Cello Man
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 1,035
Just about all the JREF Forum "natives" I can think of are strong advocates of separation between church and state. It's an important subject which affects many Americans, with the potential to affect many more. Of course I invite discussion here of other candidates and their own stance on this issue, but I want to keep it pertinent to this subject. If someone wants to mention Huckabee's education policy, do it because of his stance on evolution. But please don't discuss issues if they don't tie into the Church & State theme. Leave that to other threads.
I'm not full on fanatic crazy for Obama, but so far I like what he has to say policy-wise. Obama gave what I think is a very important and lucid speech on the subject in 2006. I haven't heard anything comparable from the other candidates so far, and I'm hard pressed to find anything I disagree with.
Here's an excerpt. All parentheticals and discussion notes are mine.
1 - I'm struggling to recall another candidate mentioning that atheists even exist, much less suggesting their viewpoints be given equal consideration to those of the faithful.
2 - Rule by rationality, the very opposite of "because I said so". I'm on board so far.
3 - Tempering one's faith and convictions with reason can only be a good thing. Bush is a key example of what happens when a leader blindly plows ahead because he thinks God told him so.
The whole speech is here. http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/ It's very long but it's definitely worth reading.
Thoughts? Any observation, assent or dissent is welcome.
I'm not full on fanatic crazy for Obama, but so far I like what he has to say policy-wise. Obama gave what I think is a very important and lucid speech on the subject in 2006. I haven't heard anything comparable from the other candidates so far, and I'm hard pressed to find anything I disagree with.
Here's an excerpt. All parentheticals and discussion notes are mine.
Barack Obama said:...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 (1).
And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, 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 that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let's read our bibles. Folks haven't been reading their bibles.
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. (2) 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.
Now this is going to be difficult for some 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 what's possible. 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. (3)
1 - I'm struggling to recall another candidate mentioning that atheists even exist, much less suggesting their viewpoints be given equal consideration to those of the faithful.
2 - Rule by rationality, the very opposite of "because I said so". I'm on board so far.
3 - Tempering one's faith and convictions with reason can only be a good thing. Bush is a key example of what happens when a leader blindly plows ahead because he thinks God told him so.
The whole speech is here. http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/ It's very long but it's definitely worth reading.
Thoughts? Any observation, assent or dissent is welcome.