I admit that I've been swayed by several of the persuasive points Sen. Obama has made throughout his campaign. I also admit that I don't like the way that James Dobson of Focus on the Family usually presents his political points. However, this article should give great concern to Obama, his campaign, and his followers.
Obama, in the remarks listed in the article, is clearly wrong in his theological assertions. Dobson is not someone to mess with when it comes to that.
As a Christian first, when I look at this flawed interpretation of the Bible, I have a hard time convincing myself to vote for him.
Discuss. Comment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
31 comments:
Would it make it any easier for you to vote for Obama if you factored in the fact that we have a separation of church and state in America? Obama's excerpts in that story highlight the fact that the Bible's multiple (and often impractical) interpretations make that religious text (and most others) incompatible with public policy.
Even with a Christian government, there wouldn't be an agreed upon direction on all matters. And that's not a bad thing. It's called pluralism and it's one of the founding values of this country. If Dobson is threatening not vote for president, who's "running from this fight"?
This is simply a way for Dobson to keep his pledge not to support McCain. By attacking Obama.
The article you reference and your reaction to is based on your beliefs and your interpretation of Christianity. The article makes a great point to support Obama if you read between the lines. Whose versions of Christianity do you want to impose on the rest of the populace? The answer is none. People should be free to follow whatever superstition they choose to and live by what ever code they read into it. If you want religiously inspired government you end up with the Taliban or the regime in Iran where religious compliance is enforced at the end of a rope.
Separation of church and state is not the issue here, in my mind.
I'm not one to say that the president should govern based on the Bible, but by the Constitution. However, Obama's flawed interpretation of applying Old Testament rule to the New Testament of Jesus Christ is where I have an issue. For him to do that and then state that people aren't reading their bibles is complete hogwash.
The New Testament is completely compatible with public policy, probably more than both "conservatives" and "liberals" want to admit.
Pluralism is certainly an idea on which our country was founded. Just because we allow pluralism doesn't mean that everyone's "truths" are correct.
As far as running from this fight, I'm referring to the power that Dobson brings with him. In the election of '94, Dobson can be looked at as a huge reason for the gains that the Repbublicans made. He has a lot of supporters, agree with him or not (which I don't on several of his policies). Dobson could really hurt Obama's chances of reaching across party lines.
Bookstore,
The only person in the article mentioning allowing Christianity, whichever brand of the "superstition" to which one subscribes, to guide public policy is Obama. My point is that his jump from Old Testament rules to New Testament fulfillment of those rules is erroneous and might possibly change my leaning towards Obama.
As far as a government being religiously inspired, the quotes from the founding fathers of our country invoking their Christian ideals in the founding of our country are too many to list here. That being said, NO ONE is trying to force anythin on anyone.
Thanks for stopping by.
So many, many things to say about this conversation. I'll have to tackle the Obama/Dobson controversy after lunch...
But the religiously inspired founding fathers conversation is easy enough:
James Madison:
What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy.
John Adams:
The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.
Thomas Jefferson:
Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man.
A treaty with Tripoli ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1797 says “the government of the United States of America is not founded in any sense on the Christian religion.”
And finally, I highly recommend the Zondervan published, evangelical author Greg Boyd's book, the Myth of a Christian Nation
Oh and I should mention that I am an assistant minister at a church here in town.
Looking forward to continuing this conversation.
Matthew,
I appreciate your input.
I look forward to your thoughts on the Obama/Dobson debate.
Where are you a pastor?
Gee, I never got an 'I appreciate your input'... Kidding. :)
Seriously, for me the issue is when I see Dobson involved in something. It is no secret that he wants to use the government to exert moral control over the country. The question, for me and others who wish to be free of religious control, is whose interpretation of the Bible will we be subject to in case our government becomes a Theocracy. I appreciate your position that your a Christian first and that you separate the new and old testaments but not all Christians do. Watching many, but not all, of the 'Christian' politicians it seems that the most extreme are the most successful and the moderates are drowned out or accused of not believing 'enough'.
I think your saying you believe in the separation of church and state but does Mr Dobson and the others like him do also?
Chris
The article you link to gives small excerpts of a speech from June 2006. Did you look for the speech in its entirety and review before you formulated your opinion? just curious. It would stink for you to draw a conclusion about something based soley on a sound bite, espcially if this caused you to turn your support away from Obama, who in my opinion is our only hope.
W
Wendy,
I haven't looked for the speech referenced in the article. The article I posted was the AP article released this morning, which hasn't really been updated anymore.
I'd love to search out the speech, but if I did that for everything I read in the news, I'd never do anything else. :)
Chris,
I understand. I am the same way.
Be that the case, I would consider the source. And I don't mean the AP. The AP was reporting on what Dobson had to say and Dobson would have been the one to quote Obama.
W
Wendy,
After re-reading the article, it's the AP quoting Obama, not Dobson.
Plus, while Dobson isn't your cup of tea, you'd probably admit that he's media savvy enough not intentionally go around grossly misquoting a presidential candidate.
the AP reported on Dobson's comments about the Obama quote.
Obama's speech - Dobson quoted it - AP reported Dobson's comments/views.
Perhaps this Dobson would not misquote Obama, I really do not know, but I am sure he would have no problem taking comments out of context to further is own (Dobson's) cause(s). Pretty much any media source or political religious gourp would do that. Let's be realistic.
W
'The conservative Christian group provided The Associated Press with an advance copy of the pre-taped radio segment, which runs 18 minutes and highlights excerpts of a speech Obama gave in June 2006 to the liberal Christian group Call to Renewal. Obama mentions Dobson in the speech.'
It sounds to me like Dobson provided AP with the quotes (sloppy on AP's part if they didn't confirm) and only excerpts at that. Sounds a lot like the Rev Wright sound bytes. Played alone they are bad. In context it makes much more sense even if you don't agree with what he is trying to get across.
I hope Dobson wouldn't alter the quotes but I could see him creatively editing to support his thesis.
What was provided to the AP was an advance copy of Dobson's Focus on the Family segment that ran this morning. You and I both know that the Obama camp would have refuted the quotes of Obama's speech if he was misquoted, which hasn't happened.
None of that is the point.
I do agree with Dobson when he points out essentially that we are being forced more and more to water down our views if they don't agree with everyone. I would think that would fly in the face of what this country supposedly stands for, but more and more folks are willing to subscribe to a watered down version of a set of beliefs to help EVERYONE feel better. I say forget that. Pluralism doesn't work.
You say Pluralism doesn't work. So what version of Christianity do you want to force on my family and what are the consequences if we do not follow? Are we to be ejected from the country or taken out behind a building and shot? I know, that sounds extreme, but it's what is happening in other countries where one version of theology gains control. Before you say it can't happen here we must remember the number of women's doctors assassinated for providing reproductive choice. Or bombs going off in front of gay clubs and abortion clinics....
OK, so from what I can tell, the only biblical interpretation quoted in the article is this phrase:
"Dobson took aim at examples Obama cited in asking which Biblical passages should guide public policy - chapters like Leviticus, which Obama said suggests slavery is OK and eating shellfish is an abomination, or Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, "a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application."
The rest seem of Dobson's issues are "constitutional" as he puts it- but are clearly differences of political philosophy, not Biblical interpretation. Since you take issue with his "flawed interpretation of the Bible," I have to wonder what your precise issues are with this one quote.
As I read Obama's quote, there is no biblical interpretation going on in his statement- he's talking about hermeneutics (how to interpret and apply the passage to our society).
There is raging debate amongst biblical scholars, ethicists and theologians about how to understand the levitical laws and Jesus' teaching (exegesis) and how to interpret and apply them to our current society (hermeneutics). What Obama suggests as a controversy- which passages apply to us and how- is widely accepted amongst evangelical and mainline theologians as a controversy.
Lev. 11:9-12 prohibits consumption of shellfish- it's true. So how does that form a community which accepts that text as normative and authoritative? And then how does a politician who's a member of that faith community interact in a society full of people who don't share his denomination's interpretation?
Which passages inform our public policy? It's a serious question. And I fail to see what's incorrect about the theological interpretation that suggests we need discernment about that question. It's certainly not a "confused theology" or "dragging biblical understanding through the gutter"- slurs which are nowhere substantiated by Dobson.
And even more to the point, does either McCain or Bush get high marks for theological interpretation from Dobson? If not, when does he slam them for their confused theology? If so, then my respect for the man has sunk lower than I thought possible. My problem with conservative and liberal interactions in politics is just that- their political affiliations trump their Christian identity.
P.S. I work in a church in church hill
Bookstore,
You've veered completely off the deep end with that last comment. I have not once said I'd force any version of my "superstition" on anyone. The forcing of anything on anyone has only been brought up by you.
When I refer to pluralism, I'm referring to the definition of the word that relates to there being more than one ultimate reality. I belive Christ came to earth, died, and rose again. I also believe that he will come again. I believe that is the only true reality, and that belief drives my life. HOWEVER, I do not or will not stand for the forcing of that belief on others and have never supported that.
For you to insinuate that I advocate for the forcing on something on your family and in turn support the killing of innocent people (this is where you really went cuckoo for cocoa puffs) is ridiculous.
Please refrain from making those broad strokes. I figured someone with your political stripe would be insulted by those tactics. Just goes to show we're not as different as we all claim to be.
Chris - This discussion is not about your faith. It is about religion and public policy. I never said you would directly support it but if Dobson's ultimate goal is moral control through the government I do wonder at what point do you step away from them. Do you allow them to invade our lives step by step justifying it as 'God's Will' or do you allow each person to live by their own creed?
Nor did I resort to name calling. This has been a discussion about religion and it's place in public policy. Calling someone crazy does nothing to refute the point or comment they made. If you disagree with something - explain.
Labeling religions as 'superstitions' may have been harsh on my part but from whom did I learn that term. Growing up in Africa the Christian missionaries used that to describe the loacals beliefs and customs and even to deride the local Muslim population.
Bookstore,
I don't support moral control by an organization but by individual citizens. Citizens vote for candidates and referendums that they tend to agree with morally overall.
My whole point of this post was to say that Obama had better watch out for Dobson as he is a worthy opponent. I also feel that Obama not feeling that the gist of the Bible is incompatible with his view of government makes me lean less towards voting for him.
On a personal note, you were the one that veered in to how my support of an organization (btw I haven't really supported Focus on the Family in any of these comments or in the post) or a candidate would somehow force you family to adhere to a set of ideals with which you don't agree.
"Are we to be ejected from the country or taken out behind a building and shot? I know, that sounds extreme, but it's what is happening in other countries where one version of theology gains control." Damn right that sounds extreme! Taken outside and shot? Come on. Do you REALLY think that's where this country is headed? If so, we agree on virtually nothing and don't really have much to debate. I also think it points to very little faith in the political process we have in place now, whether you support McCain, Obama, Barr, or the guy down the street.
Questions of pluralism and religion's role in democracy aside, Chris I'm still curious if you can elaborate on what your problems are with Obama's theological interpretation.
My issue with OBAMA is that he was a member of a church for over 20 years where the minister wasn't teaching biblical teachings but hatred toward America and toward everyone who isn't african american.
Now that OBAMA is running for office, he expects me to believe that he doesn't follow that philosophy anymore. In an interview on with his "former" spiritiual advisor, he stated that OBAMA has to do what he has to do to win. I don't answer to politicians or voters.
I make every decision based on what the Bible says is the right thing to do. If neither candidate fits that mold, I won't vote for either. The same holds true for our local elections.
I was all for Mike Huckabee but unfortunately, I wasn't in the majority.
beamer319
Here is a copy of the speech:
Obama: On Faith and Politics. And Alan Keyes.
Sen. Barack Obama this morning talks about religion and says Democrats need to better acknowledge the power of faith.
Here's his speech.
Remarks of Senator Barack Obama
Call to Renewal Keynote Address
Washington, DC
Wednesday, June 28th, 2006
Good morning. I appreciate the opportunity to speak here at the Call to Renewal’s Building a Covenant for a New America conference, and I’d like to congratulate you all on the thoughtful presentations you’ve given so far about poverty and justice in America. I think all of us would affirm that caring for the poor finds root in all of our religious traditions – certainly that’s true for my own.
But today I’d like to talk about the connection between religion and politics and perhaps offer some thoughts about how we can sort through some of the often bitter arguments over this issue over the last several years.
I do so because, as you all know, we can affirm the importance of poverty in the Bible and discuss the religious call to environmental stewardship all we want, but it won’t have an impact if we don’t tackle head-on the mutual suspicion that sometimes exists between religious America and secular America.
For me, this need was illustrated during my 2004 face for the U.S. Senate. My opponent, Alan Keyes, was well-versed in the Jerry Falwell-Pat Robertson style of rhetoric that often labels progressives as both immoral and godless.
Indeed, towards the end of the campaign, Mr. Keyes said that, “Jesus Christ would not vote for Barack Obama. Christ would not vote for Barack Obama because Barack Obama has behaved in a way that it is inconceivable for Christ to have behaved.‿
Now, I was urged by some of my liberal supporters not to take this statement seriously. To them, Mr. Keyes was an extremist, his arguments not worth entertaining.
What they didn’t understand, however, was that I had to take him seriously. For he claimed to speak for my religion – he claimed knowledge of certain truths.
Mr. Obama says he’s a Christian, he would say, and yet he supports a lifestyle that the Bible calls an abomination.
Mr. Obama says he’s a Christian, but supports the destruction of innocent and sacred life.
What would my supporters have me say? That a literalist reading of the Bible was folly? That Mr. Keyes, a Roman Catholic, should ignore the teachings of the Pope?
Unwilling to go there, I answered with the typically liberal response in some debates – namely, that we live in a pluralistic society, that I can’t impose my religious views on another, that I was running to be the U.S. Senator of Illinois and not the Minister of Illinois.
But Mr. Keyes implicit accusation that I was not a true Christian nagged at me, and I was also aware that my answer didn’t adequately address the role my faith has in guiding my own values and beliefs.
My dilemma was by no means unique. In a way, it reflected the broader debate we’ve been having in this country for the last thirty years over the role of religion in politics.
For some time now, there has been plenty of talk among pundits and pollsters that the political divide in this country has fallen sharply along religious lines. Indeed, the single biggest “gap‿ in party affiliation among white Americans today is not between men and women, or those who reside in so-called Red States and those who reside in Blue, but between those who attend church regularly and those who don’t.
Conservative leaders, from Falwell and Robertson to Karl Rove and Ralph Reed, have been all too happy to exploit this gap, consistently reminding evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their Church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage; school prayer and intelligent design.
Democrats, for the most part, have taken the bait. At best, we may try to avoid the conversation about religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that – regardless of our personal beliefs – constitutional principles tie our hands. At worst, some liberals dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word “Christian‿ describes one’s political opponents, not people of faith.
Such strategies of avoidance may work for progressives when the opponent is Alan Keyes. But over the long haul, I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people, and join a serious debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy.
We first need to understand that Americans are a religious people. 90 percent of us believe in God, 70 percent affiliate themselves with an organized religion, 38 percent call themselves committed Christians, and substantially more people believe in angels than do those who believe in evolution.
This religious tendency is not simply the result of successful marketing by skilled preachers or the draw of popular mega-churches. In fact, it speaks to a hunger that’s deeper than that – a hunger that goes beyond any particular issue or cause.
Each day, it seems, thousands of Americans are going about their daily round – dropping off the kids at school, driving to the office, flying to a business meeting, shopping at the mall, trying to stay on their diets – and coming to the realization that something is missing. They are deciding that their work, their possessions, their diversions, their sheer busyness, is not enough.
They want a sense of purpose, a narrative arc to their lives. They’re looking to relieve a chronic loneliness, a feeling supported by a recent study that shows Americans have fewer close friends and confidants than ever before. And so they need an assurance that somebody out there cares about them, is listening to them – that they are not just destined to travel down a long highway towards nothingness.
I speak from experience here. I was not raised in a particularly religious household. My father, who returned to Kenya when I was just two, was Muslim but as an adult became an atheist. My mother, whose parents were non-practicing Baptists and Methodists, grew up with a healthy skepticism of organized religion herself. As a consequence, I did too.
It wasn’t until after college, when I went to Chicago to work as a community organizer for a group of Christian churches, that I confronted my own spiritual dilemma.
The Christians who I worked with recognized themselves in me; they saw that I knew their Book and shared their values and sang their songs. But they sensed a part of me that remained removed, detached, an observer in their midst. In time, I too came to realize that something was missing – that without a vessel for my beliefs, without a commitment to a particular community of faith, at some level I would always remain apart and alone.
If not for the particular attributes of the historically black church, I may have accepted this fate. But as the months passed in Chicago, I found myself drawn to the church.
For one thing, I believed and still believe in the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change, a power made real by some of the leaders here today. Because of its past, the black church understands in an intimate way the Biblical call to feed the hungry and cloth the naked and challenge powers and principalities. And in its historical struggles for freedom and the rights of man, I was able to see faith as more than just a comfort to the weary or a hedge against death; it is an active, palpable agent in the world. It is a source of hope.
And perhaps it was out of this intimate knowledge of hardship, the grounding of faith in struggle, that the church offered me a second insight: that faith doesn’t mean that you don’t have doubts. You need to come to church precisely because you are of this world, not apart from it; you need to embrace Christ precisely because you have sins to wash away – because you are human and need an ally in your difficult journey.
It was because of these newfound understandings that I was finally able to walk down the aisle of Trinity United Church of Christ one day and affirm my Christian faith. It came about as a choice, and not an epiphany; the questions I had did not magically disappear. But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side of Chicago, I felt I heard God’s spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth.
The path I traveled has been shared by millions upon millions of Americans – evangelicals, Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Muslims alike; some since birth, others at a turning point in their lives. It is not something they set apart from the rest of their beliefs and values. In fact, it is often what drives them.
This is why, if we truly hope to speak to people where they’re at – to communicate our hopes and values in a way that’s relevant to their own – we cannot abandon the field of religious discourse.
Because when we ignore the debate about what it means to be a good Christian or Muslim or Jew; when we discuss religion only in the negative sense of where or how it should not be practiced, rather than in the positive sense of what it tells us about our obligations towards one another; when we shy away from religious venues and religious broadcasts because we assume that we will be unwelcome – others will fill the vacuum, those with the most insular views of faith, or those who cynically use religion to justify partisan ends.
In other words, if we don’t reach out to evangelical Christians and other religious Americans and tell them what we stand for, Jerry Falwell’s and Pat Robertson’s will continue to hold sway.
More fundamentally, the discomfort of some progressives with any hint of religion has often prevented us from effectively addressing issues in moral terms. Some of the problem here is rhetorical – if we scrub language of all religious content, we forfeit the imagery and terminology through which millions of Americans understand both their personal morality and social justice. Imagine Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address without reference to “the judgments of the Lord,‿ or King’s I Have a Dream speech without reference to “all of God’s children.‿ Their summoning of a higher truth helped inspire what had seemed impossible and move the nation to embrace a common destiny.
Our failure as progressives to tap into the moral underpinnings of the nation is not just rhetorical. Our fear of getting “preachy‿ may also lead us to discount the role that values and culture play in some of our most urgent social problems.
After all, the problems of poverty and racism, the uninsured and the unemployed, are not simply technical problems in search of the perfect ten point plan. They are rooted in both societal indifference and individual callousness – in the imperfections of man.
Solving these problems will require changes in government policy; it will also require changes in hearts and minds. I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturer’s lobby – but I also believe that when a gang-banger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels somebody disrespected him, we have a problem of morality; there’s a hole in that young man’s heart – a hole that government programs alone cannot fix.
I believe in vigorous enforcement of our non-discrimination laws; but I also believe that a transformation of conscience and a genuine commitment to diversity on the part of the nation’s CEOs can bring quicker results than a battalion of lawyers.
I think we should put more of our tax dollars into educating poor girls and boys, and give them the information about contraception that can prevent unwanted pregnancies, lower abortion rates, and help assure that that every child is loved and cherished. But my bible tells me that if we train a child in the way he should go, when he is old he will not turn from it. I think faith and guidance can help fortify a young woman’s sense of self, a young man’s sense of responsibility, and a sense of reverence all young people for the act of sexual intimacy.
I am not suggesting that every progressive suddenly latch on to religious terminology. Nothing is more transparent than inauthentic expressions of faith – the politician who shows up at a black church around election time and claps – off rhythm – to the gospel choir.
But what I am suggesting is this – secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King – indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history – were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. To say that men and women should not inject their “personal morality‿ into public policy debates is a practical absurdity; our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Moreover, if we progressives shed some of these biases, we might recognize the overlapping values that both religious and secular people share when it comes to the moral and material direction of our country. We might recognize that the call to sacrifice on behalf of the next generation, the need to think in terms of “thou‿ and not just “I,‿ resonates in religious congregations across the country. And we might realize that we have the ability to reach out to the evangelical community and engage millions of religious Americans in the larger project of America’s renewal.
Some of this is already beginning to happen. Pastors like Rick Warren and T.D. Jakes are wielding their enormous influences to confront AIDS, Third World debt relief, and the genocide in Darfur. Religious thinkers and activists like my friend Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo are lifting up the Biblical injunction to help the poor as a means of mobilizing Christians against budget cuts to social programs and growing inequality. National denominations have shown themselves as a force on Capitol Hill, on issues such as immigration and the federal budget. And across the country, individual churches like my own are sponsoring day care programs, building senior centers, helping ex-offenders reclaim their lives, and rebuilding our gulf coast in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
To build on these still-tentative partnerships between the religious and secular worlds will take work – a lot more work than we’ve done so far. The tensions and suspicions on each side of the religious divide will have to be squarely addressed, and each side will need to accept some ground rules for collaboration.
While I’ve already laid out some of the work that progressives need to do on this, I that the conservative leaders of the Religious Right will need to acknowledge a few things as well.
For one, they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. That during our founding, it was not the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of this separation; it was the persecuted religious minorities, Baptists like John Leland, who were most concerned that any state-sponsored religion might hinder their ability to practice their faith.
Moreover, 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 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.
We all know the story of Abraham and Isaac. Abraham is ordered by God to offer up his only son, and without argument, he takes Isaac to the mountaintop, binds him to an altar, and raises his knife, prepared to act as God has commanded.
Of course, in the end God sends down an angel to intercede at the very last minute, and Abraham passes God’s test of devotion.
But it’s fair to say that if any of us saw a twenty-first century Abraham raising the knife on the roof of his apartment building, we would, at the very least, call the police and expect the Department of Children and Family Services to take Isaac away from Abraham. We would do so because we do not hear what Abraham hears, do not see what Abraham sees, true as those experiences may be. So the best we can do is act in accordance with those things that are possible for all of us to know, be it common laws or basic reason.
Finally, any reconciliation between faith and democratic pluralism requires some sense of proportion.
This goes for both sides.
Even those who claim the Bible’s inerrancy make distinctions between Scriptural edicts, a sense that some passages – the Ten Commandments, say, or a belief in Christ’s divinity – are central to Christian faith, while others are more culturally specific and may be modified to accommodate modern life.
The American people intuitively understand this, which is why the majority of Catholics practice birth control and some of those opposed to gay marriage nevertheless are opposed to a Constitutional amendment to ban it. Religious leadership need not accept such wisdom in counseling their flocks, but they should recognize this wisdom in their politics.
But a sense of proportion should also guide those who police the boundaries between church and state. Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation – context matters. It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase “under God;‿ I certainly didn’t. Having voluntary student prayer groups using school property to meet should not be a threat, any more than its use by the High School Republicans should threaten Democrats. And one can envision certain faith-based programs – targeting ex-offenders or substance abusers – that offer a uniquely powerful way of solving problems.
So we all have some work to do here. But I am hopeful that we can bridge the gaps that exist and overcome the prejudices each of us bring to this debate. And I have faith that millions of believing Americans want that to happen. No matter how religious they may or may not be, people are tired of seeing faith used as a tool to attack and belittle and divide – they’re tired of hearing folks deliver more screed than sermon. Because in the end, that’s not how they think about faith in their own lives.
.
So let me end with another interaction I had during my campaign. A few days after I won the Democratic nomination in my U.S. Senate race, I received an email from a doctor at the University of Chicago Medical School that said the following:
“Congratulations on your overwhelming and inspiring primary win. I was happy to vote for you, and I will tell you that I am seriously considering voting for you in the general election. I write to express my concerns that may, in the end, prevent me from supporting you.‿
The doctor described himself as a Christian who understood his commitments to be “totalizing.‿ His faith led him to a strong opposition to abortion and gay marriage, although he said that his faith also led him to question the idolatry of the free market and quick resort to militarism that seemed to characterize much of President Bush’s foreign policy.
But the reason the doctor was considering not voting for me was not simply my position on abortion. Rather, he had read an entry that my campaign had posted on my website, which suggested that I would fight “right wing ideologues who want to take away a woman’s right to choose.‿ He went on to write:
“I sense that you have a strong sense of justice…and I also sense that you are a fair minded person with a high regard for reason…Whatever your convictions, if you truly believe that those who oppose abortion are all ideologues driven by perverse desires to inflict suffering on women, then you, in my judgment, are not fair-minded….You know that we enter times that are fraught with possibilities for good and for harm, times when we are struggling to make sense of a common polity in the context of plurality, when we are unsure of what grounds we have for making any claims that involve others…I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words.‿
I checked my web-site and found the offending words. My staff had written them to summarize my pro-choice position during the Democratic primary, at a time when some of my opponents were questioning my commitment to protect Roe v. Wade.
Re-reading the doctor’s letter, though, I felt a pang of shame. It is people like him who are looking for a deeper, fuller conversation about religion in this country. They may not change their positions, but they are willing to listen and learn from those who are willing to speak in reasonable terms – those who know of the central and awesome place that God holds in the lives of so many, and who refuse to treat faith as simply another political issue with which to score points.
I wrote back to the doctor and thanked him for his advice. The next day, I circulated the email to my staff and changed the language on my website to state in clear but simple terms my pro-choice position. And that night, before I went to bed, I said a prayer of my own – a prayer that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me.
It is a prayer I still say for America today – a hope that we can live with one another in a way that reconciles the beliefs of each with the good of all. It’s a prayer worth praying, and a conversation worth having in this country in the months and years to come. Thank you.
source: http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2006/06/obama_on_faith_and_politics_an.html
Enjoy!!
Beamer 319
Beamer 319,
Welcome to the fray. Stop by and add to the discussion anytime.
Matthew,
You're right about the biblical interpretation piece, Obmama isn't really dealing with interpretation. Where I disagree with him is how he does apply the passages referenced in the speech.
You are probably much more equipped than I to discuss the application of Leviticus in today's world, however, I'll give a BRIEF view of it. In Romans Paul writes extensively about the law and where it stands in the life of Christians since the arrival, death, and resurection of Christ.
Romans 14 especially deals with the rules that many follow because they feel they still need to even after Christ's resurrection.
I don't believe that we still have to apply the rules set out in Leviticus because we are set free in Christ. Obama seems to point out that we have a conflict in our faith by pointing out the shellfish rule and that slavery was ok. I disagree.
Not very eloquent, that's my take. Thoughts?
Wow Chris you sure got some comments over this one... but such a topic seems to usually draw out the viewpoints.
I've got to say that the linked AP article is a bit lacking on the entire context (can anyone provide a link to a more detailed article or something?)... don't feel capable of commenting without more details.
I will concede that sometimes I enjoy Dobson's views and points on certain topics and sometimes I don't (with politics moreso in this category)...
But I will comment on some of the comments made!
* separate of church and state = good!
* brouhaha over foundering fathers: I doubt either side can win this argument; see this.
* cherry-picking people as examples - can't we ALL find examples of people that prove a point? I'm quite sure that at least I don't totally agree with Falwell or Robertson nor do I consider these guys as not capable of being wrong - they're people. They can be wrong. People believing in killing homosexuals or abortion doctors can be wrong. I don't believe that Jesus came on Earth so that these things can happen, he came to show people that were all messed up that there is a hope there is a way. Not to kill them. Not to hate them. But to love them. I totally don't get how killing someone shows them hope, love, grace and ultimately Jesus Christ. But I'm not these cherry-picked examples, so... got me.
* makes me very scared for the future of this country: I believe both sides feel this way, don't they? I hear the same thing. I'm not sure I like any of the options really well - now that scares me a bit.
For more info refer to
this La Shawn Barber post which includes a link to Obama's address from 2006.
Alright now that I have researched it a bit more, I will agree with Chris on the topic of wondering why Obama would mention should we be guided by Leviticus or Deuteronomy when, if we're assuming we're viewing this from a Christian perspective, all of that is fulfilled by Jesus? We should be guided by Jesus. But then again, we probably have to keep in mind that Obama is, in my mind, just being a politician, and playing his cards the way he sees sensibly. I just don't agree.
I do agree it would be radical if we were guided by the Sermon on the Mount though.
I'm not sure - I really want Barack Obama to explain this a bit more, but maybe he has and I just don't know about it.
I'm not sure how much I really like Dobson going into the political arena that much on this though. If you read this article from a DFW newspaper, you'll find this at the end:
Caldwell said he has great respect for Dobson's advocacy for families, but said the criticism of Obama was "a bit over the top" and "crossed the line."
"There has been a call for a higher level of politics and politicking," Caldwell said. "So to attack at this level is inappropriate and I think unacceptable and we at least want to hold everybody accountable."
Tom Minnery, a senior vice president at Focus on the Family, responded: "Without question, Dr. Dobson is speaking for millions of evangelicals because his understanding of the Bible is thoroughly evangelical."
Yeah I'm not so sure about Dobson when I hear/read something like that that he is "speaking for millions of evangelicals". I prefer to speak for myself, Mr. Minnery and Mr. Dobson. And apparently, an Obama supporter (Pastor Kirbyjon Caldwell) felt at least in some way similarly and produced this site...
I agree, just read the La Shawn Barber post. Great read and does a much better job than I do at pointing out the ridiculousness of Obama's comments.
Here's the link again to that post:
http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2008/06/24/barack-obama-enrolls-in-john-kerry-school-of-biblical-interpretation/
I will read the Barber post when I get a chance. In the meantime, can you analyze McCain's biblical interpretation for me? Or at least point to any speech as substantial as Obama's on the topic? I would love to compare- for we're not voting in a vacuum but making a choice between 2 viable candidates.
My basic problem with both liberal and conservative Christians is that their political label comes before the Christian one- and so I feel it necessary to subject both candidates to the same scrutiny using the same criteria.
Thanks for you help with this research and conversation! And I'll happily comment on the Barber post once I've read it.
Good point Matthew. I would love to listen to McCain's views on this topic and compare.
I'm listening to Obama's audio right now from this URL:
http://obama.senate.gov/podcast/060628_Sen.Barack_Obama_Podcast_Call_to_Renewal_Keynote_34.mp3
there's a lot more there than just what was quoted. A whole lot more...
Here is what I found about John McCain:
John McCain
Photo: Alex Wong / Getty ImagesSponsored Links
Compare Obama and McCain
See where the candidates agree and disagree with you or anyone else.
whereistand.com
The Real Barack Obama
The truth behind the canditate - "Barack Obama Exposed" - Free!
www.HumanEvents.com
John McCain: Yes or No?
10-Second Poll. Do You Like John McCain?
www.poll10.com/John-McCain
Christianity Ads
John McCain Wife
McCain and Cindy
Kerry McCain
McCain Conservative
McCain Iraq
Faith Snapshot:
Issues of faith and religion
Source: http://christianity.about.com/od/religionpolitics/p/mccainfaithss.htm
Hope this aids the discussion.
Beamer 319
http://christianity.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=christianity&cdn=religion&tm=29&gps=278_1071_1020_577&f=10&tt=11&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//www.csmonitor.com/2007/1018/p01s06-uspo.html
I found John McCain's view on the Christian Science Monitor.
Thanks,
Beamer319
Post a Comment