|
celticlord2112 -> RE: James Dobson to blast Obama (6/24/2008 8:22:22 PM)
|
Obama's got this one wrong:
From his original speech:
quote:
And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let's read our bibles. Folks haven't been reading their bibles. As I recall my uncle's sermons (my mother's brother is a Presbyterian minister), a Christian takes the Bible as a whole or not at all. There are no singular passages one can parse out to guide public policy.
quote:
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.
This is just simply incorrect. The religious man may well craft legislation and cast votes in Congress based wholly upon the tenets of his faith. Indeed, if he is sincere in his belief he has a duty to conduct the public's business in this manner. Likewise, he has the duty to his constituents to explain his conduct fully, honestly, and with full articulation of the religious beliefs that guide him. It is then up to his constituents to decide if his service merit re-election or removal.
A Christian may--and I would argue, should--point to his religious faith as justification for his vote on a matter of public policy, if in fact his faith is what moves him to the specifics of that vote. To do otherwise is to engage in a pernicious dishonesty, with himself as well as his constituents. Likewise, the Muslim should point to his understanding of Mohammed's teachings, just as the Buddhist would rely on the Sutras.
Democracy does not demand that any person set aside religious conviction in the discharge of his office. The Constitution demands that laws giving preference to one religious conviction over another not be enacted. That proscription, however, does not inure against the spiritual man from following the dictates of his faith in the discharge of public service.
The First Amendment bars God from legislation, not from the hearts of legislators.
|
|
|
|
