In one of the great scenes from the Seinfeld series, Jerry finds himself frustrated with a rental car employee. She has just informed him that the car type he reserved is not available, and she only has a compact left. Jerry says, 'I don't understand, I made a reservation.' She responds looking at her computer screen, 'Yes, I understand. We have it right here.' 'I don't think you do,' Jerry quickly retorts. 'Anyone can take the reservation.' He motions pulling various orders from the air, 'Take, take, take.' He continues, 'It's theholding the reservation, and that's really the most important part.' The same situation appears to be true regarding Barack Obama's views about the role faith should play in the public life.
Senator Barack Obama and Focus on the Family founder James Dobson got into a little dust up last week over a speech Obama made in 2006 regarding the role of religion in government. The speech is extensive and probably represents the Democratic candidate's most thorough discussion of the subject. The address breaks down into two parts. In the first part, Obama uses his lawyerly skill to extol the place religious faith has played in our nation's history in relation to government and should continue to play. In key passage, Obama says, '[S]ecularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering the public square. Frederick Douglass, Abraham Lincoln, William Jennings Bryan, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King—indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history—were not only motivated by their faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue 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. (As an evangelical Christian myself, graduate of a Christian law school, and someone who has written a book based on this very premise, my response to Obama's words is 'Yes and Amen. Preach it!!')
Now comes the second part of the speech. 'Democracy,' the Senator says, 'demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion specific, values.' Wait a minute! Is this still the same guy and the same speech that chastised secularists for expecting believers 'to check their values at the door before entering the public square'? Or who just lionized Douglass, Lincoln and Martin Luther King noting 'they repeatedly used religious language to argue their cause'? Obama further illustrates hispoint applyingit to one of the seminal issues of our day. '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 some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.' Why is this the case one wonders? Why should the religiously motivated have to carry this ball? Others certainly are capable of arguing for or against abortion in secular terms. Further, if someone truly has 'no faith,' he may not recognize the value of human life in the same way that those who have a religious worldview do. His belief may be that we're all just an amalgamation of particles moving along randomly in universe without meaning or moral order. If this view of life is true, no one has inherent worth, and certainly not someone not even born. (Note: such a view of life is a faith, it's just not a 'religious faith.') If the unbeliever cannot be swayed by religious arguments, so be it; that's democracy in action. Lincoln, in his 'Second Inaugural Address,' which Obama specifically references,made hiscaseagainst the evils of slavery in religious terms, and indeed referred to God eight times and quoted directly from the Bible three. Obama points out the Martin Luther King did the same thing when heargued against segregation. The Senator could not imagine what King's 'I Have A Dream Speech' would have been without references 'to all God's children.' King also quoted the Bible and the Declaration of Independence, which is a document that states our rights come from God and mentions Him five times in making the case for independence. Obama points out that 90% of Americans believe in God. In fact recent polling by Gallup and ABC News found that over 80%identify themselves as Christian. What is wrong with bringing to theabortion debatethe belief that we live in a moral universe designed by a Creator, and therefore we all have inherit worth and the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It was good enough forour Founding Fathers. Further that life for all 'God's children' begins when He knits them together in the womb, as the Bible affirms. (By-the-way science, through ultrasound technology and otherwise, is reaching the millennia-old Biblical understanding that life begins in the womb as well, for those who prefer a secular argument.)
Obama, in his 2006 address, also briefly mentions same-sex marriage, another hot-button issue for this election. This past spring, he further clarified his view of how faith plays into this issue. The Senator said he opposed giving the name marriage to same-sex couples, unless states choose to do so, but favors granting nearly every other right that attends such a union. He added, apparently defensively, that holding this position doesn't make him 'less Christian.' He backed up his belief by referring to Jesus' Sermon on the Mount as being a more important scriptural text and relevant to the debate 'than an obscure passage in Romans.' Paul in the book of Romans writes that homosexuality is contrary to God's design and sinful. Presumably, Obama's reference to the Sermon on the Mount is concerning Jesus' exhortation to 'Judge not,lest yoube judged.' So rather than demand that religious believers make their argument in secular terms, as he does with abortion, Obama misapplied a Biblical passage, apparently only wanting the two words, 'Judge not' used when considering same-sex unions. If his 'Biblical view' were taken to its logical ends, there would be no foundation for law at all, and no basis for ordering society. Lincoln quoted this passage in his Second Inaugural Address, and directed Jesus' exhortation towards the Northern population as a call to not be too harsh in their views towards Southerners now that the war was nearing its end. President Lincoln obviously did judge the Southern governments' actions as wrong regarding secession and took the nation to war, and judged slavery as wrong and supported the 13th Amendment, which abolished it. In public policy, judgments must be made, while as individuals, we shouldbe circumspect in our attitudes towards others, recognizing that we all fall short of what God intended us to be. Jesus' view on marriage is pretty clear. He quoted the book of Genesis affirming the institution saying, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and cleave to his wife and the two shall become one flesh.' Obama chooses not torely onthis scriptural definition of marriage, and therefore he might as well not have brought any Christian beliefs to the debate at all.
Obama seeks to play the role of religion in our democracy both ways--affirming and negating its place--and comes off schizophrenic in the process. Like the car rental place in Seinfeld, the promise is there, but when it actually comes time to deliver the goods, Obama comes up short.Holding towhat is promised is really the most important part.
Randall DeSoto is the author of the book We Hold These Truths about how leaders have appealed to two beliefs found in the Declaration of Independence—God's Providence and inalienable rights—throughout our nation's history.