[QUOTE=Barack Obama]
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 their ethics and their values without pretending that they are 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, William Jennings Bryan, Doroth Day, Martin Luther King, the majority of the great reformers in American history were not only motivated by faith, but they 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 our morality, much of it which is grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Moreover if we progressives shed some of these biases, we might recognize some overlapping values, that both secular and religious 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. We might realize we have the ability to reach out to the Evangelical community and engage millions of religious Americans in the larger project of American renewal.
[/QUOTE]
He’s wrong to describe it as a codification of morality - the law represents a compromise between varying moralities, but I guess it doesn’t serve a political purpose to recognize reality.
So when can we expect the government to make it illegal to leave your family? Or to lie to your friends? Or to tell that girl that for sure you’ll call her in the morning?
You will find that not taking things out of context lends itself to coming to different conclusions about what someone’s overall opinion on something is.
I don’t disagree with it I agree with it. I listened to that whole speech which cuts out at around 40 something minutes so isn’t the entire thing. I picked a section and plucked it from the context because that’s generally the custom here. You take a blurb and link to the rest rather than making an OP that is about five screen lengths long.
Bryan Ekers It’s funny how often people frame an agreement as though it were a disagreement, like you did just there.
So you both agree that it is a codification of morality. Do you disagree that much of it is grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition?
My issue is his use of “our morality”, suggesting as it does that we’ve all agreed on something. We have our laws, but our morality is endlessly variable, even on such major issues as when and how or if to kill people.
I think he just meant a codification of the majority’s morality, as in “the government is we the people” sort of arguments. It clearly doesn’t mean all people.
[QUOTE=Barack Obama]
And that night, before I went to bed I said a prayer of my own. It’s a prayer I think I share with a lot of Americans. A hope that we can live with one another in a way that reconciles the beliefs of each with the good of all. It’s a prayer worth praying, and a conversation worth having in this country in the months and years to come.
[/QUOTE]
Closing paragraph to the speech ya’ll are talking about - his use of morality is just that, his use of it. I don’t see it as imposing his beliefs on anyone or anything.
[QUOTE=Phlosphr] Closing paragraph to the speech ya’ll are talking about - his use of morality is just that, his use of it. I don’t see it as imposing his beliefs on anyone or anything.
[/QUOTE]
Yes, the point of it was to encourage people to recognize the strength that can be found by progressives working with Evangelicals on issues they share in common.
I disagree with him a bit on this one, but he’s demonstrated a thoughtful and considered opinion (more-so than anything I could come up with on the topic), and he gives me no reason to be worried about his faith informing his political life.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
I think he just meant a codification of the majority’s morality, as in “the government is we the people” sort of arguments. It clearly doesn’t mean all people.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly.
[QUOTE=mswas]
Yes, the point of it was to encourage people to recognize the strength that can be found by progressives working with Evangelicals on issues they share in common.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Menocchio]
Co-founder of the Catholic Worker Movement, and one of the better proofs in American history that devout Christian != rapid right-winger.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I’ve always preferred 'em slow m’self. That way you can see ‘em comin’.
Like a few, I don’t think it’s a large revelation to say that laws are a reflection of our morality.
Temperance, women’s suffrage, slavery - and the end to all of these seem to help make that point. We like to think we arrive at laws in some careful thoughtful way, and while I think that it’s generally true, I’d submit it’s usually more about intuitions guiding us to what “feels fair” and sounds functional.
We don’t like people taking our rights and usually we don’t like taking others’ rights. We understand that in any functioning society we will have to trade on those sometimes competing desires. The law reflects that.
We don’t rely on scholarly studies to decide what should be legal - or what the max/min punishment should be. Or not usually.
We just use our gut. Odd thing is - often - that’s enough.
And then there’s capital punishment - something proven time and again as more expensive and no deterrent…
I read this speech the other day and thought it was one of the best things I’d read in a long time from a political leader on the role and balance of faith in politics. I like the way he doesn’t hesitate from naming Falwell, Robertson, and Keyes, stating plainly that they should not be allowed to lay claim to religious views on morality.
More than that I admired his comments toward the end about fair minded words and how he made an effort to listen to and rethink the words on his website after receiving a thoughtful letter from someone who does not agree with him. we need that kind of leadership. We need that kind of willingness to listen to and consider fairly the ideas and opinions of those we don’t agree with. Brainless denunciation, name calling, and shouting people down is so counter productive from either side.
