Chicago Sun Times Editorial - Dems can't afford to cede religion to Republicans
Chicago Sun Times Editorial - Dems can't afford to cede religion to Republicans
Copyright by The Chicago Sun Times
June 30, 2006
The profile of religion in the Democratic Party has gotten considerably smaller since the days when Jimmy Carter was confessing to having lust in his heart. Having rallied around Bill Clinton's transgressions in the White House, conservative Republicans have made religion a dividing stick in holding out their party as the one that reflects the faith-based values by which most Americans live and the Democrats as the party of loose morals and shifting priorities.
In calling for the Democrats to aggressively redefine that image by acknowledging "the power of faith in the lives of the American people" and letting believers know they have a place in the party, Sen. Barack Obama may have been reflecting his political savvy as much as his personal belief. As filtered through issues such as abortion, gay marriage and the right to die, religion is playing a major role at the polls.
In chiding his fellow party members for shying away from discussions and debates over religious issues for fear of giving offense or appearing insensitive to those with opposing views, Obama made a timely, considered statement that would carry weight whether Democrats look to him as a savior or not -- and clearly a lot of them do, given the ceaseless speculation about his prospects as a presidential candidate.
Addressing an evangelical group at a conference in Washington, D.C., Wednesday, he said, "When we ignore the debate about what it means to be a good Christian or Muslim or Jew; when we discuss religion only in the negative sense of where or how it should not be practiced, rather than in the positive sense of what it tells us about our obligations toward one another; when we shy away from religious venues and religious broadcasts because we assume that we will be unwelcome, others will fill the vacuum, those with the most insular views of faith, or those who cynically use religion to justify partisan ends." That latter reference no doubt is to those like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson who help spread the notion among evangelicals, as Obama put it, that "Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their church."
There will always be those who regard any public expression of religion as invasive. Witness the man who sued to have "God" taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance and the legal challenges to public displays of the Ten Commandments. But in a democracy founded on Judeo-Christian principles, religion is a primary source of moral and ethical understanding. In tilting toward a secular identity and away from a religious one, or making no effort to address how one engages the other, Democrats risk excluding a large number of people who want to be included.
"Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation -- context matters," said Obama. In the context of politics, injecting a real moral dimension matters, too.
Copyright by The Chicago Sun Times
June 30, 2006
The profile of religion in the Democratic Party has gotten considerably smaller since the days when Jimmy Carter was confessing to having lust in his heart. Having rallied around Bill Clinton's transgressions in the White House, conservative Republicans have made religion a dividing stick in holding out their party as the one that reflects the faith-based values by which most Americans live and the Democrats as the party of loose morals and shifting priorities.
In calling for the Democrats to aggressively redefine that image by acknowledging "the power of faith in the lives of the American people" and letting believers know they have a place in the party, Sen. Barack Obama may have been reflecting his political savvy as much as his personal belief. As filtered through issues such as abortion, gay marriage and the right to die, religion is playing a major role at the polls.
In chiding his fellow party members for shying away from discussions and debates over religious issues for fear of giving offense or appearing insensitive to those with opposing views, Obama made a timely, considered statement that would carry weight whether Democrats look to him as a savior or not -- and clearly a lot of them do, given the ceaseless speculation about his prospects as a presidential candidate.
Addressing an evangelical group at a conference in Washington, D.C., Wednesday, he said, "When we ignore the debate about what it means to be a good Christian or Muslim or Jew; when we discuss religion only in the negative sense of where or how it should not be practiced, rather than in the positive sense of what it tells us about our obligations toward one another; when we shy away from religious venues and religious broadcasts because we assume that we will be unwelcome, others will fill the vacuum, those with the most insular views of faith, or those who cynically use religion to justify partisan ends." That latter reference no doubt is to those like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson who help spread the notion among evangelicals, as Obama put it, that "Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their church."
There will always be those who regard any public expression of religion as invasive. Witness the man who sued to have "God" taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance and the legal challenges to public displays of the Ten Commandments. But in a democracy founded on Judeo-Christian principles, religion is a primary source of moral and ethical understanding. In tilting toward a secular identity and away from a religious one, or making no effort to address how one engages the other, Democrats risk excluding a large number of people who want to be included.
"Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation -- context matters," said Obama. In the context of politics, injecting a real moral dimension matters, too.
posted by Carlos T Mock at 8:15 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home