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 fully agree with what was quoted.
Too bad that he has no chance of getting into office.
Woman as president, black man as vice president, and views that clearly separate church and state? In USA, there is no way this combination will successfully get into office.
A woman and black man might have been able to squeak by. But, sadly, USA is too religious… and based on the number of people who watch Fox News, too stupid.
"Now the conservatives are questioning whether Barack Obama’s religion is legitimate."
Funny, they don't ask if George Bush's religion is legitimate, even after his lies have caused the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and his blatant contempt for the truth has prevented any meaningful progress in Iraq in four years…all for the sake of feeding America's addiction to an energy source that is exterminating the life on our planet.
Oh, that's right…most of the people being killed are not Christians, and Jesus will soon burn our planet to a cinder anyway, so it's all OK — George Bush must be a real Christian. But let Barack Obama point out the problems of using conflicting Christian spiritual beliefs to drive public policy in a secular, constitutional democracy that forbids a government-sponsored religion, and suddenly the conservatives question Obama's religiosity.
I say just ignore them. The people who question Obama's religiosity are just bigots who are looking for an excuse to condemn the guy in a way that won't expose their bigotry.
Obama was featured in Time Magazine this week as the teller of inconvenient truths. He has told Detroit that government aid would be tied to increased fuel efficiency. He has told teachers that "No Child Left Behind" included commendable provision aimed at school and teacher accountability. To fix social security, he is open to raising the retirement age and raising payroll taxes. This is refreshing for my ears. Obama himself understands the stakes: "The country understands we have a series of choices now that, if we put them off any longer, will be much tougher to deal with, and we may not be able to deal with them at all."
The quote of the article, though, belongs to David Axelrod, Obama's political consultant, who has occasionally admonished Obama "not to sit in the middle of the town square and set ourselves on fire." For the full article, see here.
Wow, I am amazed by how easily, and how desperately, so many people want to throw so much trust in a person. How gullable do you have to be to believe ANYTHING that ANY politician says in front of an election?
Obama, like every other current presidential candidate, republican or democrat, has nothing new to say. Just because someone is articulate doesn't mean that it will make them a great leader.
Scott: How often have you heard an American politician say anything critical of any religion other than Islam? I've never heard it before. Further, it shows a deep understanding of religion, not just the "Believe in God and go to church" pabulum you hear from almost every other politician. I'm curious, did you actually listen to Obama's speech on religion before writing your comment?
Same thing for Obama's comments mentioned two comments above. How often do you hear of a politician actually touching the third rail of social security?
This willingness to say (smart) things that will lose him votes makes me take notice of Obama.
We can hope for Obama/Edwards, and settle for Edwards/Clinton. I don't think that Obama is ready for the high office, but I do hope the exposure keeps him in the Senate.
My uneducated guess is that the final Dem ticket will be as much a surprise as the Republicans will be.
Silly suggestions:
Let's focus on getting an electable candidate, as opposed to one who best represents the opposing pole from the current administration. Let's start now on getting Oral Roberts (or some younger gun of his ilk) to run as an independent.
Let's all vote Republican in the primary to help nominate an unelectable candidate.
Dan: You mean Clinton/Edwards.
Also, I don't think you can mean Oral Robetrs. Maybe Pat Robertson? Oral Roberts is nearly 90 and no matter what you guys think I don't think anybody will take seriously a candidate who claims to have raised people from the dead and has threatened suicide when he didn't get enough donations.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070623…
Barack is still growing and learning. Here is an excellent article on exactly the subject covered:
http://acimmessages.blogspot.com/
I sense a smear job. The above comment by "Christian Prophet" cites to a wacky post, in my opinion. The post repeatedly accuses Obama of belonging to a church that worships Karl Marx and attempts to smear Obama by association. This is curious, because Obama admittedly belongs to the United Church of Christ. If you check Wikipedia, you'll see that that church has nothing to do with communism. Rather, it is described as a "mainline Protestant Christian." denominatio nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Church_of_Christ. The wiki site contains the essence of some of the conservative accusations.
Obama has spoken up more about religion. On June 23, 2007, for example, he had this to say:
http://www.ucc.org/news/significant-speeches/a-po…
Here's Obama's answer to Bill Maher's terrific question regarding the Ten Commandments:
Bill Maher: Sen. Obama, we've heard a lot of talk about Democrats courting the Christian evangelical vote. You yourself are running as a candidate of faith, and you've said many times that progressives must take the views of religious right seriously. If the Ten Commandments constitute our greatest source of morality, why is it there no commandments saying do not rape, do not torture, or do not commit incest, yet there are commandments against swearing, working on Sunday, and making statues to other gods?
Rose: Go ahead. Your answer.
Obama: Well, you know, I love Bill Maher, and he—I think rightly he points out some of the inconsistencies and hypocrisy of people who mix religion and politics sometimes. I have said it's important for Democrats to reach out to the faith community, and the reason is because 90 percent of Americans believe in God. It's a source of values. It's a source of their moral compass. And I know it's a source of strength for me and my family. And the way to do it, though, is to understand that, No. 1, people who are religious don't have a monopoly on morality, so they've got to be careful about being sanctimonious. No. 2 is that whatever values may be religiously motivated, if you're in the public square, if you're involved in politics, I think you have to translate those moral precepts into something universal that people of different faiths or no faith at all can debate and argue and hopefully at some point come to a consensus. I think the mistake that's been made with respect to the religious right is a literalism that is so rigid that it does not allow for the possibility of somebody of a different faith or nonbeliever to engage in a dialogue. And on the other hand, I think it's important for us not to presume that faith has no part in the public square. Look, Martin Luther King, the abolitionists, the suffragettes. We have a long history of reform movements being grounded in that sense often religiously expressed that we have to extend beyond ourselves and our individual immediate self-interests to think about something larger.
http://www.slate.com/id/2173857/pagenum/2/
What atheists really mean when they speak of "equality and justice" is to throw the Christians to the lions. Obama speaks of the difficulties of a religious belief and the demands of moral absolutes in the process of forming public policy.
I am sure Mao had similar issues and a similar solution. http://www.chinaaid.org/persecution/history-of-pe…
David: Really? Obama is a persecutor of Christians? On what evidence do you base this claim. Did you watch even 30 seconds of Obama's talk on religion.
Are you one of those people who believes that it's OK for Christians to Christianize public institutions such as courthouses and public schools as though Christianity (as though there is a meaningful way to categorize all Christians) is the official religion of the United States?
Christians—they are not alone in this, btw—feel persecuted when not in charge. Atheists are rarely in charge. Most atheists do not insist on other people being atheists, but most evangelical types insist that everyone be like them–that's the nature of evangelism, after all. So when they are thwarted from converting others, they claim persecution and bias and prejudice.
To which I say "You bet. I'll persecute with extreme prejudice anyone who will not leave me alone!"
(He says with tongue in cheek.)
And just so we're clear, evangelicals are not always religious. Stalin era communists, Maoists, Nazi style fascists…they all share one thing in common: evangelism. The propagation of their worldview to the exclusion of all others.
It's not much of a surprise that this inspired speech on the role of faith in politics by Barack Obama has been hacked and distorted by right wing zealots. They have no shame.
"It took a speech that I had made, extolling faith, and made it seem as if I had said that America was a Muslim nation," Obama told reporters on June 20.
http://www.centerforinvestigativereporting.org/no…
He was wrong then and his wrong now.
I'm very angry concerning this speech.Obama and his wife don't fear God. Proverbs 9:10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.
Obama is nothing like God's messiah Jesus Christ People love Obama because they love thier sin
sevguz,
Your statements are exactly why people turn away from religion. The fact that it's crap is not enough. It's crap you seem to love to wallow in. And you think it's perfume.
Jesus Christ is the Christianity that should be preached every Christian knows that.
Mark T,
Have you read the New Testiment,and acted on it?
sevguz: Each of the 38,000 (or so) competing Christian denominations agree on one point: All the others are wrong. They all use the same book to reach this conclusion.
Absolute Truth confuses absolutely.
sevguz
Read it. Lot of good bits in there. Lot of nonsense as well. I believe it is best to make up one's own mind rather than try to pattern one's life unquestioningly on a blueprint, especially one 2000 years old that comes with, among other things, support for slavery, sexism, and a boatload of elitism.
There are other books, btw, and I believe it is vital to read as broadly as possible.
He told Rick Warren Jesus Christ was his Lord and savior,but he doesn't know what type of Christianity is to be preached, and he has a problem with explaining decissions that were made based on your belief in God, because that would offend others that don't share your belief, and he thinks it's dangerous to believe and act on God's word.
I believe in Jesus Christ I've prayed for proof and I've gotten it
Jesus Christ said I am the way the truth and the life no man cometh unto the Father but by me John 14:6 Obama is dangerous his anti-Jesus Christ
2Thessalonians 2 1-18 Let no man deceive you by any means for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition
I think Mr. Obama is sitting on the fence..He is treading carefully on this matter. Though I still question his religion.
Obama refuses to offend those of other religions while offending those of his own to no end.
Karl, I think if anyone is offended by Mr. Obama over religion it is because they choose to be. He’s not partisan enough for them. People who believe they are RIGHT are always offended by fairness and balance.