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.Sen. Obama's speeches never fail to inspire and this one is no exception.
This may be difficult for those 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 the possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It insists on 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; to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing.
And as I said, you can read the whole speech here.
1 comment:
This is the sort of speech that leads Fran Eaton to label someone "dangerous" at Illinois Review (meaning, apparently, that Sen. Obama makes sense, speaks clearly, knows his values and beliefs ... and could potentially woo Americans away from conservatives and their so-called values).
Crossposted at ArchPundit
Post a Comment