In June of 2006, Senator Obama delivered a speech to the liberal Christian group Call o Renewal to discuss the connection of religion and politics. In his speech, he discusses the need to address social problems through moral lessons learned from religion but not to base policy decisions on specific religions. This seems to be a return to the ideals of the Social Gospel whereby religion helped to fight social problems but did not codify those efforts into law. There is a major difference between using religion and religious movements to help the poor, improve education, etc., and relying on religious interpretation to criminalize homosexuality or prohibiting same-sex marriage.
In our pluralistic society, Obama argues that there is a need to bridge the religious and secular to provide presence for plurality and not subordinate the secular to the religious and enact a specific orthodoxy (for whose orthodoxy would it be?). According to Obama, it is appropriate for people to use religion to speak in universal values but demand decisions based on religion-specific values. To view religion this way avoids the undemocratic command this must occur because G-d or the Bible says so.
While I know many people who object to the use of religious discourse is the public realm, Obama's distinction reflects the pluralism present within our society. Religion would not be the only type of discourse used to discuss an issue as there are other foundations of law, morality, and justice such as the law, science, or philosophical morality. However, because people identify as being religious it in society, it should not be excluded outright just as Plato or John Rawls should not be excluded.
I admit that there is the danger of a slippery slope here as the use of religion may lead to the establishment of one religion. There is also the concern that secular discourse may be better. For example, the civil rights movement progressed through the legal system at a faster rate than through the use of MLKs religious inspired discourse though it is unclear if the first could have occurred without the second.
Yet, Obama's view of religion counters the Christianist view that mixes religion and politics as a specific religion forms the basis for policy decision ,which is why Dobson must speak out against him. In the AP article, Dobson argues that Obama's position means that Dobson would need to conform his beliefs to that of Senator Obama's: "What he's trying to say here is unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe." Dobson added :
"I think he's deliberately distorting the traditional understanding of the Bible to fit his own world view, his own confused theology...He is dragging biblical understanding through the gutter".... and trying to govern by the "lowest common denominator of morality."Dobson has yet to comment on the irony of his statement and the contradiction between his statement and his approach to religion or theology. While he criticizes Obama for the way in which Obama makes people "conform," Dobson is not concerned that others would need to conform their beliefs and values to his.
Yet, since Dobson's political organization... er, I mean religious organization... and he does not have candidate in the upcoming election, as he stated he would not vote for McCain for President, he needs to create a "devil" for his worshipers to hate so they will get out to vote in the fall and not fall for the outreach by the Obama campaign.
I must admit: I am a very big believer in the separation of Church and State and see a problem with the undemocratic claims from religion. However, the position that religion can inform morality and that it is wrong to base policy decisions on a specific religion seems like a reasonable bridge in our society.
Update: The timing of this is intriguing. Obama delivered his speech in June of 2006. Dobson initiated his attack, an attack that attempts to diminish the knowledge of Obama's Christianity and calls into question his authenticity as a Christian, especially in his ability to speak for others. Why now?
1 comment:
"There is a major difference between using religion and religious movements to help the poor, improve education, etc., and relying on religious interpretation to criminalize homosexuality or prohibiting same-sex marriage."
It seems to me the chief difference is that you support one set of goals and not the other. I suppose it's also that one set of goals is proactive and the other is prohibitive but the more central issue--and I've been noticing this cognitive dissonance--is that Obama is subject to just about every argument liberal bloggers and thinkers have leveled against conservative religious types, who try to bring public policy in line with their religious beliefs.
Post a Comment