Role Reversal?
AP tally: Obama clinches Democratic nomination
For the first time in recent memory it is the Democrat presidential candidate that comes to the general election with “religious baggage.” (Well, unless you count McCain’s mother. . . .) Lisa Schiffren on The Corner points out that Obama is already trying to set the religion discussion off limits. As we pointed out yesterday, some of it should be and some of it he is stuck with.
This is going to be interesting.
Lowell: I do not think we will see any criticism of Obama’s approach to religion from the MSM, who generally find “social gospel” Christianity quite acceptable (and who probably think it is mainstream Christianity). Conservatives will raise Obama’s association with Wright and Pfleger in the same breath with mention of Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorhn, i.e., as indicators of how far to the left Obama is. It will be further evidence of the extent to which religion and politics have been mixed in this election cycle. And, I fear, religious conservatives have a lot to answer for in that regard.
Sphere: Related Content
Posted in Reading List | 2 Comments » | 
Print this post
| 
Email This Post
Recently:
- Legality, Religiousity, Post-Prop 8 Ugliness and the Case Against Huckabee
- Prop 8 and religion: A moral or political issue, or both?
- RED MEAT! Hewitt, Huckabee and Anti-Mormonism
- Say What?!
- In The Wake Of Prop 8
- A Catholic Defense of Mormon Support (and other religions’ support) for Prop 8
- Being The Target
- Encouraging?
- Proposition 8: Multi-Faith Press Conference Speaks Out Against Attacks
- And Now…Terrorism!?
2 Responses to “Role Reversal?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
coltakashi on 04 Jun 2008 at 1:11 pm #
As we are all well aware from the left wing secularist attacks on Mitt Romney, there is a definite faction in American political arena that wants to silence anyone who believes that religion has things of value to bring to the discussion of public policy. It is precisely the problem that the journal First Things is targeted against. Some of the most militant of these secularists, like Christopher Hitchens, believe that the Free Speech aspect of the First Amendment should not apply to anyone speaking from a religious viewpoint, and that the Free Exercise clause should be blotted out with a magic marker (which is pretty much what Establishment Clause decisions from the courts have been doing the last 40 years).
So those of us who believe that religion has independent value beyond being a convenient social construct, that it speaks to a reality that is more deserving of our loyalty than any political party, have a legitimate interest in whether a political candidate, especially one who will have the tremendous power of the presidency in his or her hands, agrees with Hitchens and other militant secularists that religion is a stain that must be eliminated from political discourse and that religious concerns deserve no weight in policy judgments (like gay marriage). What the candidate himself/herself holds as religious truth is not as important to us as whether he or she has a core commitment to the participation of religious people as religious believers in the public square. It is theoretically possible for an agnostic or an atheist to also have a strong commitment to allowing opinion diversity, including religious diversity, inform public discourse. However, it is difficult to know how we could verify that it was more than just lip service. On the other hand, a personal history of worship and participation in some known religious community, even if unusual or small, can give us an assurance that he or she may know the importance of letting religious principles be expressed in public debate.
If I had been writing Romney’s speech on “Faith in America” I would have emphasized this point, that one of the core principles of the American Revolution was religious plurality and respect for diversity, and then offered his own assurance of respect for religious diversity (which he did), but illustrate it (which he did not) with more explicit examples from his own Latter-day Saint perspective. I would have quoted the LDS Articles of Faith about obedience to law and government and mutual respect for religious diversity. I would have quoted passages from the declaration on government and religious freedom in Section 134 of the Doctrine & Covenants. I would have cited the examples of the persecution that the state and Federal governments heaped on Mormons, targeted really at the Mormon desire to establish a distinct society rather than polygamy per se (which didn’t really factor into either the Missouri extermination order or the Illinois lynching of Joseph Smith by a state militia) as reasons why Mormons are wary of government persecution of all religious communities, just as Japanese Americans (like myself) are wary of government persecution of all ethnic minorities. I would have emphasized that my religious commitments require that I respect the distinct religious commitments or non-religious viewpoints of my fellow citizens, and that wanting full religious freedom for myself means I must respect the religious freedom of all other Americans.
Doug King on 05 Jun 2008 at 11:28 am #
To coltakashi’s excellent list of scriptural quotes I would add Doctrine & Covenants 121: “We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority as they suppose, they will immediate begin to exercise unrighteous dominion…” I agree with coltakashi that a history of persecution in this country makes Mormons wary of abuse of government power, particularly where religious freedom is concerned.