Tuesday, June 24, 2008

He Doesn't Speak For Me

So there is a lot of noise coming from James Dobson's hostile comments towards Barrack Obama. While Dobson has typically been a less embarrassing spokesperson for evangelicals than folks like Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson, I can't really say I'm much of a fan.

After reading Obama's speech, in this instance, I strongly disagree with Dobson. He does not represent my opinion as an evangelical, conservative voter. Sadly, many Christians will simply side with Dobson over Obama without even reading the speech that first raised Dobson's ire.

I think Obama's speech is excellent. There are even a few moments that quite wonderfully echo some words from Dallas Willard. I hope you will take time to read the speech in its entirety, but here a few excerpts that were notable to me:

You need to embrace Christ precisely because you have sins to wash away - because you are human and need an ally in this difficult journey.
After all, the problems of poverty and racism, the uninsured and the unemployed, are not simply technical problems in search of the perfect ten point plan. They are rooted in both societal indifference and individual callousness - in the imperfections of man.

Solving these problems will require changes in government policy, but it will also require changes in hearts and a change in minds. I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturers' lobby - but I also believe that when a gang-banger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels somebody disrespected him, we've got a moral problem. There's a hole in that young man's heart - a hole that the government alone cannot fix.

But, you know, my Bible tells me that if we train a child in the way he should go, when he is old he will not turn from it. So I think faith and guidance can help fortify a young woman's sense of self, a young man's sense of responsibility, and a sense of reverence that all young people should have for the act of sexual intimacy.

I am not suggesting that every progressive suddenly latch on to religious terminology - that can be dangerous. Nothing is more transparent than inauthentic expressions of faith. As Jim has mentioned, some politicians come and clap -- off rhythm -- to the choir. We don't need that.

In fact, because I do not believe that religious people have a monopoly on morality, I would rather have someone who is grounded in morality and ethics, and who is also secular, affirm their morality and ethics and values without pretending that they're something they're not. They don't need to do that. None of us need to do that.

But what I am suggesting is this - secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King - indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history - were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for 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.

Moreover, if we progressives shed some of these biases, we might recognize some overlapping values that both religious and secular people share when it comes to the moral and material direction of our country. We might recognize that the call to sacrifice on behalf of the next generation, the need to think in terms of "thou" and not just "I," resonates in religious congregations all across the country. And we might realize that we have the ability to reach out to the evangelical community and engage millions of religious Americans in the larger project of American renewal.

Some of this is already beginning to happen. Pastors, friends of mine like Rick Warren and T.D. Jakes are wielding their enormous influences to confront AIDS, Third World debt relief, and the genocide in Darfur. Religious thinkers and activists like our good friend Jim Wallis and Tony Campolo are lifting up the Biblical injunction to help the poor as a means of mobilizing Christians against budget cuts to social programs and growing inequality.


5 comments:

Paula said...

Are you considering a vote for Obama? I may have hope left if you are.

Steve Lamp said...

I am currently undecided on who I will vote for this year. If you look over the broader scope of my blog, I have generally been rather favorable towards Obama, even as far back as a year and a half ago. For instance, see:

http://sjlamp.blogspot.com/2007/02/something-positive-from-obama.html

I even posted the "Yes We Can" video:

http://sjlamp.blogspot.com/2008/02/blog-post.html

I am going to point out and expound on areas where I disagree with him (such as Social Security) but that doesn't mean I think he is altogether a bad candidate. It just means I am enjoying substantive debate on issues.

If I had to make a prediction today, I think Obama will win the election.

Quebecca said...

Steve, Jim Wallis recently posted a reply to James Dobson's words about Obama. You should check it out at http://blog.beliefnet.com/godspolitics/. I didn't watch the video but I am forwarding you the email I received about it from SojoMail.

(I only have a Juno address for you - is that still operational?)

jenvare said...

Okay Steve, you highlight some interesting points here that shed a positive light on Obama. BUT... the guy still scares me.

Mei-Ling said...

Big reason I could never vote Obama - SB1661 from 2002 when he was in the Illinois Senate.

The bill and the vote.

Somehow, after the testimony that doctors are grossly negligent by Jill Stanek (see page 42) Obama believed that the bill placed an undue burden on a woman and doctor who decided to perform an abortion to ensure that the procedure did not result in a live birth, and the undue burden of caring for the child - if in fact it was a live birth. Even after testimony, he managed to make himself believe that the atrocities that were described by the witness never or simply don't occur. His statements when the vote occurred are here around page 28-35.

Clearly, the legislation wasn't just another excessive redundant law on the books.

I have a difficult time correlating his above vote with the following sentence,"that I can't impose my own religious views on another."

It was over this issue that Keyes originally lambasted Obama - although the verbiage Keyes used was poor and the context seems distant and remote when couched in his reply only.

Obama says what I wish conservatives would say - using language and tact that most politicians lack. The whole unity for a better America stance is great - but the way he votes, the people he will appoint, the nations he is willing to negotiate with, generally worry me.

I know the exact demographic that Obama hopes to attract, and the media loves to say he is winning.