User Comments

1. 

   11/24/08

   satijournal

   That's a great speech. A comment on one part of it:
   
   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. Folks tend to forget that during our founding, it wasn't the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment. It was the persecuted minorities, it was Baptists like John Leland who didn't want the established churches to impose their views on folks who were getting happy out in the fields and teaching the scripture to slaves. It was the forbearers of the evangelicals who were the most adamant about not mingling government with religious, because they did not want state-sponsored religion hindering their ability to practice their faith as they understood it..
   
   This is a great point. These days, a lot of secularists attend the Unitarian church because they are accepting of pretty much all beliefs or no beliefs. It hasn't always been that way, though. A few hundred years ago, the Unitarian church was the oppressor.
   
   The church provides a sense of community for a lot of people. Personally, I've never been religious, but I have tried a few synagogues and Unitarian churches. The Jewish service was kind of alienating because much of it is in Hebrew and since I can't read Hebrew, I didn't feel like I fit in. The Unitarian church didn't offer much in the way of inspiration or faith, but it was okay. Just not my cup of tea, as the saying goes.
   
   I've always kind of envied people who could accept things on faith. It must make life easier and it must provide comfort that when you die, you'll be going to a better place. The problem is, that is the ONLY concern of a lot of religious people. They believe that if they don't protest abortions, they won't make it into heaven. That's when it crosses the line into nuttiness.
   
   And we already have enough nuttiness in politics.

   [reply]
   1. 

      11/25/08

      csiunatc

      Here is an interesting question for you Sati,
      
      What if they are right.
      What if
      
      There is a God
      The bible is the word of god
      The interpretation that abortion is murder is right
      The acceptance of murder or support thereof is reason to not be allowed into heaven.
      
      Is it really that hard to understand why people who believe this is against abortion?
   2. 

      11/25/08

      clioandme

      Okay, Ben, you need to take in the whole speech, not just the part that works for you. And CSI, I am guessing you did not even read the thing, because you are just parroting old phrases.
      
      The point—for starters—is to get past this squabbling and take each other seriously on this front without resorting to this language.
2. 

   11/25/08

   satijournal

   @CSI - I'll take my chances.
   
   @Mark - To me, the jest of Obama's speech was that we need to be more accepting of other people's beliefs. That's fine. I can accept that people get comfort in believing in a higher being and an afterlife. To me, it's like believing in the tooth fairy or Santa Claus. That's why I'm against the legislation of religious morality.

   [reply]
   1. 

      11/25/08

      clioandme

      Respect, yes. But how does your second-to-last sentence comport with that? I think we could build up an argument for your last sentence on more substantial ground upon which those who are religious could also find a home.
   2. 

      11/25/08

      satijournal

      Obama talked about the U.S. being a pluralistic society. People are free to practice any religion of their choosing, providing it doesn't have practices that are in violation of our laws. Or we're free to not practice any religion at all. We have problems when one group tries to impose their beliefs on others, and that's why we need a separation of church and state.
      
      For religious people to be able to find a home in our government, they need to be more accepting of those who have different beliefs and, as Obama said, focus more on our commonalities. Too often, though, the issues are the divisive ones: abortion and gay rights. Until we get beyond that, we're at a stalemate.
3. 

   11/25/08

   MidwestMom

   Mark, thanks for posting that link and bringing the discussion to a different plane.
   
   I believe, as I think Obama does, that faith plays a role in the conscience-formation of many in this country. It provides a common vocabulary for many to talk about virtues, values and decision-making and can be a useful tool in public discourse.
   
   Where faith and conscience fail us is when they are particularist, when faith, broadly-defined, becomes religion, narrowly-focused.
   
   I don't think the founding fathers expected complete secularism in public discourse. Instead, I think they hoped that individuals would be able to overcome division and focus on the common good when making policy.
   
   I was impressed at Obama's point that 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 am a person of faith, and I am in complete agreement with his statement.
   
   Our country has many problems that particular faiths do not adequately address. And while we continue, as a people, to ruthlessly defend our positions without finding the commonalities of outlook that will allow us to make a path forward, those contentious issues will continue to be roadblocks to progress.

   [reply]
   1. 

      11/25/08

      clioandme

      Good summary of key points. The quote you selected and the way you interpret it speaks to what Ben is talking about above too, I think.
      
      Of course, this works both ways. There are people like me who normally would have preferred to banish religious discourse in public life altogether. Obama is suggesting I get past that, and he's right. But he's also got a clear message for the other side of this long-running gridlock, the one to which you point.