The latest little scuffle on the “evangelical voter” front is actually kinda nice, because it offers me a perfect opportunity to explain why everything’s all screwed up. James Dobson, he of Focus on the Family, got his panties in a knot in response to Barack Obama’s comments from two years ago about religion in politics, and now a nice big ol’ feud is a-broilin’.
Dobson paraphrased this as “unless everybody agrees, we have no right to fight for what we believe in.” But that’s not what Obama was saying at all. Rather, he was arguing that in a pluralistic nation like ours, politics depends on people of faith being able to persuade others based on common and accessible ground and appeals to reason — which sounds entirely reasonable. Christians who oppose abortion can make an effective case by talking about sonograms, fetal development and the moral imperative to protect the most vulnerable. That doesn’t mean one’s faith shouldn’t inform the question of abortion — or, for that matter, war, poverty and other issues. After all, President Lincoln’s argument against slavery was partly grounded in faith. But appeals to the Bible or church teaching aren’t sufficient in a pluralistic nation. That’s why Lincoln talked primarily about the Declaration of Independence.
Basically the argument came down to this: Obama says people’s beliefs based in faith must be defended on common grounds in a secular nation (which we nominally are), Dobson got a stick up his ass because he thinks we’re Jesusistan.
The problem is that so much of religion cannot be defended on grounds other than the holy text from which they came. There’s no empirical evidence that says gay marriage is bad for society, that abortion prior to the 2nd trimester is the destruction of anything other than a non-conscious lump of cells, or that Intelligent Design is a scientific theory of any sort.
What we’re dealing with is an angry reaction to a reality. The religious right knows in their hearts that none of the points they argue in the 21st century have any legitimate grounds. When they want creationism taught in schools or marriage defined as a man and a woman, their only basis is that of the Bible. And given that we are not a nation based on the Bible, it pains them to think that they may be unable to foist their worldviews on the rest of us.
Obama makes a great point that even those like me are loathe to admit: as our nation is based on our morality, and the vast majority of those in power based their moral codes on their religious beliefs, our laws are largely shaped by the religion of those who wrote them. It happens. Can’t avoid that.
That’s misleading, however. Many believe their ethical stances are based in their religion, but in reality it’s that their ethics have support from religion. That’s why so many pick and choose which parts to really put any stock in. We all have a similar moral compass, and tons of rules in the Bible/Koran/Torah can be expressed in secular terms.
Really, pick a law. Stealing, murder, rape, arson, assault, tax evasion, perjury, whatever. You can explain each of them in purely reasonable terms. It doesn’t matter if you have any religion at all, it’s easy to figure out why it’s probably not good to set someone’s house on fire or lie under oath. Have a bunch of aliens land on our planet and we can defend those laws.
Now try and imagine those Martians striking our surface and we have to defend a law against gay marriage or why evolution cannot be taught by itself in the science class. You’re going to have a tricky time defending that without resorting to “well there’s this book that says if we disobey it we get punished forever…” and that’s Obama’s point.
The religious need to accept, just as any of us do, that all beliefs and standpoints must have rational and logical defenses. You can’t trace it back to a mystical or ethereal belief and expect everyone else to come along for the ride. The Dobsons of the world are going to fade away and vanish unless they accept that. Of course, hopefully, they’ll vanish anyway.
Hanlon\'s Razor 