• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Obama: On separation of church and state

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.

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.
 
....excellently written article....he seems like an intelligent guy - make sure y'all vote for him ;)
 
Last edited:
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.

Yeah, that's encouraging. That whole paragraph is a gem. He'd certainly be my choice if I was an American.
 
Yeah, I disagree with him on taxation, gun control, and the role of the federal government itself, but making sure to include non-believers in his obligatory inclusiveness blurb means I'm gonna vote for him.
 
Yeah, I disagree with him on taxation, gun control, and the role of the federal government itself, but making sure to include non-believers in his obligatory inclusiveness blurb means I'm gonna vote for him.
You might be a better man than I am but Huckabee's line about bringing American law in line with God's law (or whatever it was) specifically means I'm not gonna vote for him.

It's good to see Obama has the balls to say what most of his fellow Democratic candidates have not (to my limited knowledge on this topic).
 
You might be a better man than I am but Huckabee's line about bringing American law in line with God's law (or whatever it was) specifically means I'm not gonna vote for him.

Unless you are voting in a GOP primary, I doubt you will have the chance.

It's good to see Obama has the balls to say what most of his fellow Democratic candidates have not (to my limited knowledge on this topic).

Even Bush and Romney have made inclusive "were a nation of this that and the other messages". They usually leave out non-believers.

In general though, I tend to refrain from making voting decisions based on short sound bites. (as in the huckster case)
 
Agreed. I know some of my fellow atheists were repulsed by his association with that 'homophobe-for-Jesus' friend of his a couple months ago (which his campaign took a lot of heat and apologized for) but I think this speech is a more accurate representation of Obama's own views. It's rare for a candidate to even mention nonbelievers, and even more so to go out of his way to incorporate nonbelievers into his message.
 
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.

I doubt he applies that principle to every issue. How many things are "wrong" in his eyes that may not be "wrong" to others?
 
Yeah, I disagree with him on taxation, gun control, and the role of the federal government itself, but making sure to include non-believers in his obligatory inclusiveness blurb means I'm gonna vote for him.

:rolleyes: Yes, that's exactly what the OP was telling you to do.
 
You might be a better man than I am but Huckabee's line about bringing American law in line with God's law (or whatever it was) specifically means I'm not gonna vote for him.
I agree. When I saw the clip of Huckabee promising to change the Constitution to conform with the bible, I actually threw up in my mouth a little bit, mostly from the shame and horror of having previously supported him.
 
You know, this might mean something if he was going for a Supreme Court Judgeship, but he's not. The President can't interpret the Constitution. Not his job.
 
You know, this might mean something if he was going for a Supreme Court Judgeship, but he's not. The President can't interpret the Constitution. Not his job.
But the President does nominate Supreme Court Justices, as well as all other Federal Court Judgeships. Laws are built by precedent, and SCOTUS determines Constitutionality.

Thus, a President's views on Constitutional issues are of paramount importance, at least to me.
 
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.(...) 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.

John Edwards on Vouchers and ReligionOne of the younger candidates for president, John Edwards' chances of gaining the Democratic nomination don't look very good; nevertheless, it is worth noting that he appears to be a strong supporter for the separation of church and state.
The JTA reports:

Faith is enormously important to me personally and to tens of millions of Americans. In addition, religious institutions do wonderful work and make important contributions to our society. In a manner consistent with the First Amendment, faith-based charities should be able to participate in delivering services. But they should also meet the same anti-discrimination standards as other charities receiving government support. We should be encouraging faith-based initiatives in a way that values the important work of these organizations and does not divide Americans.

John Edwards interview by David Kuo on beliefnet
(a few selected-representative excerpts)

What parts of American life do you think would most outrage Jesus?

"Our selfishness. Our resort to war when it's not necessary. I think that Jesus would be disappointed in our ignoring the plight of those around us who are suffering and our focus on our own selfish short-term needs. I think he would be appalled, actually."

In 2004, John Kerry said that he wouldn't let his faith affect his decision making. Does it affect yours?

"Yes, it does. I do believe in the separation of church and state. But I don't think separation of church and state means you have to be free from your faith. My faith informs everything I think and do. It's part of my value system. And to suggest that I can somehow separate and divorce that from the rest of me is not possible. I would not, under any circumstances, try to impose my personal faith and belief on the rest of the country. I don't think that's right. I don't think that's appropriate. But freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion. And I think that anything we can do to promote the idea that people should express their faith is a good thing."

Do you think that America is a Christian nation?

"That's a good question. I never thought of it quite that way. There's a lot of America that's Christian. I would not describe us, though, on the whole, as a Christian nation. I guess the word "Christian" is what bothers me, even though I'm a Christian. I think that America is a nation of faith. I do believe that. Certainly by way of heritage--there's a powerful Christian thread through all of American history."

Would it be your hope that a John Edwards Supreme Court would allow public schools to encourage more prayer in schools?

"What I'm not in favor of is for a teacher to go to the front of the classroom and lead the class in prayer. Because I think that by definition means that that teacher's faith is being imposed on children who will almost certainly come from different faith beliefs. Allowing time for children to pray for themselves, to themselves, I think is not only okay, I think it's a good thing."

What do you think about Ten Commandments being displayed in local courthouses?

"I guess I've been in courthouses where I've seen the Ten Commandments. I've never had a strong reaction to it. I do think that it's the same issue. How would Muslims feel if they went into that courthouse, and how would people of other faiths feel, Hindus, others feel, if they were in the same circumstance?

So I'm sensitive to that. You know, of course it wouldn't offend me because I'm Christian. And I'm certainly not offended by the idea of expressing faith in that circumstance. But probably it causes more trouble than good."

I realize that this is a bit of a strange question but do you think that candidates are almost to the point of talking too much about their faith? President Bush in 2000 and 2004 garnered a lot of support by simply telling evangelicals that he was a devoted Christian. Now candidates galore seem to be wearing their faith out front. Is there too much of that going on? Is politics corrupting religion?

"Faith is not a political strategy, and should not be a political strategy. If it is being used as a tool to garner votes, to convince people they should support one political party or the other, I think that is a huge mistake. I believe with every fiber of my being that God is not a Democrat or a Republican and does not support either party.

If you're being asked about how you make decisions, what are the things that affect you when you make decisions, I think it's perfectly reasonable under those circumstances to give honest answers about your faith and how your faith affects your value system and what you believe and what you care about.

You asked me very early in this interview whether faith plays a role in my views about poverty and what to do about poverty. It does. It plays a very powerful role. So I think it's one of those things that is not a black and white. It's one of those things where you have handle it the right way and with honesty. But I think it's offensive to see any politician, or potential politician, using faith as a political strategy."

The dust-up over Edwards' bloggers
 
Yeah, I disagree with him on taxation, gun control, and the role of the federal government itself, but making sure to include non-believers in his obligatory inclusiveness blurb means I'm gonna vote for him.

Of course if you see no particular problem with his views on taxation, gun control, or the role of the government; this sounds pretty sweet.
 
Oh, I know that, but they still get it wrong.
Which makes it all the more important that you pick a President that will nominate decent judges, and what other criteria do you have than the candidate's views on Constitutional issues? Nominating judges is arguably the most important job a President has.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom