While I ranted from my philosphical views, I would have appreciated Obama and like-minded challenging the absurd religious right and their Schiavo ploy.  We need people like him to speak challenge.

Ha! Fair enough.

Should I send Nathan home when he posts at daily kos?

Boy, you freaks who hate me are funny.

This was a speech about instituting Christianity into progressive politics.

Rather this was a speech about making it possible to express a faith basis of values without using the righteous of particular Christian doctrine as the reason for laws and policies. A politican like Obama or a citizen should not have to self censor.

How does insisting on separation of church and state keep the tent small? I can only see this happening if the people being sought are people who don't believe in separation of church and state. And those people are going to vote Republican anyway.

It's sad to see this as a wedge issue, just as it was sad to see gay marriage being used as a wedge issue in 2004. But I think the best long-term response here is to stand up for what the base of the party wants, rather than the swing voter.

I think this discussion comes down to a couple of issues: Whom is Obama appealing to and what is he saying to them?

The way I read his speech, he is not trying to reach out to religious right-wing demagogues; rather, he is appealing to democrats and progressives of some religious pursuasion to learn how to speak of religion. Not in an exclusionary or prescriptive language, mind you, but in a language that emphasizes the possible synergies between spirituality and "the other" core democratic values. He doesn't seem to be reaching out to atheists, that's true, and maybe that's what's bothering you. It would be silly of him to try to get the atheist wing of the party to talk religion; we'd sound completely ingenuine and we'd be hypocritical as hell.

Why do you assume that all of these swing voters want to tear down the wall between church and state? Some of them have simply bought into the Repuglicans' characterization of Democrats as hostile to God, and that they don't realize that their values -- economic justice, concern for the poor, stewardship of the environment, peace -- are our values too? If we're to convince them that we're not hostile to God, how on earth can we do that if we refuse to mention God or religion?

What you seem to be saying is that the Repugs have succeeded in their efforts to drive this wedge. I hate to say it, but it seems that you're right. Where I disagree with you is in thinking that we'd better stay on our side of the wedge, rather than reaching out to those who have been driven away from us. Insisting on separation of church and state doesn't keep the tent small; assuming that anyone who is religious wants the church to infect the state, and refusing to talk to them, does.

You may think it's elitist because it presently applies more to the coasts and larger cities, but it's also reality for a lot of people, just like it's reality that a lot of people, and we have to address it as such. Either a majority or plurality of Americans now live in suburbs, with a plurality around major metropolises.

Try stepping into the shoes of a Jewish kid on the Mississippi Delta, and you may have more of an idea of why prayer in schools may be hurtful or exclusionary.

You make an excellent point. It's true that many of my classmates in the 1950s South, in fact, I'd say a majority, came from homes that were not especially devout -- in terms of actual church attendance, religious study and regular practice. As someone raised in a home that was, for the times, unusually devout, I was often amazed by, and envious of, their much more casual religious attitudes and practices. (A side note here: Contrary to today's conventional wisdom that the 1950s was a more pious and traditional time than our own, my experience is that it was, in fact, even in small town America, a more ebulliantly materialistic (even hedonistic), much more future oriented, and certainly much less falsely nostalgic, time than our own. (What did adults of that time have to be nostalgic for? War? The Great Depression?) 1950s Southern culture was, in fact, more Rock-a-billy than Moral Majority.)

But your point makes my point. The issue of prayer in the schools is more about expressing group identity than it is about expressing religious devotion.

In communities that have a longer history of diversity, prayer in the schools is rarely much of an issue (for the majority). Even in the 1950s this was true. As a child, because of my father's work in the energy industry, I attended schools all over the country -- mostly in the South but also at times in the Northeast and Midwest, and even then, school prayer was NOT universal. The more diverse the community, the less likely prayers were said in school.

Agreed. It's not Obama's fault. But my comment was not about "the other side." It was about the press -- you cannot counter an argument about the press by saying "well, if you read the original speech."

The press mediates. Takes what's said out of context, twists it, turns it. Sometimes to our advantage, mostly not.

But to argue that we need to refer to the original speech is not a practical counter-argument in a media-filled political arena. The entire context of the original speech is not what people base their opinions on...that's all I was saying.

Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.

I don't approve of it. But I do approve of our system which never accepts a received truth as an absolute truth.

Point taken; but isn't there an implied obligation in our constitutional system to take the decision of the Supreme Court as the final word on a dispute, at least for a decade or so, and not force people to litigate the same question over and over and over in hopes that maybe this time around the result will come out differently? The real point of that endless litigation tactic, it seems to me, is not so much to try to get a different outcome in the courts, but to wear the other side down to the point that they simply say, "To hell with it."

Didn't realize how many Unitarians and Deists there were after 1800.

I think it is pretty safe to say that in todays climate very few of them before Cleveland or McKinley could ever get elected if they actually talked about their religious beliefs.

Thank you for bringing in a perspective with memories of Humphrey. Who remembers his slogan, "The politics of joy"? What an utterly alien concept in today's climate...

There's a phrase, perhaps an archaic phrase these days, "he died well." That phrase is very relevant to Humphrey. When he was in Memorial Sloan-Kettering, knowing he was dying of cancer and probably would never leave, he defined his mission as keeping up the spirits of every patient and staff member he could find, as long as he had the strength to move.

Apropos of partisanship, or the lack thereof, he occasionally got Jerry Ford to join him on his rounds. How often do we see, perhaps in a nonpolitical context, caring and common purpose across the aisle? Apparently, that's happened with Bill Clinton and Bush the Elder. We need more of that.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

I think politicians are all about self-censorship. But, again, Obama has talked about his beliefs at length before and I have no problem with that. This was a rally where I think even Christian conservative speakers were invited. Obama is, even at a glance, a remarkably astute politician. When he speaks publicly, he is aware that he is speaking to everyone (and through the megaphone of media) as a politician. Do you think he would have preferred a media blackout on his speech?

What a politician professes publicly, however they couch their comments, they are hinting is a part of their agenda and policy. Obama is very smart, and I imagine, not unaware of the Christian Right’s endless campaign to weaken the separation of church and state. In this context, by arguing for more political expression of faith instead of a greater separation, he is taking a political stand.

"Obama's argument that it is possible both to rescind calls to check one's religious rhetoric at the door as a condition of speaking in the public square..."

I enjoyed your thoughtful and balanced post, AD, but here's my point again...Which calls? Who among elected Democrats or party spokespeople has called for this?

Although a great many religious people are actively and sometimes vociferously hostile to secular people, who are these Democrats and liberals who are saying that Jesse Jackson, for example, should check his religious rhetoric at the door?

Alan in SF

Agree as a politician and previously as a community organizer he is very aware of what he says.

Have you read his autobiography/memoir? My impression is that what he is saying in this speech is really what he believes. Having read the book I know I sound naive but I believe he is straight.  He also strikes me as someone who has depth. He has thought about what he thinks and has and continues to learn. The story at the end of this speech conveys that.

From his first convention speech, to the book and since then he is impressive to me.

His advice to the party to include religion or at least not put up barriers makes me think of a comment from James Carville a while back. He was critical of the D. party for promoting lists of policies and advocated promoting a story, not a cold list. He too was trying to get the human element into the Party. I see Obama as trying to get that human element in by not asking people to hide their faith if in fact it is important to them.  Both seem to want the Party to "get real" to use lingo that is unfamiliar to me but fits here.

Blogger dave3245 on dailykos.com in May, 2005 said something very very mean about Christians.

Can't find the link right now...but I know he did... 

Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.

I, and others, have posited here that religion(christianity specifically in this case)has held back humanity from progressing. Some here have retorted by offering MLK and Lincoln as examples of the opposite. To this I have to laugh...ha ha ha. YOu only offer crumbs, if I had the time I could offer you an all-you-can-eat buffet of religious opposition to science, art and literature as well as butchery in god's name. That being said the idea that Dems are antagonistic towards religion is a lie created by the right wing to divide and conquer, and Obama has played right into it. This has nothing to do w/ the religious tenets of christianity, as the GOP has rejected virtually everything Christ taught, this is about tribalism.

“it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”

— upton sinclair

I agree and think Senator Obama’s sincerity and his oratory is impressive and a force to be reckoned with by his opponents. But he seemed to imply a need to banish some kind of invented “liberal religious obstructionists.” Also, this seemed to be a first volley across the bow. He says in so many words that the secular left suppresses expression of faith, which is not just an erroneous RW meme, but damaging to the Democratic Party.

I think Obama along with the Democrats of faith, like those commenting here, who seem so petulant) is the kind of leader we need to counteract the Christian Right program of denigrating proponents of church/state separation. But that is the path of greatest resistance.

The longer this thread goes on, the more I'm convinced that "Some Democrats..." (or liberals or leftists) is the most pernicious construction the Republicans have ever created.

I've been involved in progressive and Dem politics for 40 years. I've seen religious contingents march side by side with the most radical of radical leftists and never be treated with anything less than respect. I've seen roomfuls of secular people refuting right-wing claims to moral superiority by citing Christian tradition and Jesus' words, rather than saying who cares what Jesus/the Bible says. I've been to rallies, memorial services, and bar mitzvahs where secular people thrilled to religious rhetoric. I've seen Dean Corps people turning their energies to serving meals and sorting cans at faith-based charities.

It's odd that no one ever says, "Some Republicans..." even though the "some" are so easily identifiable, and given so prominent a platform: Coulter, Malkin, Limbaugh, Dobson, Robertson...no shortage. And yet no one can ever name a single one of the "some" Democrats, liberals, or leftists.

Besides playing into the Republican narrative, it's just not constructive to suggest that we change in some unspecified manner from a way we're not.

Alan,
Why don't you put that in a diary? It is a great summary and IMHO deserves a wider audience than it will probably get as the 225th comment.

sPh

The first quote about the priest 'always in alliance with the despot' - with due respect to Jefferson - is simply false.

In the context of the 18th century?  No I don't think so.  Martin Luther King and Oscar Romero were products of a different time and a different tradition.  And Quakers don't have priests.

There's a lot of religiousity abroad in the land at the moment -- but not much morality.

If Democrats want to get up on their moral high horses and launch a loud and fulsome jeremiad against the rampant immorality of many of our nation's present day politics and business practices, the neglect of our moral responsibilities toward each other, our communities and future generations, the abandonment of humane principles in our governance and many of our workplaces, and the abandonment of basic human, democratic decency and respect for each other in our public discourse, I'm all for it.

But championing the "me-too" forced mumbling of some innocuous one-size-fits-none quasi-religious nostrums by our school children is NOT taking a moral stand on anything. And it is NOT an expression of either moral or religious seriousness.

It is the Democrats' reluctance or inability to speak with moral authority to the most important issues of the day, to make righteous moral demands and arguments -- and not their non-existent "hostility" to religion -- that is their real problem.

Democrats are "secularists" in this sense -- in their dependence on secular, academic, intellectual and pragmatic arguments for their policies. Such arguments are excellent and necessary in terms of internal debates within government when determining the actions and policies of practical governance. But they are totally ineffective in terms of rousing and inspiring a nation and committing its people to your cause.

For that you need moral authority, moral persuasion, and principled argument that speaks to the nation's desire for moral action and steadfast, ethical, moral leadership.

I don't think it matters much whether the moral authority called upon in these arguments is that of God, our nation's traditional moral and ethical principles, or simply basic human decency. The point is to recognize the American desire to act as a deeply moral people, and to be led by deeply moral leaders.

What do you mean Democrats are reluctant to "make moral demands and arguments"?

Democrats are in the forefront of all the "most important [moral] issues of the day": living wage, equal employment opportunity, fair treatment of gays, workers' rights and safety, care for our Earth and more.

Typical Democrat bashing. What BS!

The 4 is because I found the post funny -- especially the first line.  Okay, I'll adjust my rating because the second line is bit over the edge (re: personal attacks). 

PSA: There is a Users' Help Forum.