It’s hard for me to take biblical arguments for public policy seriously when they seem so cherry-picked from a tall tree of highly-ignored additional (ridiculous) laws. For example, I’m not going to take religious arguments against homosexuality seriously until Christians start observing the rest of Leviticus. I’m sure they’ll have particular fun with the rules about dripping penises, attending the funerals of your in-laws, and wearing multi-fiber cloth. While, a few years ago I certainly would have appreciated a good argument against attending in-law activities, it’s not enough of a pull for me to give up my cotton-polyester-blend shirts.
I was somewhat frustrated with Obama a few weeks back when he began his “Democrats need to appeal to Evangelicals” parade of speeches and articles. Generally I’ve found that this results in silly speeches and disappointing slights, such as when Dean appeared on the 700-club a month or so back. However, after reading Obama’s USA Today article, I’m more approving. Most notably:
This separation is critical to our form of government because in the end, 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. If I am opposed to abortion for religious reasons but seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
This might be difficult for those who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, but in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics involves compromise, the art of the possible. But religion does not allow for compromise. To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime; to base our policymaking on them would be dangerous.
This is a most excellent description of the importance of the separation of church and state. So, I suppose I have trouble seeing exactly how an earlier paragraph from his article fits in…
Moreover, it's wrong to ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square. Abraham Lincoln, William Jennings Bryan, Martin Luther King Jr. - indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history - were not only motivated by faith, they also used religious language to argue for their cause. To say men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into policy debates is a practical absurdity; our law is by definition a codification of morality.
… as it feels to me that if we make it a requirement for the basis for laws to “be subject to argument, and amenable to reason” and acknowledge they must be “accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all” then lawmaking is something does indeed require a checking of religious beliefs at the doorway of politics.
Perhaps it is a difference of opinion of the definition of “personal morality”. Personal morality is fine. I have no issue with irrational personal morality, providing people practice it personally and therefore don’t inflict it on others (this means NOT injecting it into policy debates). I have no issue with rational personal morality because it is rational, and therefore can be justified without resorting to the supernatural.
As Obama points out, there is even often an overlap between the secular and religious. The average evangelical might think it’s a bad idea to kill people because god threatens to smite him. I might find it a bad idea to kill people because… well… it’s extremely not nice. Said average evangelical might find vultures disgusting based the lord’s holy word on the subject in Deuteronomy 14.13. I might find vultures disgusting because they eat week-old road-kill. Regardless, we end up in the same place. See how easy this is?
However, since we can get there without religion, why bring it to the political table to begin with? Starting with a religious belief and then trying to find some way, any way to justify it in a secular sense seems like it might result in some pretty ridiculous, highly contrived arguments, such as that homosexual marriage will lead to legalized polygamy (or hamster marriage, depending on who you talk to).
So, I suppose the lesson is that yes, Obama, perhaps it is a good idea to court evangelicals, especially if it ends up being all pretty and friendly like it sounds in your article. So, court away! In fact, at this point, I’d encourage almost anyone to do almost anything that will help the Democrats win more seats in the 2006 elections. As a personal preference, though, I think I may keep my tongue in secular mouths.
