The objection to Obama's speech is not the content of his speech, but that he seemed to walk down the tried-and-true path of blaming the progressive base while not holding the conservatives to similar scrutiny. He uses the word "secularists" to describe people who want to keep government free from religion. How about "supporters of the First Amendment" instead? That's what is annoying everybody. We'd like to see leaders of the Democratic party actually standing up for the traditional positions such as separation of church and state, instead of caving on yet another brick of our foundation as part of an ill-conceived attempt to woo "swing voters". To be fair to Obama, that emphasis is hardly the sum of his speech. But he needs to be aware that the political enemies of the progressives are going to twist it that way, and use his equivocation about separation of church and state as a wedge issue to divide Democrats.

As always, Obama just took the words out of my mouth.  (Clinton did a pretty good job a few weeks ago too).

 Anyways, as I've mentioned before (and been lambasted for doing so), there are elements in the left that feel any expression of religion- particularly Christianity- is per se dangerous, and that the person speaking must be stupid.  After my experiences blogging about this issue, I'd say it's quite possibly one of the greatest self-destructive forces at work within the leftist/democratic sphere today.  And it's something we have to get over, for several reasons: 1) The sort of absolute stereotyping at work is totally incompatible with a truly liberal viewpoint, and thus should be against all liberal principles and 2) We're shooting ourselves in the foot by alienating voters and groups with whom we agree on a whooole lot more issues then we disagree.  So the good stuff we agree on doesn't get done, and we never reach a conclusion on the areas where we disagree.

What I can't quite figure out is WHY the absolutists react with such hatred.  Most blind prejudices are based on fear and ignorance.  Ignorance I get- a lot of it comes from the fact that only the "anti" platform of the right wing comes out. And that's a lot of their (meaning the right wing's) fault, along with the media. But what is the left wing so afraid of?

Excellent points. As a Black Democrat, I have often been concerned that the party allows the GOP (who only read the Old Testament and the hardline of Paul in the New Testament) to usurp the message of hope and joy in the Bible. MLK is a hero of mine. Black and White church members worked towards insuring voting and housing rights in the US, often risking life and limb. There is a clear division between the "fire and brimstone" message I here coming from right wingers like Dobson, and the newly more racially "refined" Southern Baptist Church. (You're gonna die versus you can attain a good life)
Those who consider religion to be fantasy and science fiction for the feeble-minded are welcome to their positions, but should not invade my rights.
How can you have free speech if you're told to shut up if you mention God in public?
People of all faiths (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc) will be important to the party to understand the feelings of others who occupy our world.
"The Mighty and The Almighty" by Madeleine Albright gives some insight in the the problems that can occur by discarding religion when negotiating with different peoples.
Paying heed to religion doesn't require conversion to a particular religion, but a realization of it's importance and influence on the opinions of others.
It's a practical matter.
Bravo Obama

Two quotes illustrate the reason that many of us reacted negatively to Obama's speech:

First.

The WaPo states that Senator Barack Obama chastised fellow Democrats on Wednesday for failing to "acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people."

Which of his "fellow Democrats" have done anything remotely like that? Not one, of course. The truth is that Democrats are as shameless as Republicans when it comes to public displays of piety as a substitute for moral actions.

The meme that comes out this is that Senator Obama says that Democrats fail to acknowledge God and people who care about God. This is not only a lie, it is a damnable lie.

Second, again from the WaPo story:

"Obama mentioned leaders of the religious right briefly, saying they must 'accept some ground rules for collaboration' and recognize the importance of the separation of church and state."

The right wing Christian Separatists do not believe in the separation of church and state. They do not acknowledge any legal, political or moral basis for such a separation. They also do not believe in collaboration with anyone with whom they disagree.

Was Obama asleep during the Schiavo episode? Did he follow the Justice Sundays? Where has Obama been for the last twenty years?

As a practical matter the central premise of Obama's "chastising" of fellow Democrats is the same as the central premise of Ann Coulter in her book Godless. Democrats are anti-God and anti-religious people.

We object when she does it. Why should we remain silent when he does it? It's a lie when she says it and it's a lie when the new rising star of the Democratic party says it.

For me, I can work with people who say they are inspired by God, no problem. I hesitate to work with people who insist that WE must be inspired by God. Some people are inspired by God to be moral and ethical, some people are inspired by Morality itself to do the same. If Christians wish to chuckle that inspired non-theists are secretly being inspired by God in disguise, so be it. Like Obama says "In fact, because I do not believe that religious people have a monopoly on morality, I would rather have someone who is grounded in morality and ethics, and who is also secular, affirm their morality and ethics and values without pretending that they're something they're not."

I also don't think there's anything inherently wrong with refusing to talk about faith in public. Sometimes keeping one's faith secret is a sincere part of their faith, especially for Christians of the Midwest and Northeast U.S., who recall Mathew 6:6 "But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."

I think Obama's off the mark on things like the pledge. No, I don't think we should campaign against "Under God", but I respect those who do. Those words are a disgrace to the principles on which our country is founded, and the idea that theism is something sacred and magical that non-theists have to regard with deference is unacceptable to me--people can be inspired to disbelieve just as much as they can be inspired to believe. I am not an athiest--I believe there is something extra-logical on which our visible world rests--but to call that extra-logical quality "God" strikes me as blasphemous to something which should be beyond all names.

We shouldn't campaign against it, because even a single child going without health care is a greater evil than a couple of words for some pledge, disgraceful or not. But those who oppose those words do so for what they believe is Moral and Good, and they are entitled to just as much respect as the believers who insist--contrary to our Constitution--that the words stay.

If the option is NO religious expression by any member of the party rather than SOME religious tolerance, and > 80% of voters consider themselves to be religious. Do we ask them to give us our votes, but keep their opinons to themselves (since religion plays a role in some of their decisions)? Is that a winning strategy?
Does it not just push some people to the theocrat(GOP) party, and tell others to just stay home, because they have no true representation?

Clever politicians who aspire to higher office know that making ambiguous statements about fundamental issues is a way to create a body of quotations which can later be used during campaigns. Really clever politicians manage to sound like they favor both sides of difficult issues, some even manage to vote on both sides of controversial legislation.

Obama is pandering to the religious center, but he is correct that he will need their votes in the future.

--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape

Religious conservatives have monopolized the public discourse of religion for a generation. Secular progressives have unwittingly played into religious conservatives hands by presenting themselves as the only authentic progressive voices on issues of religion and politics. Obama is providing a necessary corrective service, by sending a clear message that religion in the public sphere in America need not be sectarian and exclusive, but rather pluralistic and inclusive. 

Any progressives serious about labor reform, environmental reform, criminal justice reform and reducing poverty will need to make room for faith-based social justice movements.  The reason why Obama is the "rising star" of the party is that he speaks in faith-based language naturally, and he can tap into the deep well of non-fundamentalist evangelical support for social justice.   

Obama wasn't going after his audience - he was preaching to the progressive religious choir as it were. These are people who feely doubly excluded in that both religious conservatives and secular liberals are insistent that they don't exist.  If you read his speech, he takes religious conservatives to task for being sectarian and ignoring social justice concerns.

(You don't have to answer this, but if your church is taking such a blinkered view of Jesus' teachings, why not vote with your feet and attend a place more in line with your beliefs?  I can't imagine being a member of congregation which disdained the equality of women or served as a megaphone for conservative political views.) 

There is a tale of three souls that showed up simultaneously at the Pearly Gates, each looking worried. St. Peter asked the first what was his religion and why he was so worried.

The first tortured soul said that he was a Catholic, and used artificial birth control. St. Peter smiled and let him in.

In more discomfort, the next explained he was a Baptist who enjoyed demon rum. The good Saint waved him in, saying he was generally a good man.

The third seemed as if he was already down below, tormented by devils. Eventually, he sobbed out, "I was an Episcopalian, and I used the wrong fork."

We can switch now to Shi'a, Sunni, and Mahdist Muslims, and perhaps make the Sunni Salafist or Qutbist.

Here we have a few Buddhists, Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana. All believe they can attain Buddha-nature. Suzuki-san, the Mahayana, follows the Zen practice but is also a Shintoist. None believe in what we call a personal deity.

Oh, over there, we have some polytheistic Hindus.

Now, does any of these have the truth and can prove it? They are all people of sincere and wildly different faith.

Let's elect two to office, a Jain and an Odinist. How do they vote on the defense budget?

To try to answer your direct question, for purposes of faith and government, they are all the same -- as is a militant atheist that wants government to tell people there is no deity. There's no profiling here, just the separation between church (and in the broadest sense to include the atheists) and state.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

No, Sundog, it is you that misses the point.

At present, your fanatical anti-religious screeds repel more people than they attract. Since the real point is to win elections for the party most likely to allow you to continue your rants, you aren't really helping the cause now, are you?

...

But he needs to be aware that the political enemies of the progressives are going to twist it that way, and use his equivocation about separation of church and state as a wedge issue to divide Democrats.

Actually, "secularist" antireligous bigots, who sometimes style themselves as "progressives" do everything in their power to divide Democrats by making religion a litmus test -- according to them, if you are religious, you are variously a fool, an ignoramus, a coward, a loser who "can't face reality," even an enemy of the State. In his book The End of Faith, Sam Harris suggests that it might be acceptable to make religious belief a capital offense, and imprison or execute those who refused to surrender their beliefs.

I think that it is quite likely that Obama is the future of the party and not the bigots who use the "separation of powers" argument as a shibboleth to further their private animus against believers. The numbers are on his side, not yours.

mp

debcoop

Barack Obama "Having voluntary student prayer groups using school property to meet should not be a threat, any more than its use by the High School Republicans should threaten Democrats."

I disagree heartily with this statement. And I base it on personal experience. I grew up in a small, very small town. I was one of 3-4 Jewish families in one town and the only one in another one. We were the only ones who were religiously identifiable---my parents as Holocaust survivors were easy to spot --- mostly because of their Yiddish accent.

Being forced to say Christian prayers offended my parents greatly. They understood the real end result of religious discrimination.

There was mostly ignorance of what Judaism was---I was asked what Jews did for Christmas!!! And then there were the times that I was actually persecuted --- emotionally and once physically because I was Jewish.

Before the Supreme Court decision I would just sit there during the prayers---but the kids noticed and once a teacher asked why I was silent. I stayed in stunned silence. Doing this in school is obviously inherently coercive

So let's get to a more recent instance---The Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs actively allows the airing of Christian views. It is so active that Jewish students and one Protestant chaplain at the Academy have complained that they were being subjected to coercive proselytization. The Academy superintendent was reprimanded not only for allowing such active persecutive preselytizing, but for encouraging it.

That is exactly the danger of introducing this into the public square. Those who actively advocate putting religion into public life are just the stripe of religious fundamentalists --from Evangelical Christians to Hasidic Jews --who have no tolerance for other people's faith. (As a Jew who has gone from Orthodox to Reform, I am well aware of what the Hasidim feel about the rest of their co-religionists and besides I understand Yiddish so I know what they really feel about the rest of you) If religionists like them are in the majority than the rest of us ought to fear for our own free expression to our own religion.

Keeping religion out of the public square protects everyone's right to observe their religion.

So, what's the "message," naugiedoggie? And does it come from God or Jim Wallis?

I'm all ears.

I disagree. I don't agree with everything he said, but I believe his heart is in the right place (even though I know that sounds like a Bush voter thing to say).

He said some stuff about religion in his Democratic Convention speech that everyone so loved, so I don't see what the surprise is at him trying to thread this needle. If he's successful, it would mean Dem majorities as far as the eye can see, and we share more in common with all but the farthest right-wing Christians than they do with the money-hungry parts of the GOP.

naugiedoggie, you falsely imply that on one side there are religious belivers, and that on the other side there are Democrats. Most Democrats are religious, and Democratic values are a lot closer to the values of the Sermon on the Mount than Republican values. Also, it was Jesus himself who gave the order to his disciples never to pray in public (Matthew chapter 6, verses 5-6). So why pander to those who want to defy the words of Jesus Christ and pray publicly in schools?

Aren't you conflating "voluntary" and "coercive" religious activities?

And for that matter, isn't Obama erecting a straw man? How many Democrats are spending time fighting those who'd like to use school premises for voluntary religious activities? About as many, I'd guess, as are invested in removing "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.