One of the Wiredsisters (how many are you?) wrote recently on Obama’s recent lovefest with Dr. Dobson. I was struck by a different part of his speech. So was Peter Wehner, a ex-deputy assistant to Bush. Here is an excerpt on what I thought was one of the most important points in Obama’s speech, and Wehner’s reaction.
“
The passage of the speech that prompted Dobson’s “fruitcake interpretation of the Constitution” and “lowest common denominator of morality” comments was this: “Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. What do I mean by this? It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, to take one example, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.”
Dobson paraphrased this as “unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe in.” But that’s not what Obama was saying at all. Rather, he was arguing that in a pluralistic nation like ours, politics depends on people of faith being able to persuade others based on common and accessible ground and appeals to reason — which sounds entirely reasonable. Christians who oppose abortion can make an effective case by talking about sonograms, fetal development and the moral imperative to protect the most vulnerable. That doesn’t mean one’s faith shouldn’t inform the question of abortion — or, for that matter, war, poverty and other issues. After all, President Lincoln’s argument against slavery was partly grounded in faith. But appeals to the Bible or church teaching aren’t sufficient in a pluralistic nation. That’s why Lincoln talked primarily about the Declaration of Independence.” (Entire post here)
Mr. Wehner expressed very well what I often say on other blogs, or in conversations with family and some close friends. When it comes time to write actual laws, your religious beliefs do not count in our pluralistic society. Your vote is what counts. If enough people vote the same way that you vote, it becomes law. It does not matter if one’s sacred book or religious leader has made a declaration. What matters is that enough people believe the same way to turn something into law. Of course, people of faith also have the option of converting others to their faith. The emergence of prominent religious leaders into the political arena smacks of surrender to me. They no longer believe in the power of their own beliefs to persuade people. They seek big government’s assistance in achieving their ends.
From all I read, it sounds as though Obama writes his own speeches most of the time. If that is true, his speeches are even more impressive. Please point me to another politician who has spoken so clearly on this issue. It is quite clear that there is a real intellect in that suit. The big question then for me is, what kind of policies will come out of these ideas? Also, does he have the experience and moral courage to carry them out? Is this guy a 7, 11 or snake eyes?
Steve
Thanks for doing a better job of drawing out and elaborating the concept I was attempting to under Tom’s post before I found myself duckwalking in a circle with my rhetorical shoelaces tied together instead. ;-)
In the political arena, political rules rule, no matter the source of the content. The corollary to that is that, within the religious arena, religious rules have equal sovereignty. What Dobson seemed to be objecting to, certainly fairly if not appropriately, disingenuously or not, was his ostensible perception that Obama was claiming that political sovereignty exclusive to the political arena as somehow universal over all. While perhaps hiking a cheek polemically in doing so, Dobson’s producing such a clarion call nonetheless likely didn’t go to waste, but rather found its audience summoning his base once again onto the drill field.
The base may have a more difficult time this year. Obama seems to be a real Christian, just not the right kind for some people. He is willing to talk about faith issues. McCain has no apparent interest in the topic.
Steve
I have to agree with Robert Johnson on this one. Obama is trying to give good advice to the conservative base – try to use universally acceptable language to dialogue in public instead of the “Christianese” that those who have not spent time in an evangelical church don’t really understand. In analyzing Dobson’s response, we have to consider who he’s speaking to – an audience overwhelmingly of conservative evangelicals. It’s more of a pep talk than a persuasive arguement; he’s trying to incite the fears of the conservative base against the “liberal mainstream orthodoxy”.
I don’t have the citation at hand, but if you do some searching in the NY Times, you’ll find an admission by a high-level manager of the McCain campaign that because our country is in such poor shape right now, the Republicans are going to have to focus on “values” issues like gay marriage and abortion.
Correction: Obama is advising the conservative base to use universally “accessible” language.
Whether such language is acceptable to all sides, who knows.
1) re: number of Wired Sisters–at the moment there are three–Red Emma, Jane Grey, and CynThesis. We are thinking of adopting a brother, Ben Trovato (Director of the Federal Office of Creative Publicity and Quasi-Factual Information.)
2) I have spent a fair amount of time counseling people who have moral objections to military service, in applying for Conscientious Objector status. For many of them, the job was essentially one of translating “politicalese” to “religionese,” “moralitese,” or “ethicsese” to comply with the requirements of the law. [The applicable law says a CO applicant's belief cannot be "political" or "merely personal," but can be "religious, moral or ethical."] Having also worked as an English teacher and an editor, I found it pretty easy to help people do this. And I never found my clients being false to their convictions in translating them in this way.
It’s interesting seeing Obama do the same thing from the other side, and I think he’s absolutely right about the need to do it. People have a right, of course, to vote according to the teachings of their church or religion or for any other reason or no reason at all. But in trying to persuade OTHER people to vote in a particular way, they have to operate under different rules (except, of course, when talking to members of their own religion. Then they have every right to say, “But the Archbishop of Canterbury says…” and the Anglicans who may not have known that before can legitimately be expected to fall in line once they find out.)
With outsiders, they have to speak a language common to all–not merely because the “rules” of democracy require it, which I’m not really sure is true, but because nothing else will WORK.
Shoot! I should have done this as a separate post.
With outsiders, they have to speak a language common to all–not merely because the “rules” of democracy require it, which I’m not really sure is true, but because nothing else will WORK.
Shoot! I should have done this as a separate post.
The political rules that rule are whatever rules the polity rules rule, and in our American polity the polity has already ruled that rules specific to any one religion not already preemptively codified as rules politically common to all are to remain only urges and motivations, not compelling rules.
This may be a bit more formally different from what will work, which is, of course, whatever will work.
Personally, I think you still should do this as a separate post.
Go for it! I tend to get lost on long in depth posts, so I seldom do any topic real justice.
When I was an enlisted guy, circa 1972, one of my best friends got out on CO status. I helped him write it up. I dont remember any of the details, but it took a long time.
Steve