Until tonight, I hadn’t taken the time to fully research Barack Obama’s position on the role of religion in politics. His broad-minded and inclusive position is quite extraordinary. Here is the video of Obama’s “Call to Renewal Keynote Address” in Washington, DC on June 28th, 2006. Here is a fairly accurate (but imperfect) transcript of that speech.
The 40-minute speech contains many gems of wisdom. I will quote only one portion of the speech here and invite everyone to watch the video in its entirety:
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, whose 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 may be difficult for those who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of the possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It insists on the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God’s edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one’s life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime; to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing.
I have never before heard a politician speaking so frankly yet comfortably on the topic of religion. Obama’s speech gives me hope that we can find a way to work together as one country. He is one of the very few American politicians who has specifically invited good-hearted non-believers to sit at the same table as good-hearted believers. He is one of the very few politicians to say what needs to be said about religious zealotry: that the insincere believers out there, those who merely invoking the name of God without showing good will, shouldn’t get a political leg up on anyone else. Obama makes it clear that using one’s own Religion as a sword against non-believers or against those who belong to minority sects is unacceptable intolerant aggression, pure and simple.
Obama thus envisions a tent that isn’t big enough for every single American, because some of us have been too thoroughly poisoned by the fear-mongering, name-calling and the scape-goating of the past six years. But there is hope for the rest of us and, ultimately, for all of us.
I've been wondering for a while about Obama's religious views. Knowing now that he has many great ideas on secularism, it would make me a lot more likely to vote for him to be president. I consider myself to be "spiritual, but non-religious" like millions of other people in America. I'm sick and tired of getting discriminated against. I'm sick and tired of atheists being discriminated against Most of all, I'm sick of all the Christian-based initiatives that the Bush administration have pushed through for our country over the last eight years in an attempt to subvert secularism in the name of "morality".
Wow! Just… wow!
Obama has lost a couple of points with me during the last weeks, for various reasons, but upon reading this — come back, all is forgiven, I still love you! It almost makes me suspect he's a closet atheist, though I cannot motivate that suspicion with anything more substantial than my disbelief in the existence of American Christians this moderate.
Unfortunately, if he continues being this direct, he's probably going to lose a lot of votes. Just thinking about what might happen when the GOP spin machine kicks into gear is pretty painful: "Obama says he doesn't care that God thinks abortion is wrong, wants unbelievers to decide". Shudder.
I am truly inspired by what Obama said. He has made his point so eloquently and succinctly yet managed to allow for the need of people to keep their faiths for themselves. This is the true meaning of separation of church and state. I applaud Obama for this.
I truly think our founding fathers would be proud to have such a man as President of our Country and at this point, I would too.
There are millions of American Christians who are moderate. I've met a few. They are just not as shrill nor, frankly, as organized as some of the wingnut types. Critically, because religious moderates do not habitually inject religious standards of consideration into policy discussions, their religiousity does not become associated with their politics the way it may with individuals who base most or all of their policy initiatives on the interpretation of some religious commandment.
To be honest, I'm not so worried about the spin machine on this one; the audience he was speaking to was an evangelical one. If the speech pleases them on their own terms, as it seems to have, there is little room to shove a wedge. After all, he didn't say (and would be hard to twist to make him say) "I don't care that God thinks abortion is wrong", but rather he said, "I cannot endorse a policy that I cannot rationally explain to those people who are my constituents that do not believe the same thing I do." Even many conservative Christians agree with that sentiment, as many of them are aware that many of their representatives do not share their beliefs, and would like policies that affect their lives to be approachable on terms that they can consider.
People who can't parse the difference between those sentiments were never going to vote for Obama in the first place. The best he can do is express himself directly and eloquently, and he has done both. This speech, which I first saw about a month ago, was the first thing that made me really pay attention to Obama. If he can speak this directly about the rest of the sticky issues that face our nation, he may yet just get my vote.
Thank GOD – a candidate who is willing to not only speak how he truly feels but also makes sense to me. If for no other reason than this I would vote for Obama – but I agree with him on my other ideas – including his views of Affirmative Action, Unions and Education. Please GOD let Obama be our next President – because we need a change!
Taking the bible as a complete book, rather than just a few pieces of text that suit your needs. This sounds intelligent, this sounds tolerant, this sounds hopeful, this sounds… completely incompatible with that all important swathe of Christian-right voters.
Which is a great pity, now that he'll be depicted as anti-Christian and he won't have enough people to vote for him.
The only way I can see for Obama to have a chance, is if we can get someone in the mold of Oral Roberts or Pat Robertson to run as an independent.
I'm betting that the biggest strike against Obama is his youth, not his race nor positions.
I respect Barack Obama because he has respect for me and the millions of other Americans just like me.
Do I have to tell you my religious views to support that argument? No. There are people like me–I'm sure. And there are people who aren't like me, too. Barack Obama is trying to satisfy them all, while still attempting the seperation of church and state. That's admirable.
"Which is a great pity, now that he’ll be depicted as anti-Christian and he won’t have enough people to vote for him."
The only way Obama could be depicted as "anti-Christian" is by equating "Christian" with the tiny minority of wingnuts who believe in mandating their particular beliefs by fiat. I don't think that represents a majority of Christian voters, nor possibly even a majority of Christian-right voters. Christian-right voters have been lied to about the separation of church and state (among many other things) and, unfortunately, Kerry was too inept to articulate that fact. Obama appears to have a much keener mind — one that seems very capable of addressing the lies said about him by the wingnuts. Remember: Kerry won the popular vote and did not convincingly lose the electoral one. The next Democrat likely does not need to pick up very many more votes to win.
The other thing to remember is that although Bush's approval rating has plummeted to about one-third of the voting population, he still has that one-third, which means one-third of Americans would probably never vote for a Democrat, no matter how much better the Democrat might be in an objective comparison.
Grumpy Sez: The only way Obama could be depicted as “anti-Christian” is by equating “Christian” with the tiny minority of wingnuts who believe in mandating their particular beliefs by fiat.
Keep in mind, some moderate Christians might be threatened just by the thought of a "Muslim" leader in America.
Dan K. Sez: I’m betting that the biggest strike against Obama is his youth, not his race nor positions.
Nice sentiment, I'd still have to bet the farm on skin color/race.
Obama's comments are far too intelligent and reasoned…he can't possibly get elected!
Bruce: Maybe the moderate American voters would like a candidate that says "I dunno" to some issues. "I dunno" seems pointless, but indecision means, indirectly, to maintain the status quo. I would venture that many voters would like to just maintain the status quo on a variety of issues, especially messy and unpleasant ones like abortion. It can't get more moderate than to say, "Let's just not doing anything about this." So unground-breaking as it may sound, indecision may sound like music to the moderate's ears.
Very nice. Well reasoned. Mr. Obama might well make an excellent president–in twenty or thirty years.
His discussion is essentially meaningless in the real world. It amounts to “I dunno,” which he at least has the wisdom to admit. It’s a start, but not nearly enough to finish. It’s true, but where does it lead?
Politically, it alienates only the most whacked out fringes on the right and the left. Foreign activists (Muslim Islamist political terrorists) will not care about his well parsed ideas.
We do not need a philosopher president, paralyzed like Hamlet by varying strands of thought. We need someone who will do something.
While I am interested in what he thinks and how he feels, I most want to know what he plans to do. I can’t tell from his words. But I do feel better about him. At least he understands some of what the problems are.
"We do not need a philosopher president, paralyzed like Hamlet by varying strands of thought. We need someone who will do something.
While I am interested in what he thinks and how he feels, I most want to know what he plans to do."
Yes, we do not need flip-floppers, we need some who takes action. Someone who does not look like a fool for minutes when he gets the message that terrorists have attacked his home country. Someone who did not hide at home while others were getting wounded in battle for their country only to get insulted later on by these stay-at-home-moms.
Who needs thinking anyway? Thinking is for the weak and meek. We can do without this nonsense. Let's invade the country first and then see how it develops.
All he has to do to have a chance is to not waffle. Look at Giuliani–the only Republican I would consider worth looking at–and his self-destructive ducking and diving over Choice. Candidates should stand up and be what they are and let us decide. I’d vote for Obama now simply because he has demonstrated the nerve to buck the perceived popular trend.
Yes, some religious people actually get the point of the establishment clause.
Bravo, projektleiterin — well said! Indeed, it will be interesting to see what sort of pitch will appeal to Americans in the 2008 election. 'Shoot first and ask questions later' might have worked in Texas…in the 19th century…but it has proven disastrous for America today. Too bad it has taken Americans such a long time to realize this.
I have to say… Reading this excerpt makes me wish i was an American so that i could vote for guy with such reasonable beliefs to lead a country that has made it it's goal to police the world whether the world likes it or not. If you are going to be bullied around, you might as well be bullied by the right person.
kuroSAVVAS raises an important point that goes back to my post about PNAC (see http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=1240). PNAC believes that America should govern the planet. One big problem, of course, is that America contains less than 5% of the world's population…and only about half of America's population votes…and only about half of America's voters vote for candidates that PNAC likes (i.e., Republicans). If we add this all up, we get the following result: PNAC, wants 1% of the world's population to decide how the other 99% should live, while remaining accountable to only about 2% of the world's population that votes in America's elections. Thus, in the name of spreading American-style democracy, PNAC and its kind would advocate a totalitarian dictatorship unlike any our planet has ever seen.
Well, regardless of the possibility of his presidency and even his ability to act on his views, we need a face of understanding to represent our country. not only for the citizens of the US but also for nations that would wish to harm us. I'd say all religion/race aside, if he presents himself as not only a teacher but also a student like he has so far, he should be the next president.
Obama certainly has an accomplished speech writer. Plus he has a nice smile, a winning personality, presence, and is quick on his feet. In other words exactly what every other president since Johnson has had–a pleasant personality. Not necessarily the best qualities for a leader with such power. Reading that speech however, I am impressed. Whether he wrote it or not is not in question. He had the whavos to make it his. He owns that now and it's a powerful statement to those who can comprehend it. Who knows what implications might whafe through the flat lands of the moral majority after that? However with their leader now winked out, perhaps they will be less focused. Still, can that block of believers ever support a president who can speak of reality with such ease? Who knows. It was a finely worded speech. Could hold up. Hope he keeps his lack of beliefs quiet until he becomes the most powerful man in the world. Then he can be a bit more and perhaps even increasingly vocal.
Now the conservatives are questioning whether Barack Obama's religion is legitimate. Let's see, then. Two prominent themes so far regarding Obama: Is he black enough and is his religion legitimate? It must be election season in America. http://mediamatters.org/items/200703010012
I don't think there is anything new in this speech – separating state and church is an old American tradition. This was obvious to the founding fathers. This is obvious to any man of reason.
The problem is that you don't have that many men of reason. To most Christian fundamentalists, and there are not few, the separation of state and church, seems to be an offense. It's not a bad idea to have a candidate who reminds voters of the principles on which their nation was built.
I must applaud Obama's words here. In my most impressionable years I have grown up with what amounts to a raving lunatic and his equally detached from reality brethern doing their thing down below me.
It is my sincere hope that, if even for a term, America goes completely Democratic. Help clear out some cobwebs (much like the conservatives are doing now in Canada).
It looks like Obama is the best person for that job.