Warning long post!!
President Obama had his prayer breakfast remarks today. Heck I am GOP guy , but I give it an
It strikes me as one President's Obama more overtly Christian speeches of his Presidency even for the Prayer breakfast.
One part struck me:
Our goal should not be to declare our policies as biblical. It is God who is infallible, not us. Michelle reminds me of this often. (Laughter.) .
A North Louisiana blogger the weary blues today had a post from another Obama Speech. linked here . Let me quote his excerpt ( The bolding is mine) :
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.
Now I actually agree with a great part of that. However I think it only tells half the picture. The other half is what is the obligation of non believers. I think this incomplete picture plays out all the time in our discussion.
Now Obama to his credit in that speech in 2006 at least implied this was a somewhat two way street:
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.
Obama I think gets almost there when looking at this speech as a whole. Though I still think the specifics of the obligations of one party is a tad weighted to one side and indeed incomplete.
Which brings me to the European atheist Jurgen Habermas. Sadly this paper was on a blog that appears to has gone bye bye but the cache remains . See Jurgen Habermas: A Secular Atheist Changes His Mind on Religion in the Public Sphere by Aimee Milburn Cooper, M.A. Th.
Catholics in the Pope Benedict / Ratzinger weeds will know there is a connection between these two men.
I recommend the whole paper but I wanted to post this part:
...Just a few months ago, the European Journal of Philosophy in its Spring 2006 edition featured as its lead article a chapter from Habermas’ newest book, Between Naturalism and Religion (not yet released), entitled “Religion in the Public Sphere,” which summarizes much of his current thought on the subject.
EJP subsequently offered the article free on the Internet, and in doing research for this paper, I found it being featured for download across a spectrum of US academic, philosophy, and law websites, and being discussed widely in related blogospheres.
What is most startling about the article, especially in light of the reading we’ve been doing in class, is Habermas’ simultaneous assertion of the need for and right of religious discourse in the public sphere, and his criticism of the insufficient use of reason in the public sphere by the secular realm because of its refusal to grant validity to the religious perspective.
Habermas’ thought is an unexpected ally from outside the Church in the project of rebuilding the civilization of love and restoring religious rights to the public sphere, and is worth summarizing here. I use the “Religion in the Public Sphere” article as source, and outline five principle points from the article in the following.
Habermas on Religion in the Public Sphere
First, Habermas has become concerned that the suppression of religion in the public sphere has created an unacceptable inequality between citizens of the state:
Though it is questionable that religious speech should be “allowed,” as opposed to recognized as a basic right, I appreciate that he recognizes the burden and seeks to rectify it.
Second, he reasons that religious citizens have a burden, as far as possible, of “translating” religious reasoning into terms their secular counterparts can understand, to facilitate communication; and the freedom, if they can’t “translate,” to speak freely and publicly in religious terms. He also reasons that secular citizens have in turn the responsibility to listen for possible “truth” in religious arguments:
Note that Habermas, the secular atheist, is acknowledging that religious reasoning may contain “possible truth” that secularity should be open to. This is a far cry from the view of religion as oppressive “superstition” in the original Enlightenment view.
Third, Habermas observes that particular worldviews and religious doctrines are inherent to the formation of the person and cannot simply be laid aside in the public square, but must be taken into account in any public discourse. The expectation that they be laid aside, which he identifies as dominant since the Reformation and Enlightenment, places undue burdens on religious citizens and creates “cognitive dissonances” that, if they penetrate deeply enough into the fabric of the community, can cause its disintegration into irreconcilable segments:
His view is based on the concept of the person as having both freedom and inherent dignity, which in the public sphere manifests as both the right to speak freely and be heard, and the duty to listen to and carefully consider the freely expressed views of other persons. He speaks of the danger to pluralistic civil society when “in the case of conflicts that cut deep, citizens need not adapt to or face one another as second persons” (emphasis Habermas’).
He has developed this idea elsewhere in his theory of “communicative action.” This theory is consistent with recent Catholic teaching on the person and society, beginning with the documents of Vatican II and expressed most recently in speeches and statements of Pope Benedict XVI, such as the Regensburg address, which call for respectful, rational dialogue between persons and societies of differing religious and philosophical views.
Fourth, Habermas has come to believe that modern Liberalism is “intrinsically self-contradictory” because it represses and devalues the free speech of religious citizens, and demands of them “an effort to learn and adapt that secular citizens are spared having to make.” He is highly critical of this prevailing secular prejudice against religion:
Fifth and last, he criticizes the way that reason itself is used in secular culture, calling it inadequate and a danger. He calls for a “self-critical assessment of the limits of secular reason;” the “overcoming of . . . a narrow secularist consciousness”; and asks “secular citizens . . . [to be] prepared to learn something from the contributions to public debates made by their religious counterparts.” He states “the ethics of democratic citizenship assumes secular citizens exhibit a mentality that is no less demanding than the corresponding mentality of their religious counterparts,” and so calls citizens to a much higher standard of reasoning:
Amen to that. I think this where perhaps Obama was trying to go in that speech with the added touch of explaining more explicitly secular folks duties.
If either side has the ability to this in American society is an open question.