Obama on Religion

Via Eric Vieth at Dangerous Intersections, via Reddit

Given the increasing diversity of America’s population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

And even if we did have only Christians within our borders, who’s Christianity would we teach in the schools? James Dobson’s, or Al Sharpton’s? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Levitacus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount – a passage so radical that it’s doubtful that our Defense Department would survive its application?

This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

This should be nearly universal sense, at least among those with enough interest to be politically active, but it isn't.

Also, it should be old news that Obama has this sense and can express it more than most anyone out there, but I've seen his positions misrepresented. When he points to effective American rhetoric, such as that of Lincoln and King, and says that those ideas were expressed in religions terms—and that they had to have been expressed in religious terms—Obama is right. As the senator says explicitly, it was often religion (despite my conclusion that religion is built on a foundation of vacuum) that led the speakers to their positions. But also (though this he doesn't say explicitly) to most Americans, the language of religion is the language of morality; one cannot invoke one without using the language of the other. At least not if one wants to reach a general audience and have resonance.

But at the same time (literally, as it's in the same speech that chemoeletric and others so objected to) Obama says

I am not suggesting that every progressive suddenly latch on to religious terminology - that can be dangerous. Nothing is more transparent than inauthentic expressions of faith. As Jim has mentioned, some politicians come and clap -- off rhythm -- to the choir. We don't need that.

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. They don't need to do that. None of us need to do that.

It's a good speech, as all of his general speeches, the ones he gave before his campaign got going, were. I'm still leaning to Edwards. But one of the jobs of the President is to be the Civics-Teacher-In-Chief. In my 35 years following national politics, I've seen no one else with as much potential to fill that role well.