Maybe its just me but..... Evidently the New President Elect, Barack Obama, has a public web site, Change.Gov. Office of The President Elect.
When I explored the site I saw various links like "Agenda", "News", etc. Under Agenda one topic is "Ethics" with some thoughts about the problems of lobbying and some statements about what Obama and Biden will do to solve the problems. This is one of the things that they will do.
"Sunlight Before Signing: Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days."
I find this a bit odd and wondered what others think about it.
The other thing I noticed, and was far more concerned about, under Agenda, was "faith," with this included in the wording:
"Senator Obama also laid down principles for how to discuss faith in a pluralistic society, including the need for religious people to translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values during public debate."
Some times we should universalize our faith understanding when participating in public debate. But often it is the specifies of the individual's faith which holds the foundation of their convictions. And without that there is really no debate.
For instance the debate on abortion, for me, is tied to my belief that God creates human life and creates human life in his image. That is my strongest argument. (It was Dietrich Bonhoeffer's also, and he was very public about it. He wrote it in a book he titled Ethics.) I hope the President Elect will not insist that any of us set aside our beliefs by universalizing them in order to enter into public discussions about important moral issues.
17 comments:
I'm wondering why 'faith' would be a topic under 'agenda'. Any thoughts?
I hope its not true but I am thinking that maybe Obama wants to use some kind of univeral idea of religion to "bring us altogether."
Here I am not thinking of a universal religion but just an idea or a sociological view that we all have some understanding of religion which is its self the thing. Our understandings are not the important parts.
I hope I am making sense.
Viola - I get what you're saying, but I really hope you're not right. It would be far more disastrous than people might think at first.
I had that thought almost immediately because as I was putting together a class on the inspiration of Scripture for Sunday and was reading about past ways of looking at Scripture, one was a nineteenth century sociological view which used "religion" as the important standard and then simply turned to comparative religion. The thought about universalizing particular religious views really jumped out at me.
But of course I could be way off base on that thought too. However, I am not off base in thinking that there are times in public debate on moral issues when we must be up front about our particular beliefs.
I have to laugh now as I think of an extreme example—but I can just hear a first century Christian saying to a Roman official, “I can’t offer incense to Caesar because many people have different or other Lords than Caesar.”
I think Obama's words are pretty plain and clear.
If you really don't know what he is talking about, then I suggest reading the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It too was an expression of religious people who "translated their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific" values.
He is after all a civil rights lawyer and a professor of Constitutional Law.
Come think of it, it will be nice to have a president who actually knows and respects the Constitution. It's been a long while.
Carl
The first amendment states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Will the government be prohibiting how we exercise our religion and abridging our speech by '[laying] down principles for how to discuss faith in a pluralistic society'?
As a constitutional lawyer, President Elect Obama should also understand that the government cannot regulate what we say in a normal discussion (and I'm not talking about yelling fire in a crowded theatre), nor can they regulate anyone's faith.
We are a representative form of government, and as such, our elected officials have been entrusted to make the decisions in our best interests. We as the public have the right and responsibility already to contact our elected representatives on legislation, and we already have the ability to contact the President on legislation. My question is how many people actually do it? President Elect Obama's plan for the American people to "review and comment" on bills kind of borders on mobocracy, which our Founding Fathers did not want.
Thanks for that website, Viola, I'm going to check it out.
I don't know how his administration will play out in the next 4 years but what has been discussed was one reason I looked at Obama with trepidation. How far into my life will his agenda invade? And all for the good, well-being of bringing us together - not just as a nation but a part of the world.
Hsgbdmama,
I wasn't trying to suggest that Obama would attempt to enforce laws about how we debate on faith issues in public--I was thinking instead that he was perhaps attempting to use his considerable influence to shape how the debate is done.
I love your word: mobocracy.
My thought on that is we are a representative Democracy not a pure Democracy. A pure Democracy could turn into anything. For one thing the President would be listening to who disagreed or agreed the most and deciding whether to sign the bill according to those voices.
No, Viola I didn't take your words that way, but I'm nervous that in our very politically correct environment, things could change and that makes me nervous. :-/
Once again, it is not self evident.
The problem here is one of a persident asserting what is OK for public debate. How does one plan on bringing this to pass?
It is open ended.
"Senator Obama also laid down principles for how to discuss faith in a pluralistic society, including the need for religious people to translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values during public debate."
To which Carl says:
"If you really don't know what he is talking about, then I suggest reading the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It too was an expression of religious people who 'translated their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific' values."
The statement that Viola quotes is offering direction about the way people speak in public debates. How exactly do you get that out of the First Amendment?
David Fischler
Well brace yourselves for more change -- the Agenda section of the site apparently is undergoing some changes ... the issues no longer appear when you place your cursor on the word Agenda, and when you click on it, this is all that appears:
"President-Elect Obama and Vice President-Elect Biden have developed innovative approaches to challenge the status quo in Washington and to bring about the kind of change America needs.
The Obama Administration has a comprehensive and detailed agenda to carry out its policies. The principal priorities of the Obama Administration include: a plan to revive the economy, to fix our health care, education, and social security systems, to define a clear path to energy independence, to end the war in Iraq responsibly and finish our mission in Afghanistan, and to work with our allies to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, among many other domestic and foreign policy objectives."
It will be interesting to see what changes appear.
I found where that speech originally came from and it may have been there all along because it was on his old web site. Here is a longer 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.
Now this is going to be difficult for some 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 what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of 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, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing. And if you doubt that, let me give you an example."
And then he talks about Abraham and his son on the mount.
You can find that at,
http://www.barackobama.com/2006/06/28/call_to_renewal_keynote_address.php
Viola,
Thanks for the reference. So what do you think of the quote, given the proper context and overall arch of the full speech?
David Fishler,
I did not understand your question, but in another part of Obama's speech he addresses the origins of the First Amendment and how it is itself the product of what he is talking about.
Whether you like him or not, it is hard to imagine such deep thinking coming from any recent presidents. We may have to go all the way back to Abraham Lincoln to find a peer.
Carl
Carl,
Sorry I will have to get back to your question later. I spent the fun and also serious part of my evening writing a new post.
Is it later yet?
Carl
Carl,
Sorry this week got a lot busier than expected as you can see. I will not belabor the point. I still disagree about universalizing religious beliefs in public debate. And in fact Obama used my example, "abortion," and of course he disagrees with those who are pro-life--so of course he would like us to universalize our position.
Post a Comment