Full Text of Obama Speech at Notre Dame Graduation

Located here. Just put up. Comments later.

Update I

We have not quite got to Obama speaking yet but a few words on the Speech. As I predicted well written and not nearly as explosive as the CNN talking head who has seen it seemed to imply

First the Money quote on abortion

The question, then, is how do we work through these conflicts? Is it possible for us to join hands in common effort? As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?
Nowhere do these questions come up more powerfully than on the issue of abortion.

As I considered the controversy surrounding my visit here, I was reminded of an encounter I had during my Senate campaign, one that I describe in a book I wrote called The Audacity of Hope. A few days after I won the Democratic nomination, I received an email from a doctor who told me that while he voted for me in the primary, he had a serious concern that might prevent him from voting for me in the general election. He described himself as a Christian who was strongly pro-life, but that's not what was preventing him from voting for me.

What bothered the doctor was an entry that my campaign staff had posted on my website - an entry that said I would fight "right-wing ideologues who want to take away a woman's right to choose." The doctor said that he had assumed I was a reasonable person, but that if I truly believed that every pro-life individual was simply an ideologue who wanted to inflict suffering on women, then I was not very reasonable. He wrote, "I do not ask at this point that you oppose abortion, only that you speak about this issue in fair-minded words."
Fair-minded words.

After I read the doctor's letter, I wrote back to him and thanked him. I didn't change my position, but I did tell my staff to change the words on my website. And I said a prayer that night that I might extend the same presumption of good faith to others that the doctor had extended to me. Because when we do that - when we open our hearts and our minds to those who may not think like we do or believe what we do - that's when we discover at least the possibility of common ground.

That's when we begin to say, "Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions.

So let's work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term. Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women."

Understand - I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. No matter how much we may want to fudge it - indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory - the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.
Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words.

First I am struck by the "sensible conscience clause" language. That should be followed up on. Now on the whole I think this is pretty good and well crafted being the venue the President is in and the controversy. So an "A" to the speechwriters. The text of this speech and how Pro-lifer should be not be "demonized" needs to be not to be forgotten. What responsibility does the President have and to people in his party to make sure that becomes an reality?

More later

Update II

Another interesting part of the Speech that struck me

In this world of competing claims about what is right and what is true, have confidence in the values with which you've been raised and educated. Be unafraid to speak your mind when those values are at stake. Hold firm to your faith and allow it to guide you on your journey. Stand as a lighthouse.

But remember too that the ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt. It is the belief in things not seen. It is beyond our capacity as human beings to know with certainty what God has planned for us or what He asks of us, and those of us who believe must trust that His wisdom is greater than our own.

This doubt should not push us away from our faith. But it should humble us. It should temper our passions, and cause us to be wary of self-righteousness. It should compel us to remain open, and curious, and eager to continue the moral and spiritual debate that began for so many of you within the walls of Notre Dame. And within our vast democracy, this doubt should remind us to persuade through reason, through an appeal whenever we can to universal rather than parochial principles, and most of all through an abiding example of good works, charity, kindness, and service that moves hearts and minds.

I like this passage and dislike it in certain ways. I mean what he is saying about doubt of course is true. And who could not be against reason.

I am not too thrilled with the use of word "parochial" in some regards though and perhaps the overtones associated with it.

Update III-
Let me say say what makes me wary of the above passage. In the context of the passages around it it seems very one sided. One notices that when Christians do bring "Reason" they are often accused of using it as an subterfuge. There is no call to the other side to try listen to religious arguments and see the secular equivalent

A Leading Atheiest in Europe Jürgen Habermas, I think has shown the danger this brings to the public square in Europe and shows this is indeed a bad way to citizens to interact with each other.

First to Obama past comments on this:

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. They don't need to do that. None of us need to do that. 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. So 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.

Moreover, if we progressives shed some of these biases, we might recognize some overlapping values that both religious and secular people share when it comes to the moral and material direction of our country. We might recognize that the call to sacrifice on behalf of the next generation, the need to think in terms of "thou" and not just "I," resonates in religious congregations all across the country. And we might realize that we have the ability to reach out to the evangelical community and engage millions of religious Americans in the larger project of American renewal.

So far so good. But later

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.

Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. 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.........

Finally, any reconciliation between faith and democratic pluralism requires some sense of proportion. This goes for both sides.

Now one can actually see the wisdom in this and the importance. There is actually not much with what Obama is saying here I disagree with. Though I am not so sure I would have used the word "demand".

One problem I have is that too often point two (the demands to Believers is all we hear) and what the Obama is saying in point one (to the secular world) is often just given lip service. I think the fact that Obama did not hit on Part I of this in his speech (an obligation to the secular) is problematic. Especially when he is speaking at this forum and is being watched by millions. One can recall the horrible anti religious statement that the Iowa Supreme Court made in their recent Opinion gay marriage to see an example of that.

Update VI

I was a little shocked on how LETS ALL REDUCE ABORTIONS together was a tad weak with no mentioned of he intends going to do that. In fact is this not really a lie.

I mean there was nothing exactly new there. In fact this shows the major problem. Obama gets up there and does the pro-choice boilerplate on making abortions rarer (is there really an problem with people not being able to adopt?) and everyone goes amen. The fact is this shows why so many people opposed the honoring of Obama. All his action in just a few months have increased abortion not made it rarer. Yet we are suppose to go on with the side show. I mean when a Republicans get up and talk about helping the poor through their policies people are holding their feet to the fire. But as Democrats and abortion there is no such standard.

Finally the speech was pretty good (content wise) but for the points I have made above. The speech and honoring is still a scandal. However on the whole for a pro-choice Protestant Democrat it was not all that bad as to content. I might add that I don't think a Catholic University could tolerate this speech though from a Catholic