Why Sen. Obama Offers Hope to Atheists (and People of Faith, too)
Apparently some in progressive Blogistan appear troubled by Sen. Obama.
You can see some of that at Hotline where the National Journal catches the confusion; as does MyDD:
Is it Bill Clinton’s fault? Or Lieberman’s? Or is it just common confusion over the demographic, best expressed at Pam’s House Blend whose term slippage in her title “Obama: Dems need to court the fundies” reveals the all too common broad generalization of faith in America?
Pam, what was that AP story title again?
But the most interesting debate occurs over at DailyKos spin off Street Prophets. Because many of the people leaving comments were actually present, and liked it. Chuck Currie posts:
“These days there are a lot of people on the political left who recoil at the mention of religion. Sadly, people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell have defined for many what it means to be Christian. Secularists, said Obama, “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.”
Here is Sen. Obama the next day, “So my point was that we need to have a more complex, more nuanced conversation about religion. And if we do that, then I think the whole country benefits.”
Oh, wait, a politician calling for nuance, is that how they usually court fundamentalists? See McCain in Lynchberg. By the way, Atrios et al, more nuance and complexity will only help with building a good wall of separation of church and state.
Here is Sen. Obama exhibiting some of that nuance:
“the history of the separation of church and state is what has allowed religious freedom to thrive in this country, and that when we talk about issues, it’s also important for us to recognize that there are folks who are non-believers, who are of different faiths, and we’ve got to translate whatever moral concerns or religious concerns that we have in a universal language that all Americans can talk about.”
Courting Destiny expresses that usual knee-jerk fear, writing, “Take away one little little piece of The First Amendment and the door opens for the entire First Amendment to be looked at and revised. Do most Evangelicals and other church going Americans want The first Amendment to be tampered with (sic)? I doubt it.”
As The Green Knight points out: “What he is doing is talking about long-term strategy for winning and for making positive change in the country.”
And I would add that the political chessboard doesn’t get smaller just because one disdains much of it. Over 250 million Americans believe in God and most of them even affiliate themselves with organized religion. The key to making America better for more people is to capture and control more the rhetorical ground. What Obama articulated is a progressive openness toward religion that will reduce the amount of value language available to the religious Right.
But most importantly, analyzing the rhetoric of Sen. Obama’s speech reveals that some folks are not reading it carefully. Read it again, he is on your side.
In fact, Sen. Obama, who admits to doubt, works to recontextualize the usual shibboleths.
The secular world needs to distinguish between means and ends. Usually, “separation of church and state” is their term, but Obama allows sharp evangelicals to see it as their term as well, raised as an historical wall against majoritarian pressure.
And now to the point that has many Kossacks boiling: “It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase `under God.’”
What Obama is really saying is that kids repeating “under God” is essentially meaningless, which is exactly what a good atheist believes.
Of course the state shouldn’t force us to say what we think is metaphysically meaningless, but on a functional (and tactical) level, the strict separationist actually infuses the phrase with meaning by directly attacking it. Much wiser to treat the term as meaningless, not just believe it. Instead, progressives win when they avoid making symbols out of what the Right can use to appeal to broad swaths of Americana.
Better to argue from the positive, by saying let’s mix mangers, dreidels, and sleighs because we are a diverse people and we respect everyone, etc., rather than pushing no mangers and crosses period. By diffusing the meaning of symbols, progressive pluralism brings the battle to our turf along with a foundation of values which appeals to the other 90% of people. I hate to argue from historical determinism but it is clear that the evangelical mind is opening and finding common ground with the rest of the world. Poverty, AIDS, the environment–if you are not aware of this, read more widely here!
Most of these kids graduating from Wheaton, Azusa, Westmont, BIOLA and Hope are bored with the old fights, and so are a new generation of Catholics. I know because I just sat in a room with several hundred of them, one of whom has been living on the Arizona boarder bringing water to migrants as they cross. She received a lot of applause. She may say “under God” but frankly her actions speak much louder than what those words symbolize to those on the far Right or left. Something is changing in the battle, and real liberal hope–an American government for the common good–just might materialize if we continue to welcome folks like her and Senator Obama into our “Democratic” process.
Again, I would ask you click the following link, and read both the article and comments:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelle-goldberg/whats-the-matter-with-b_b_24133.html
How is giving water to illegal border-crossers, which is kind of like offering your car keys to someone who’s broken into your home, an example of faith taking its correct place in the Democratic process?
Actually, it isn’t. It is, however, a living out of that faith first proclaimed by the author of Deuteronomy, summed up over and over that we must always be kind – give assistance to those in need, that is – to the stranger in our land, because we, too, were once strangers in a strange land. By living out their faith, they cut through the garbage about “illegal aliens” versus “undocumented workers” (an example of one of the silliest non-debate/distractions in recent memory) and reminds us that they are PEOPLE in need of care and love. In our day and age, such a thing is perhaps the most political act there can be.
The point, dubious doubter, is that her actions and the evangelical audience’s reaction differs significantly from the party line. It shows that some folks are rethinking faith, seeing in Christianity a call to think outside of private self-interest and the dawning realization that we’re better off the more everyone is better off.
Read a really good story about how she changed an Arizona Republican’s mind.
http://www.religionandsocialpolicy.org/news/article.cfm?id=4069