Observations on the world today.

Tuesday, July 04, 2006

The Devil Quotes Scripture Too 

People on both sides of the political aisle have been talking about Barak Obama's recent comments concerning bringing evangelicals into the liberal fold. The comment that seems to be getting the most play is this statement:
But what I am suggesting is this - secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King - indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history - were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. To say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public policy debates is a practical absurdity; our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
I have a minor problem with this comment too. That being that the idea that secularists expect anyone to leave their religion out of their minds when entering the public square. Personally, I don't care what anyone believes, and I am as secularist as they come. So I consider the comment to be something of a strawman.

The thing is, I don't ask anyone to stop believing. But I am not going to be bullied by their beliefs either. So if the only argument you can bring to - say - the abortion debate, is that the bible says that God says He knew me in the womb, I am going to dismiss the comment for what I consider the comment to be, an allegory. I am bringing my beliefs to the public square too after all.

And to argue that law is a codification of morality is all well and good, but to then inject that much of morality is grounded in Judeo-Christian tradition is a logical falacy. There is nothing in Judeo-Christian morality that is unique to the Jews and Christians. And if you insist on telling me that without God there is no morality, I will direct you to bone up on Euthyphro’s Dilemma and to come back when you have it figured out.

Beyond this, I agree that it is a good idea to court religious people. But not if to court them we have to become Republicans and invite them to design and define our domestic policy.

Democrats are not anti-religion. We are anti-religious-interference. There is a difference, and if you can't understand that, then maybe you should be a Republican. Yes, even if that means sacrificing political victories. What good are political victories if we have to sell our theoretical souls to accomplish them?

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?