Eric challenges Obama to identify one person who thinks the faith of an individual should be left at the door before entering the public sphere.

It’s one of the clearer examples

As a committed secular leftist, I agree with Michael Lerner that we on the left should not be embarrassed to “acknowledge and articulate” our values. I am quite happy to acknowledge that my political views are grounded in a belief in the moral equality and dignity of human beings. But I don’t agree that I need to bring God into it–bringing God into it might even be dangerous. Secularism is based on rational standards that are by definition open to criticism and revision in light of new situations or facts. Religion, on the other hand, rests on the unassailable authority of the word of God, an authority that, unlike secular authority, does not admit rational criticism. For this reason, notwithstanding prominent examples to the contrary, religion has mostly been and can be counted on to continue being a force of reaction, not of progress.

JAMSHEED SIYAR

I think many people who are religious in the Democratic activist circles hear this a lot or very similar things. PZ Myers says things similar quite frequently. I still like PZ and find him hysterical, but he says just such things. And being around liberal/Democratic activist circles it isn’t that uncommon of a complaint to hear when someone mentions their faith how that is insulting to listen to.

It doesn’t mean all secularists, but it does happen. And sometimes it happens in ways that aren’t direct challenges, but issues such as the abortion example in Obama’s speech. But even better is this paragraph from the speech:

Democrats, for the most part, have taken the bait. At best, we may try to avoid the conversation about religious values altogether, fearful of offending anyone and claiming that ? regardless of our personal beliefs ? constitutional principles tie our hands. At worst, some liberals dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word ?Christian? describes one?s political opponents, not people of faith.

That happens a lot and that is a denial of the importance of faith. It may not seem like it to those saying it, but it dismisses not just the thought, but the very being of the person it is said around.

If you think stealing is wrong because it says so in your scripture or because common sense tells you it’s wrong or because the Ouija board tells you “no” when you ask it if you should swipe something, it’s all the same to us as long as you don’t steal.

But when all of us come together in the public square to debate laws about theft, we ask that your proposals and your proofs not rely on or require the authority of God.

Why? Because it works better that way. Because it’s very hard to settle a debate between people who hear contradictory messages in the voices of their Gods.

The idea that this demand is hostile to religion is a common and popular strawman — I understand why Obama is espousing it as he sidles toward the political middle — but it’s also completely wrong.

Think about the language here: “If you think stealing is wrong because it says so in your scripture or because common sense tells you it’s wrong or because the Ouija board tells you “no” when you ask it if you should swipe something, it’s all the same to us as long as you don’t steal. ”

Comparing a Ouija board to Scripture? This is part of the problem.

And secondly, Obama explicitly agrees there needs to be universal values behind the law:

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. 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.

In the messages criticizing Obama, there’s a common them of looking at a couple lines and analyzing them in the context of only the experience of somewhat more secular people. Those with an organized faith often have very different experiences. In one sense it is a positive thing because some secularists are projecting their beliefs onto all secularists meaning the most benign and positive view of pluralism. I’d like that to be true, but it isn’t. While most liberal secularists I know are committed to pluralism, some are committed to pluralism as in everyone should play by their narrow rules excluding religious comments altogether.

More on the entire speech in a moment.