I was as excited as anyone to see Mr. Obama elected to the Senate two years ago. Dick Durbin has always been one of the few true Democrats and adding Mr. Obama as the junior senator was something to make every Illinois citizen proud. But something has happened to him since he's arrived in Washington, and it's the same disease that has destroyed the Democrats as an opposition party. Here's an example in today's press.
In a speech last month that drew fire from liberal bloggers and raised eyebrows in Washington, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., warned that far-right conservatives like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson would continue to hold sway unless the Democratic Party competes for the support of evangelical Christians and other churchgoing Americans.Here's the problem--a modern, pluralistic democracy cannot exist without a strict separation of church and state and there's a damned good reason why: bending public policy to fit the superstitions of people of "faith" rather than reason and experience is destructive. Any examination of history shows that faith-based or faith-influenced government (and that includes ideological "faith" as well--fascism, Stalinism, cults of personality) always, ALWAYS leads to totalitarianism and disaster.
"We make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people and join a serious debate about how to reconcile faith with our modern, pluralistic democracy," Obama said.
Religion should be free from government intervention and government should be free from religious intervention. Until Obama quits catering to fanatics who believe their mumbo-jumbo should dictate our lives, he's a loser in the Democratic Party. Falwell, Robertson, and Dobson are power-mad charlatans, con men, and anti-democratic fringe fanatics who, were it not the usefulness they provide to the fascist wing of the Republican Party, would be raving on a street corner somewhere in shit-stained smocks. They are not to be catered to, or even acknowledged as contributors to any discussion of how our democracy should operate. They believe that invisible beings speak to them and through them. I call that mental illness, not leadership.
Shame on you, Mr. Obama. Compromising with the likes of Falwell, et. al. does nothing for the progress of democracy; in fact, it inhibits it. We cannot "reconcile" foolish superstition with self-governance based on reason and experience. One if absolute fantasy, and the other is all that saves us from the more malevolent exploiters of such fantasy, like Falwell, Dobson, and Robertson.
12 comments:
It absolutely amazes me that the religious right rabble have such a stranglehold on "values!" I refer to those we see on our TVs tearfully confessing to indiscretions with hookers, or running corrupt "faith-based" organizations, for their own glorification and personal financial gain. How can the proposition that religion equals values continue to go unchallenged? That the Democrats would consider pandering to such scum shouldn't surprise you, Olaf. If you look at the electorate statistically, they have a point: If you want to get elected or reelected, the question is no more complicated than by whom would you be sodomized first? Flip a coin, Mr. Obama, et. al.; it all comes out the same. What passes for govenment is so corrupt, and so entrenched, I don't personally see a road back. Oops, you probably had a clue to this already.
You should read Obama's speech. He addresses your concerns. http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal_keynote_address/index.html
From Obama's speech:
"I said that we live in a pluralistic society, that I can't impose my own religious views on another, that I was running to be the U.S. Senator of Illinois and not the Minister of Illinois."
If this is true, then religion should be NO PART of the political process, period. No one wants to infringe on another's worship of whatever invisible cloud being he or she desires to embrace. However, that is a PRIVATE matter, and of no value in a public debate about policy that affects ALL people.
Of course, I understand that in a theocratic country like this, no avowed atheist, or even someone who finds atheists to be good people, can ever get elected, and has to cater to the believers in invisible cloud beings.
It's very sad in the 21st century that we still labor under 14th century restrictions on debate.
I agree with you, Olaf, but I also agree with the first anonymous, that progressives cannot continue to allow the GOP to co-opt all discussion of what constitutes "values." I am proud of Al Franken for his positive contribution to this discussion, and I have to believe that Obama made these comments in an attempt to do the same. He has failed, alas. Still, he has done more progressive work than most senators, and he deserves credit for that.
I don't think that Obama failed in his attempt to address the co-optation of "faith" and "values" by the GOP. Moreover, I think Olaf must have stopped reading at the part he quoted above; for Obama makes some pretty profound and moving statements about the situation America currently faces...
For example: "Pastors, friends of mine like Rick Warren and T.D. Jakes are wielding their enormous influences to confront AIDS, Third World debt relief, and the genocide in Darfur. Religious thinkers and activists like our good friend Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo are lifting up the Biblical injunction to help the poor as a means of mobilizing Christians against budget cuts to social programs and growing inequality."
Is this wrong? Can you react against this on the basis that the leaders of the movement identify as Christian? How is that a "logical" position?
Another jem from Obama's speech: "Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing."
It seems to me that Obama is doing his best to compromise, which is something that many politicians are unable to do. He also seems sincere, and he has a right, as an American, to believe in whatever flying spaghetti monster he chooses.
How come he can't construct an opposition party by demonstrating the ways in which GOP "christians" have done it wrong? It's not mixing politics and government, at least not based on the quote in mb's post above.
I think democracy is about compromise. Maybe what Olaf wants is a totalitarian state in which religion is against the law and all practicing folks are fed to the flying spaghetti monster.
Two posts up, I meant to say, "RELIGION and government." Ooops.
:-)
MB, When Obama says that we must persuade each other based on a common reality, what if the person I'm speaking with insists that everything that is important is written in a 2000-year-old book from God? Where is the COMMON reality there? The fact is that the assertion of God is no more provable than that of Santa Claus or the Flying Spaghetti Monster (and by the way, feeding believers to the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a delicious--pun intended--irony).
Do religious people and movements do good things? Absolutely, without question. But is religion a priori a requirement to do good? No, it is not. Ethical behavior is the product of reason and compassion, not an edict from an invisible being. When we give up on the requirement that theories must withstand empirical testing to become more than theories--that is, make predicitions that can be validated or invalidated--then they remain in the realm of philosophy, not hard reality.
I dig Obama, actually, but I think he is making a compromise that will one day haunt him. Religion belongs in the church and in the prayers of the faithful, but never, ever in the construction or application of public policy.
That's my story, and I'm sticking to it. So there.
Why do you have to live so far away, anyway? This is like the good old days at dinner before Dr. S's class.
Olaf, I'm pretty sure we're mostly agreeing with each other here. Obama says, in the quote I used above, that mixing religion with public policy is dangerous. He and Durbin have both said numerous times that they will never legislate their relgious beliefs. Since it is impossible to force faithful people to give up their faith, why not make them see that their god wants them to help the poor or improve schools?
I miss Dr. S. Have fun in Berlin!
MB:
"why not make them see that their god wants them to help the poor or improve schools?"
Silly, MB. God doesn't want us to do that!! He wants us to bomb Iraqis and stop stem cell research!
Poor schools and poverty in America? Next thing you'll tell me is that there really IS a flying spaghetti monster!
Oh, wait--do I smell...marinara...?
I miss Dr. S., too.
CB
CB:
There REALLY IS a Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Post a Comment