June 2006

I Found One Eric!

ArchPundit June 28, 2006 1 Comment

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.

Newman Again

ArchPundit June 28, 2006 0 Comment

I cited Nathan Newman yesterday and I’m doing it again–he’s one of the most underlinked bloggers on the net.

What’s remarkable about some of the blog and other reactions is that folks seem to be talking about every policy other than the one Obama himself seemed to emphasize for change, which is progressive opposition to allowing prayer in public institutions. Opposition to prayer and other expressions of faith in public institutions is hardly a fringe position on the left– it was decided by Supreme Court Justices and supported by liberal opinion editors for most of the last four decades.

Obama did not suggest changing progressive positions on abortion.
Obama did not suggest changing progressive positions on gay rights.

He suggested changing progressive positions on expressions of faith within public institutions such as schools.

I slightly disagree on the prayer issue–voluntary prayer has been pretty consistently backed by a pretty wide array of progressives especially with the passing of equal access to public facilities laws regardless of faith. That’s a small quibble though.

Our failure as progressives to tap into the moral underpinnings of the nation is not just rhetorical, though. Our fear of getting ?preachy? may also lead us to discount the role that values and culture play in some of our most urgent social problems.

After all, the problems of poverty and racism, the uninsured and the unemployed, are not simply technical problems in search of the perfect ten point plan. They are rooted in both societal indifference and individual callousness ? in the imperfections of man.

Solving these problems will require changes in government policy, but it will also require changes in hearts and a change in minds. I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturers? lobby ? but I also believe that when a gang-banger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels somebody disrespected him, we?ve got a moral problem. There?s a hole in that young man?s heart ? a hole that the government alone cannot fix.

I believe in vigorous enforcement of our non-discrimination laws. But I also believe that a transformation of conscience and a genuine commitment to diversity on the part of the nation?s CEOs could bring about quicker results than a battalion of lawyers. They have more lawyers than us anyway.

I think that we should put more of our tax dollars into educating poor girls and boys. I think that the work that Marian Wright Edelman has done all her life is absolutely how we should prioritize our resources in the wealthiest nation on earth. I also think that we should give them the information about contraception that can prevent unwanted pregnancies, lower abortion rates, and help assure that that every child is loved and cherished.

But, you know, my Bible tells me that if we train a child in the way he should go, when he is old he will not turn from it. So I think faith and guidance can help fortify a young woman?s sense of self, a young man?s sense of responsibility, and a sense of reverence that all young people should have for the act of sexual intimacy.

It seems to me the media coverage missed his point that the stereotype is wrong and he can support his positions based on his Christianity. Go figure, the Washington Post cannot cover a religious story or a politicsl story well, they can’t cover a combined story any better.

Case in Point

ArchPundit June 28, 2006 0 Comment

Truthdig takes exception to Obama’s speech

The Illinois senator chastised his colleagues for leaving the evangelicals to the Republicans.

Electorally, he may be correct, but no self-respecting progressive should be fooled. On the whole, evangelicals are the most regressive people in the country. Just look at the hatred and intolerance they?ve made central to the Republican Party.

No, I don’t think this is representative of that many Democrats, but it isn’t the first time I’ve heard such things. I tend to agree with Stoller and Atrios that the stereotype is stupid, but also think, like Obama, that Democrats are at least tone deaf in relation to faith at times.

What’s odd about it to me, was outside of Normal, the first real evangelical contact I had was with leftist missionaries in Nicaragua who made me look like McCarthy. The basic problem is understanding the language. Evangelical is often related to conservative political positions, but the real meaning of it is related to being a Protestant more than anything. Usually people use it to mean the individual or institution also believes in personal salvation and reaching out to others to help them do so. I tend to not use it because I think being a Christian says the same thing. I don’t think others who do use the term to describe themselves are wrong, I just don’t think it adds that much.

While people who identify themselves as evangelical are statistically politically conservative, that does not mean all evangelicals are or that an overwhelming number are–in fact, I believe most data show a plurality are moderate.

This is very different from fundamentalists who hold very specific tenets about faith and that almost inevitably leads to conservative views politically.

Took Longer Than I Thought….

ArchPundit June 28, 2006 0 Comment

Sirota calls me a liar:

One thing I love about the progressive blogosphere is how lies are almost immediately debunked. That’s why I can’t stand it when occasionally blogs on our side lie. Case in point is an assertion by ArchPundit that an amendment to the Bankruptcy Bill by Senator Mark Dayton (D) to limit credit card industry interest rates would preempt state usury laws. He’s trying to defend Sen. Barack Obama (D), who voted against the Dayton amendment. The implied assertion is that Dayton’s bill would have superceded state usury laws in a way that would have hurt consumers because it would have supposedly invalidated those state statutes that imposed even tougher interest limits – something that he says Obama would not want to do.

Actually, what I said was this:

The only amendment he voted against that progressive would generally support is the limit on interest rates introduced by Dayton. It was rejected with 74 votes against including several Democrats who were generally against the broader bill. The text of the Dayton amendment seemed to be far broader than just about credit cards and preempts state ursury laws. I’d hardly call voting against it as rejection of such a rule in general.

By all accounts, he’d support a cap in a better written amendment–and Durbin voted against the Amendment as well.

All of which is true. It does preempt state ursury laws, it just exempts from preemption those states with lower rates, but that wasn’t the broader point. I linked to what I thought would be the text, but it went to a search and doesn’t connect to the text of the bill. David has the text in his post. More than anything, I didn’t go into the details, because the basic point is that Obama voted against an amendment that may have far broader impact than just credit cards.

The important part of the issue isn’t that it would just preempt credit card rates over 30% to individuals, but what other forms of credit would be affected. The amendment, and the law don’t define credit as credit card only. As a knee jerk reaction, I’d say it’s generally still a good idea since individuals and families shouldn’t be charged above 30% anyway–and in fact, this might have been a good development in fighting pay day loans.

If state laws restrict only credit card rates to 22%, but allow other forms of consumer credit, this law would impact both, probably to the better, but I’d want to know the effects before passing a law.

That said, it might have broader implications related to sole proprietorship business owners, it certainly has implications for more than just credit cards and therefore the meaning of the cap changes. My reading of the definition of consumer credit in Title 11 would suggest it wouldn’t affect sole proprietorships, but I’d want to ensure that is correct. Is it still probably a good idea? Yeah, but I expect elected officials to figure that out before passing the law and Sarbanes made this point during the debate:.

Sarbanes made a point about the amendment that the impact of the amendment would be relatively unknown because there were no hearings on the amendment.

Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise to underscore the statement just made by the chairman of the Banking Committee. This issue embraced in this amendment is very far-reaching. There have been no hearings on it. The chairman has indicated he intends to do some hearings on issues relating to the matter that is before us. It does not seem to me to be a wise or prudent course to consider what would, in effect, be a very major legislative
step in the absence of appropriate consideration by the committee of jurisdiction; therefore, I intend to also oppose this amendment, primarily on those grounds.

The substance is a complicated issue, and in any event it is very clear it needs to be very carefully examined and considered. I do not think that has occurred in this instance, and I hope my colleagues would perceive the matter in the same way.

And this reinforces my point about institutionalism. Simply raging against a vote, but not understanding why it was made or what the implications would have been if the amendment had become law is not anyway to govern.

The question is did Obama in general support such a cap written well, which from David’s piece in the Nation, one could imply Obama would. I’ve asked his office for a response and I’ll be happy to pass along what I hear. If Obama wouldn’t support a cap in principle, I’d be disappointed.

Perhaps Everyone Should Read What Obama Said About Faith

ArchPundit June 28, 2006 3 Comments

Because it really isn’t about a stereotype, it’s about how to communicate with people of faith especially since most Democrats are people of faith.

Both Atrios and Stoller link to the Washington Post piece which gives me a far different impression than the text of the speech.

So let me end with another interaction I had during my campaign. A few days after I won the Democratic nomination in my U.S. Senate race, I received an email from a doctor at the University of Chicago Medical School that said the following:

?Congratulations on your overwhelming and inspiring primary win. I was happy to vote for you, and I will tell you that I am seriously considering voting for you in the general election. I write to express my concerns that may, in the end, prevent me from supporting you.?

The doctor described himself as a Christian who understood his commitments to be ?totalizing.? His faith led him to a strong opposition to abortion and gay marriage, although he said that his faith also led him to question the idolatry of the free market and quick resort to militarism that seemed to characterize much of President Bush?s foreign policy.

But the reason the doctor was considering not voting for me was not simply my position on abortion. Rather, he had read an entry that my campaign had posted on my website, which suggested that I would fight ?right wing ideologues who want to take away a woman?s right to choose.? He went on to write:

?I sense that you have a strong sense of justice?and I also sense that you are a fair minded person with a high regard for reason?Whatever your convictions, if you truly believe that those who oppose abortion are all ideologues driven by perverse desires to inflict suffering on women, then you, in my judgment, are not fair-minded?.You know that we enter times that are fraught with possibilities for good and for harm, times when we are struggling to make sense of a common polity in the context of plurality, when we are unsure of what grounds we have for making any claims that involve others?I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words.?

I checked my web-site and found the offending words. My staff had written them to summarize my pro-choice position during the Democratic primary, at a time when some of my opponents were questioning my commitment to protect Roe v. Wade.

Re-reading the doctor?s letter, though, I felt a pang of shame. It is people like him who are looking for a deeper, fuller conversation about religion in this country. They may not change their positions, but they are willing to listen and learn from those who are willing to speak in reasonable terms ? those who know of the central and awesome place that God holds in the lives of so many, and who refuse to treat faith as simply another political issue with which to score points.

I wrote back to the doctor and thanked him for his advice. The next day, I circulated the email to my staff and changed the language on my website to state in clear but simple terms my pro-choice position. And that night, before I went to bed, I said a prayer of my own ? a prayer that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me.

It is a prayer I still say for America today ? a hope that we can live with one another in a way that reconciles the beliefs of each with the good of all. It?s a prayer worth praying, and a conversation worth having in this country in the months and years to come. Thank you.

This is a perfect example of the problem and if one had read the speech instead of the Washington Post piece, it paints a very different picture . Trusting the main stream press to accurately portray the entire speech is something we should all be careful about because they generally will put it into a particular stereotype.

It isn’t most frequently a hostility to religion with intention, but an utter lack of awareness about how language is utilized by those in politics and how it frames the issue to exclude potential allies.

It isn’t just cynically going after evangelical votes, it is also communicating within the Party which includes Latinos and African-Americans who are very religious. Should we paint the majority views in those communities on abortion as unreasonable ideologues? Because much of the language in activist communities does that. I find myself doing it.

The problem isn’t just reaching out to evangelicals, but also building trust and communication within the Democratic Party coalition. Those who fail to understand this fail to understand their own coalition. I don’t point that towards Stoller and Atrios, but more generally to make the point.

Hat tip to Lynn Sweet who posted the entire speech.

Updated to fix some inflammatory language that made it sound far harsher on Atrios and Matt than I meant. And the editing was before I even read the post in which Matt says nice things about me.