Many, Many problems
ArchPundit
Fisking is a stupid process that right wing bloggers have mistakenly thought meant refuting an argument. Big Tent Democrat does it to Obama’s speech and makes some rather bizarre claims.
One of my favorites is this:
But Mr. Keyes implicit accusation that I was not a true Christian nagged at me, and I was also aware that my answer didn’t adequately address the role my faith has in guiding my own values and beliefs.
My dilemma was by no means unique. In a way, it reflected the broader debate we’ve been having in this country for the last thirty years over the role of religion in politics.
For some time now, there has been plenty of talk among pundits and pollsters that the political divide in this country has fallen sharply along religious lines. Indeed, the single biggest “gap” in party affiliation among white Americans today is not between men and women, or those who reside in so-called Red States and those who reside in Blue, but between those who attend church regularly and those who don’t.
This of course is a red herring and Obama well knows it – the biggest political divide is between black and white voters. Why no discussion of that?
Among white voters… If somehow Obama is supposed to discuss the white/black issue in every sentence perhaps that’s an issue, but arguing that Obama never talks about race is a bit silly.
Mr. Obama says he’s a Christian, he would say, and yet he supports a lifestyle that the Bible calls an abomination.
Mr. Obama says he’s a Christian, but supports the destruction of innocent and sacred life.
What would my supporters have me say? That a literalist reading of the Bible was folly? That Mr. Keyes, a Roman Catholic, should ignore the teachings of the Pope?
Personally, I would have Obama say what was in his heart. That he disagrees with Keyes’ extremist views whether the are in accord with the Pope or not. But Obama did not:
And he does. You know, later in the speech.
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.
Insinuating that Obama didn’t speak to what he believed when he does is simply dishonest. Cutting the speech to ignore when Obama pointed out his position is even more dishonest.
Conservative leaders, from Falwell and Robertson to Karl Rove and Ralph Reed, have been all too happy to exploit this gap, consistently reminding evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their Church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage; school prayer and intelligent design.
I assume this was an unfortunate turn of phrase by Obama as it is false that Democrats disrespect the values of evangelical Christians.
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.
These are utterly false Roght Wing strawmen as described by Chris Bowers. It was very wrong of Obama to embrace these falsehoods.
Like being personally against abortion, but the Constitution ties one hands. I can think of several Democratic candidates who say exactly that sort of thing. Like John Kerry. He framed it as something he was against, but that civil society needed rules to allow such things. Instead of having a value debate about safe, legal, and rare abortion, the debate is one about how we all hate it, but it’s a Constitutional issue. It shouldn’t be one only about the Constitution, it should be about how values and morality insist upon choice and why different moral judgments made by secular or Christians who are not right wing are valid moral positions.
There are people who argue that religion doesn’t belong in the public sphere. And when you describe the position as at worst—it’s not saying that’s a mainstream position, it’s saying it’s a position held by some liberals. Having come out of talks where people criticize right wing fundamentalists as Christians, that’s true. It is a problem on the left that many people cannot distinguish between different forms of Christianity and there are stereotypes of what a Christian is.
And it’s an odd complaint given many of the progressive movements in the United States are based on Christianity including abolition, peace, civil rights, and abolition of the death penalty. But it is a complaint that is not uncommon when someone brings up religious values. That doesn’t mean it’s the majority left position, but it is a significant position.
Because when we ignore the debate about what it means to be a good Christian or Muslim or Jew; when we discuss religion only in the negative sense of where or how it should not be practiced, rather than in the positive sense of what it tells us about our obligations towards one another; when we shy away from religious venues and religious broadcasts because we assume that we will be unwelcome – others will fill the vacuum, those with the most insular views of faith, or those who cynically use religion to justify partisan ends.
Of whom does Obama speak here? What Democratic politician is Obama referring to? This is yet another false strawman.
Okay, how many Democratic politicians ask for equal time when their opponents show up on religious radio? The radio station doesn’t have to give it, but it will. I know it was quite the exception when Durbin demanded it on Chicago’s WYLL and he showed up and didn’t concede the venue. Having listened to a number of right wing religious stations, that is truly uncommon. Hell, most Democrats have never listened to evangelical radio to understand the messages out there.
When the debate is about whether school prayer can take place or about intelligent design and those issues represent religion, it does define religion negatively and that’s often done. Debate about religious values isn’t only about tolerance in civil society that many make it out to be. It is also about alleviating poverty and treating the poorest amongst us with kindness and providing opportunity. Liberals do avoid this in many instances–think about debates over poverty or education where the debate is about the benefits to the larger society. Fine, but there is a moral reason to support such programs beyond simply its benefit to the whole society and liberals are generally bad at making those arguments.
Our failure as progressives to tap into the moral underpinnings of the nation is not just rhetorical. 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.
What a crock. Obama assumes moral underpinnings are all faith vased. This is simply offensive and I strongly condemn Obama for saying so. It is an outrageous thing to have said.
This is my favorite part though. After saying that Obama is playing up a strawman in saying that there is an aversion to religion from liberals and Democrats, BTD demonstrates that aversion. How? By saying that Obama assumes all moral underpinnings are faith based when Obama doesn’t say that.
For example, high rates of teenage pregnancy is a huge moral issue for those who are secular or religious and underpinnings for those beliefs. Both secular and religious people can get preachy about the issue by pointing out the importance of values and culture. It is not only those who have faith who rely on values and culture. The problem is that all too often liberal politicians don’t talk about the problem in the culture instead relying only upon interventions while conservative politicians only talk about the culture and not interventions. Most Americans understand teenagers are going to have sex and they understand two things. First, there are parts of our culture that encourage irresponsible sex at young ages and second, that intervening in the lives of those kids through sex education and access to health care professionals can reduce the problem of unwanted teenage pregnancies. Obama is explicitly suggesting just this sort of model later in the text of the speech. How much later? Starting in the next paragraph.
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.
If one follows BTD’s comments, one should only speak in sentences and not paragraphs. While I think Democrats often forget that reporters tend to take sentences from paragraphs and distort their meaning, the real problem is when bloggers help the media do that.
As I said when he made the speech, the speech isn’t anything like what many have reported it. It’s a challenge to reshape and reframe the debate from one liberal versus conservative which isn’t terribly compelling other than to partisans, but to a debate about the values each party trumpets and how the Democratic values fit with the core values of the country.
To take issue with Obama in this case is to miss what he is saying. Democrats have ceded the debate to Republicans on matters of faith even though Democratic policies are rooted in core American values. All he wants Democrats to do is point that out instead of relying on John Kerryish crap that gets you saying things like I was for it before I was against it.
Talk like real people do and put it terms of their lives and those lives are often influenced by faith so why shouldn’t Democrats’ language do the same.