I am sorry to say however, that Obama and Wallis have demonstrated none of the astuteness, they clearly have in many other areas. No doubt, far more than I.  

However, I maintain that the labeling and demonization of unnamed others, ostensible allies, is divisive and self-defeating, and I know for a fact this turns off people of what you describe as moderate minds; particularly those who are astute enough to recognize the opportunistic knocking down of strawmen out of 1) ignorance 2) personal or political ambition or 3) both.

Setting my posts aside for a moment -- look at the divisions that Obama's speech has already created as Democrats polarize against themselves over this.

I agree that the religious right uses the term secular to attack and to diminish everone else's religion. (but that is not its only use or meaning) But if you take your George Lakoff seriously -- and I do -- it is time to reframe all this. And at Talk to Action, that is part of what we are doing.

I invite Wallis and Obama -- or anyone else -- to show us how the alleged scourge of secularism and/or secular fundamentalism and/or secular humanism and/or the secular left, is preventing people "of faith" from entering and participating in "the public square."  For starters, they can define the terms and tell us something about this power to which they profess to be speaking truth.

I understand that my zeroing in on the way that Wallis and Obama have internalized the frame of the religious right is upsetting to some. I do not undertake this lightly. But I also believe that for all of the good things in their work -- and there is very much -- that good is radically undermined by the adoption of this frame.

This is not a matter of the word secular. Obama and Wallis can't own and control it -- they have not even bothered to define it.  It is not a matter or words; it is a matter of the frame.

Here is the thing as I see it, Alex.

The religious right is at war with religious pluralism and the frame is a core ideological aspect of that war. It is well advanced in its useage, and resonates in the culture. We cannot rally people around religious pluralism and respect for religious difference in "the public square" or anywhere else, if our core ideology is at war with itself.

I might add, the best of the things that Wallis and now Obama are expressing are not new.They are a refresher of an approach to political life that is as old as the nation. That many Democrats found themselves out of practice; unconnected to their core values and spiritual life after allowing themselves to be shaped by a generation of political consultants, fundraisers, and spin doctors, and a culture ofInside the Beltway selfcongratulation out of touch with ordinary voters -- while turning a blind eye to the attacks on their own churches by agents of the corporate and religious right -- are we really surpised by any of this?

Naturally the Inside the Beltway crowd would rather blame mythological devils, -- secular fundamentalists are as good as any-- for their own errors and limitations, but we do not all have to go along for that ride -- especially if we see our leaders once again charging off in the wrong direction.

Obama and Wallis cannot have it both ways. So you will have to forgive me if I experience no spirit of celebration in what I would prefer to be a more stirring moment for us all.

Meanwhile, keep up all your good work. We are all in this for the duration.


by Frederick Clarkson on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 02:06:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

My interpretation of Wallis and Obama, now, is that they are attempting to reach out to these people, who do feel alienated by the Democratic Party and the Left because of their faith, to find ways to address the problems of poverty and war.

For intellectual discussion it may be appropriate to more properly define the word, secular, and to be more precise in how some of these issues are addressed. However, Wallis' book and Obama's speech were not addressed to intellectuals on the Left. The response to Wallis' book in churches around the USA is evidence enough that he is touching something that many 'conservative' Christians are feeling.

Perhaps, Clarkson and Talk2Action are correct when they say that the use of a 'secularism' vs spiritual framework has a certain intellectual weakness. Perhaps this framework was constructed by the Right. However, my question is where on the Left are the people who are deconstructing this framework and addressing the concerns of a large portion of the religious people in this country.

by chipmunk on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 03:50:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So far, the primary tool has been appeals to the constitution and the intentions of the founding fathers, but as we well know even simple declarative statements like those in the 1st amendment have been twisted of late.

I certainly don't know what resonates with religious moderates/liberals, but it seems to me there needs to be more than one arrow in one's quiver.

Pandering by people like Obama need to be addressed, not only in the negative but also by offering examples of what he should have said.

I know you are trying, but I'm just hoping for an even more effective program.

-- Policies not Politics
by rdf on Thu Jul 06, 2006 at 04:35:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think we would agree that a major concern is the restriction of personal liberties which is anti-democratic.

This is exactly the type of formulation I would like to see more of. The appeals to people should be on the basis of universals such as freedom, liberty, equality and fairness. (I usually add economic efficiency, but it mostly goes over like a lead balloon).

What I think is counter productive is appeals to religious teachings, as in: "this is an un-Christian" thing to do/advocate. It implicitly grants whatever relgious doctrine is being quoted as a valid authority in what should be outside the sphere of religion (namely government policy). It also leaves those not of  the same faith (or not so conversant with doctrine) out of the debate.

Using religious precepts to shame others who are violating them is, I think, appropriate.
 
-- Policies not Politics
by rdf on Fri Jul 07, 2006 at 09:21:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Mouthing the religious right's slogans about wanting to allow people of faith a voice in the public square -- as if they were not there all along, speaking about whatever they want, whenever they want to -- is not going to cut it.

We can reclaim the Constitution and the unambiguous intentions of the founding fathers. Religious freedom and equality are  progressive values; labeling and demonization tactics are not.

 

by Frederick Clarkson on Mon Jul 10, 2006 at 01:07:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]