Redstate

By patriotroom Posted in Liberals — Comments (2) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Barack Obama gave a speech in June 2006 to a Pentecostal conference. His stated purpose seemed worthy.

I’d like to look at the connection between religion and politics and offer some thoughts about how we can sort through some of the often-bitter arguments that we’ve been seeing over the last several years. We can raise up the religious call to address poverty and environmental stewardship all we want, but it won’t have an impact unless we tackle head-on the mutual suspicion that sometimes exists between religious America and secular America.

But Obama told us a whole lot more about himself than he may have intended. The speech talks about "progressives" and "secularists" versus people of faith. He starts off talking like an impartial sports announcer calling the game, referring objectively to each side. He soon shows us on which team he plays. And the speech turns into a handbook for liberals on how to talk to and deal with those zealots on the Religious Right.

Obama is clearly including himself in the "we" and "us" in the following.

That 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—then as progressives 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, then the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons and Alan Keyeses will continue to hold sway.

Translation: We are going to have to actually talk to these fanatics.

And to talk to them, we may actually have to talk about values, morals, and culture because that is the language religious people understand.

More fundamentally, the discomfort of some progressives with any hint of religion has often prevented us from effectively addressing issues in moral terms. 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 references 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. [snip]

Our failure as progressives to tap into the moral underpinnings of the nation is not just rhetorical, though. 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.

He needs to remind liberals that values and culture are important.

But, if you are going to talk to people of faith about values and morals, be sure to be convincing, because those zealots can smell a phony a mile away. This kind of thing is not for amateurs.

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. 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.

Then he instructs "conservative leaders" how they can do their part to bridge the gap between religious folks and the secularists. Note there is no "we" here. It is they. He is not talking to his "fellow conservatives."

I also want to look at what conservative leaders need to do, some truths they need to acknowledge. 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.

This is a typical B.S. argument of anti-religious activists. First of all, there is no such thing as the Separation of Church and State in the Constitution. The First Amendment, in its entirety, says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

England had the Anglican Church, which was the official Church of England. All the Founding Fathers meant by the Establishment Clause is that they did not want an official Church of America. That's it. There was no requirement to separate church and state, and the Founders didn't separate them. References to God were embedded and celebrated in our founding documents.

Then he goes on to say that while he agrees that church and state should be separate, our system does demand that people of faith compromise their faith and values.

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. [snip]

At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It’s the art of 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, but to base our policy-making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing.

Translation: When we are making laws, leave your faith at the door. We don't want to hear it.

In this speech he clearly aligns himself with the progressive secularists. He does not consider himself among the people of faith when discussing the "us" and "them." Maybe he really wasn't in church with Reverend Wright all those years and was just using the church to check off that box on the "List of Things I Need to Do to Become President."

Bill Dupray at The Patriot Room