Obama's Speeches Soaked in Jesus & Christian Rhetoric

Once upon a time, liberals and secularists were critical of President George W. Bush for his frequent and unnecessary blending of religion and politics in his speeches and policies. Fast-forward to the present day and we have a new president who has been introducing even more religion — and more sectarian religion — into his same speeches and policies. Are liberals and secularists even more critical? No, because the president is named "Obama" and is a Democrat. So just how principled were all the previous critiques, anyway?

Obama’s invocation of the Christian Messiah is more overt than Americans heard in the public rhetoric of Bush in his time in the White House — even though Bush’s victories were powered in part by evangelical voters.

“I don’t recall a single example of Bush as president ever saying, ‘Jesus’ or ‘Christ,’” said Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Christian group Family Research Council. “This is different.” ...

The Rev. Barry Lynn, the executive director of the group Americans United for Separation of Church and State, doesn’t like the trend with Obama: “I don’t need to hear politicians tell me how religious they are,” Lynn said. “Obama in a very overt way does what Bush tended to do in a more covert way.”

Source: Politico

At a bare minimum, it needs to be said that Barack Obama can't be held to a lower standard than George W. Bush. If certain comments or actions would have been treated as terrible coming from Bush, they can't legitimately be ignored when coming from Obama. It's distressing to see how many "liberals" and "progressives" are basically mirroring some of the worst behavior previously seen among die-hard Bush supporters: ready and willing to excuse, justify, or ignore behavior which their own principles should cause them to at least criticize, if not condemn.

It would be bad enough if all of this were just limited to speeches, but the truth is that Barack Obama is injecting religion into policy decisions as well — so it's not just how he expresses himself as a public official which is overtly religious, but also how he is trying to do his job that is becoming more and more religious.

...inside his White House, Obama has placed his Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships — run by a 26-year old Pentecostal minister named Josh DuBois — under the White House’s Domestic Policy Council. That was widely seen as an effort to involve a religious perspective in the administration’s policy decisions.

Also, religious leaders meet with White House policymakers on a regular basis — and help to shape decisions on matters large and small. A White House speechwriter working on Obama’s Egypt speech called several faith leaders to get their thoughts. After the White House unveiled its budget in April, officials convened a two-hour conference call with religious leaders to discuss how the spending plan would help the poor.

“President Obama is a committed Christian, and he’s being true to who he is,” DuBois told POLITICO. “There’s an appropriate role for faith in public life, and his remarks reflect that. And they also reflect a spirit of inclusivity that recognizes that we are a nation with a range of different religious backgrounds and traditions.”

There's an "appropriate role for faith in public life"? Well, then, perhaps Josh DuBois should explain to the American people which faith that is, what exactly the contents of that faith are, and what role is "appropriate" for this faith. DuBois should explain to the American people why this faith was chosen, who chose it, and on what authority someone was able to decide which faith would shape public policy decisions for everyone.

Personally I think that Josh DuBois' position is nonsense — religious beliefs have no "role" in public policy decisions because public policy in a civil, secular government can only be determined by "public reason." This means ideas, beliefs, and reasoning which can be accessed and/or accepted by people generally regardless of particular religious and philosophical beliefs. It's easier to understand by remembering the public policy always involves public coercion and such coercion only has legitimacy when founded on reasoning that is not dependent on the adoption of some particular religious dogma.

It’s valid for religious believers to bring up their religions and discuss their religious beliefs, but not for them to base public policy on their religious doctrines. Consider, for example, the question about welfare. A Christian might think that strong welfare programs are very important for religious reasons. In fact, they might believe that every facet of their religion compels society to go to great lengths to help the poor. If this is what they believe, that’s fine — and if they wish to share these beliefs with others, that’s also fine. They are also perfectly free to try to convince others to adopt that religion, those ideas, and those conclusions about welfare.

What can’t happen in a free, democratic society, however, is that the actual welfare laws be based upon these religious doctrines and on this religion. However important welfare might be to adherents of this religion, the welfare laws must be based upon arguments and ideas that are accessible to everyone rather than merely those who accept the premises and truth of a particular form of Christianity that exists in this geographic space during this time in history.

We can repeat the same argument for a whole host of issues: abortion, gay marriage, teaching evolution, and so on. There is nothing wrong with people sharing with others their religious reasons for holding particular positions on such issues, but there is a great deal wrong if everyone in society is forced to conform their behavior to certain religious propositions.