Barack Obama tackles the secular-faithful divide

Barack Obama is right. Barack Obama is also wrong. Not only should this not be surprising, it should be welcome. Because no other position is tenable when it comes to the subject of the role of faith in politics.

Obama, widely considered one of the brightest hopes for the Democrats come 2012 (if not 2008, as a candidate for Veep perhap?), gave a speech on appealing to secular voters at gathering of progressive Christians called the Call to Renewal Conference a couple of days ago. The reaction from the blogosphere includes some bewilderingly negative comments from those who want no truck nor trade with religion. In private, I would agree. But I think that would be the wrong response in public, including blogs with a scientifically oriented audience.

The difference is crucial. As much as I can't stomach the intrusion of religion into the public sphere, it seems bleedingly obvious to me that much of the country is not only comfortable with such interaction, but actively welcomes it. So the only logical approach for anyone seeking to galvanize an electorate is to try to find a way to accommodate both points of view.

This is, of course, the equivalent of doing six impossible things before breakfast. But Obama takes a good stab at it. To wit:

...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.

Hard for a secular humanist to argue with that. Or this appeal to conservative leaders:

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...

And:

...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?

And finally:

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 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.

But Obama apparently knows that there are fair number of Pat Robertsons out there who aren't going to welcome the notion that the voice of god must be vetted by the voice of reason, so he also tries to reach out to the more open-minded members of the flock:

Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation - context matters. It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase "under God." I didn't. Having voluntary student prayer groups use school property to meet should not be a threat, any more than its use by the High School Republicans should threaten Democrats. And one can envision certain faith-based programs - targeting ex-offenders or substance abusers - that offer a uniquely powerful way of solving problems

. Well, actually, Barack, I don't think anyone who recognizes they are being brainwashed will be. That's not the problem. To a secularist, the inclusion of "under God" is indeed an unconstitutional intrusion. You have to erect the wall somewhere, so why not forbid communal recitations of expressions of faith in environments where peer pressure are among the strongest forces shaping a young mind?

And while certain faith-based programs may help some people, how do we judge when the faith in the program violates First Amendment restrictions? At a time when few secular programs have enough money to meet this mission goals, doesn't it make more sense to fund those that involve no such risk before using whatever's left over for the programs that are by definition exclusionary?

My point is, while I disagree (strongly) with Obama on some specific points, I recognize that he needs to make at least some of them to remain a credible voice on the national scene. If he appealed only to my secular humanist values, he would be much less so. For me, the key is to see he understands the need for morality to transcend specific religious dogma. And on that point, Obama scores big.

So, progressive bloggers: give the guy a break. Remember that politics is a profression of compromise.