The Public Square
Only the two Democratic presidential candidates participated in a “Compassion Forum” aired on C.N.N. on 4/13/08, because John McCain declined his invitation. The focus was on the issues of faith and compassion and how a president’s faith can affect us all.
Obama was asked: “There are a lot of Americans who believe the conversation going on here tonight is not necessarily appropriate. They believe that religion has far too much influence in public life. What do you say to that?”
Obama responded: “Well, you know, what I’ve written in the past, what I’ve actually spoke at a Sojourner’s forum two years ago on this precise issue. I think that we have fallen into a false debate.
“On the one hand, there have been elements, many of them in my own party, in the Democratic Party, that believe that any influence of religion whatsoever in the public debate somehow is problematic or violates church and state.
“On the other hand, there have been those primarily in the other party, in the Republican Party, whose view has been that the separation between church and state shouldn’t even be there. I think both extremes are wrong.
“What I believe is that all of us come to the public square with our own values and our ideals and our ethics, what we believe. People of religious faith have the same right to come to that public square with values and ideals that are rooted in their faith.
“They have the right to describe them in religious terms, which has been part of our history. As I said in some of my writings, imagine Dr. King, going in front of the Lincoln Memorial and having to scrub all his religious references, or Abraham Lincoln in the Second Inaugural not being able to refer to God.
“What religious language can often do is allow us to get outside of ourselves and mobilize around a common good.
“On the other hand, what those of us of religious faith have to do in the public square is to translate our language into a universal language that can appeal to everybody. Both Lincoln and King did this and every great leader did it, because we are not just a Christian nation. We are a Jewish nation; we are a Buddhist nation; we are a Muslim nation; Hindu nation; and we are a nation of atheists and nonbelievers.
“It is important for us not to try to kill the debate by saying, ‘Well, God tells me I’m right, and so I’m not going to listen to you.’ Rather, we’ve got to translate whatever it is that we believe into a language that allows for argument, allows for debate, and also allows that we may be wrong.
“The biggest danger, I think, for those of us of religious faith in the public square is a certain self-righteousness, where we start thinking that, ‘Well, you know, I’ve got a direct line to God.’ You know, that is incompatible with democracy.
“You may have a direct line to God. But, the public square is not the place for us to empower ourselves in that way.”
Obama was asked: “There are a lot of Americans who believe the conversation going on here tonight is not necessarily appropriate. They believe that religion has far too much influence in public life. What do you say to that?”
Obama responded: “Well, you know, what I’ve written in the past, what I’ve actually spoke at a Sojourner’s forum two years ago on this precise issue. I think that we have fallen into a false debate.
“On the one hand, there have been elements, many of them in my own party, in the Democratic Party, that believe that any influence of religion whatsoever in the public debate somehow is problematic or violates church and state.
“On the other hand, there have been those primarily in the other party, in the Republican Party, whose view has been that the separation between church and state shouldn’t even be there. I think both extremes are wrong.
“What I believe is that all of us come to the public square with our own values and our ideals and our ethics, what we believe. People of religious faith have the same right to come to that public square with values and ideals that are rooted in their faith.
“They have the right to describe them in religious terms, which has been part of our history. As I said in some of my writings, imagine Dr. King, going in front of the Lincoln Memorial and having to scrub all his religious references, or Abraham Lincoln in the Second Inaugural not being able to refer to God.
“What religious language can often do is allow us to get outside of ourselves and mobilize around a common good.
“On the other hand, what those of us of religious faith have to do in the public square is to translate our language into a universal language that can appeal to everybody. Both Lincoln and King did this and every great leader did it, because we are not just a Christian nation. We are a Jewish nation; we are a Buddhist nation; we are a Muslim nation; Hindu nation; and we are a nation of atheists and nonbelievers.
“It is important for us not to try to kill the debate by saying, ‘Well, God tells me I’m right, and so I’m not going to listen to you.’ Rather, we’ve got to translate whatever it is that we believe into a language that allows for argument, allows for debate, and also allows that we may be wrong.
“The biggest danger, I think, for those of us of religious faith in the public square is a certain self-righteousness, where we start thinking that, ‘Well, you know, I’ve got a direct line to God.’ You know, that is incompatible with democracy.
“You may have a direct line to God. But, the public square is not the place for us to empower ourselves in that way.”
posted by Jim O'Leary | 12:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home