Obama makes some good points (which obviously are those I agree with *snicker*). In fact, most of what I disagree with is not so much his interpretation but rather his typical liberal way of thinking. I agree with much of what Obama says on the role of personal religion in politics, that the word personal means "private, individual". If you are going to thrust religion into the political spotlight and in a democratic-republic try to declare one of them as "the truth" then Obama is right to ask which one are we going to pick? In truth, if we are going to go with denominational lines, we should embrace some type of Catholicism as that is where the plurality resides. Going protestant causes a lot of headaches, for though non-Catholic Christians are the majority, Episcopal beliefs differ somewhat from Southern Baptist, UCC is in places radically different from Presbyterian. So who do you hold up the as "the standard"? And then there is the messy issue of the existence of agnostics and atheists. I had this discussion with a fellow conservative at work today when I declared I didn't want to know all of the details of a person's personal faith. I kinda like my Christianity minimal but deep and strong, not shallow and public (kinda like prayer, I prefer to pray in my closet rather than on the street corner wearing bells and covered with ashes). And as for Dobson taking Obama to task over his mixing Old Testament with New Testament, while I agree with him as a good Dispensationaist he should know there is a small sect within Christianity that wants us to go back to Old Testament laws even though we are "no longer under Law but Grace" (I would hope that if he considers himself as a spokesman for Christianity Dr. Dobson has heard of these Theonomists, a scary lot).
Now where do I think Obama went off track? Let me put your gray cells to work. Consider this:
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.
First off, it sounds good, but Senator Obama seems to ignore the fact that most conservatives who engage in public debate do try to "translate their concerns into universal... values... amenable to reason". The problem is he disagrees (or seems to) with many of the stronger philosophical arguments against abortion on demand (among other things, but most arguments against abortion do not introduce god into the discussion). Most liberals do this and think they are the rational ones when what they often do is take a knee-jerk reaction to anything that could have some tie back to religion (and seem to turn secularism into its own type of "religion"). In the following example he does it again. Notice how nothing is said of the individual as a possible causative agent in the situation, instead they are always at the whim of external forces around them:
After all, the problems of poverty and racism, the uninsured and the unemployed, are not simply technical problems in search of the perfect ten point plan. They are rooted in both societal indifference and individual callousness - in the imperfections of man
Why are the problems of the uninsured and the unemployed rooted in societal indifference? I hate when people talk about slippery slopes but honestly here I think we are one one... if the roots are societal then what are our options? What must change to kill this weed in the human garden? Like almost everything in his campaign, Senator Obama doesn't tell us, doesn't seem to want to do more than point fingers and if I take this last quote of his along with other things he has said what I see is that he thinks a Socialist/Marxist society would be of the greatest benefit. In this Obama seems to have missed some portions of Scripture too... about the worker deserving his wages (in context of getting what he is given for his work) and the example (and rule) given in 2 Thessalonians 3:9-11 ("... If a man will not work he shall not eat"). No one is owed anything in this life. At some point we have to take some responsibility for what we do. Perhaps the Right take this too far, but if he was honest in his speech Senator Obama should have admitted that the Left tend to veer off track in the own direction just the same.
3 comments:
If I understand you correctly, you feel that everyones' fate is can be determined by individually taking responsibility for their actions. There is some truth to this, but people have to function in a larger framework of social interactions. For example,the average homeless person may want to work and be capable of working, but what do you think his chances would be if he walked into Walmart and asked for a job? Other people who are victims of discrimination also cannot achieve positions commensurate with their abilities. The problems of societal indifference and racism are very complex and cannot be addressed with a simple program.
As for Obama and religion, outside of political affiliations, I find it comforting that a politician has a spiritual side. His religion is not a central part of his political agenda. To me, it indicates that he has a strong sense of morality and community. Perhaps in your next blog, you could explore the moral side of Bush, or better yet, Cheny.
Oh I never said "fate" but I do believe that, in a large part, people determine what happens to them by their actions or inactions. If I knew what an "average homeless person" meant I would be able to better answer your question. Of course, we are constantly being told by our supposed leaders that jobs like Wal-Mart, farming, janitorial services, etc. are those that American's won't do so I am not sure that the "average homeless person", if they are American (or, I should say, U. S. citizen) would do the job if it was offered them.
Regarding Obama and his spirituality, I get queasy whenever any politician wears his religion on his sleeve (and yes, I felt that way about GW and have said so many times in the past). Obama is not just speaking in terms of his interpretation, he is speaking as if his interpretation is the only interpretation when he is as guilty of eisagesis as those he repudiates. As for his religion not being a central part of his agenda... you should read more closely the texts of his speeches, it really is there. And the Bush/Cheney statement, please. First off I didn't explore the moral side of Obama, I addressed what he said. Ask me something specific that Bush said in a speech and I will try to do the same with those statements.
Thank you for responding. Actually, I do not follow politics that much so I don't know what I'm talking about. I am trying to resolve the concept of taking control of my fate through my actions. In my mind, I see what I want to be but I also see myself with my nose pressed against the glass on the other side, without a clue as to how to change things to become what I want to become.
You have overcome many things. You have a successful career and a growing relationship. I feel that perhaps you cannot see how it is for others.
Post a Comment