Great discussion going on in my corner of the interwebs. Squashed and hilker both have meaningful contributions.

My two cents (originally posted as a comment here, but I thought it merited its own post):

Obama’s (former) church belongs to the United Church of Christ denomination, which is considered mainline. Generally, mainline denominations are more liberal in theology than conservative evangelical Christianity. While many mainline churches pay lip service to the orthodox creeds, in practice they tend to flout traditional/historical interpretation. Hence, out of the mainlines you get liberation theology, dismissal of clear-cut teachings against homosexuality, and historically revisionist afrocentric theology (ahem, Reverend Wright).

The theological spectrum is insufficiently described solely by left/right terminology. Orthodox and unorthodox can be more helpful. Overall, Dobson is well within the range of historical, orthodox Christianity. The mainline denominations are drifting away from that, and some are way off the deep end.

I think what bugged me the most was Obama’s line of questioning about interpreting Leviticus and other parts of the Bible. Nobody with any credibility is advocating that we base our legal system on enforcing obscure, esoteric Jewish statutes, or even the Sermon on the Mount. It seems he’s either ignorant , disingenuous, or simply speaking from within his liberal Christian tradition. I doubt the first two because he is well-educated and the tone of the speech is conciliatory. I’m going with the third option, because his theological stream often leans toward being critical of our ability to interpret Scripture, dismissing Biblical authority or relevance in regard of specific moral commands, and reducing Christianity to platitudes like “Jesus was a great moral teacher.”

I could argue that, since the Constitution proclaims a basic right to life, it directly follows that the state should protect the unborn from being killed. Or I could argue that abortion clearly violates Biblical principles, therefore the state should outlaw the practice. I am free to make either of these arguments; people are free to judge them on the merits. Non-Christians and/or secularists may reject certain premises and assumptions that I bring to the table, which will likely result in their opposition to my policy views. They are free to do so. I also object to their basic assumptions.

Obama states, “Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality… At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise.” I agree. By nature, religions make truth claims that are mutually exclusive from those of other religions. But Christians do not want the state to enforce a religion or its precepts. We argue and debate and try to enact policies that comport with our basic beliefs and assumptions. Everybody does this. PETA believes there’s no fundamental difference between humans and the rest of the animal kingdom; thus they support legislation that gives animals equivalent rights and protections under the law. This would severly limit myriad of freedoms Americans enjoy. Yet they make their arguments, plan their rallies, and for the most part are ignored by the vast majority of the population. PETA acts according to what they think is true.

As a Christian, an American, and an admittedly somewhat meager student of Western political philosophy, I try and find a balance between basic rights and freedoms that are essential to our society, and legislating for/against certain moral behaviors. Do I think blaspheming the name of God is a sin? Yes; the Bible says so. Do I think the state should regulate that behavior? Absolutely not. Do I think Satan-worship should be outlawed? No, but I would support investigating, monitoring, and prosecuting Satan-worshipping groups whose practices include eating young children after having sex with them. Anti-Christian groups should have the right to express themselves through protests, but not through smashing windows. With some exception, every freedom eventually encroaches on the rights of another person. The discussion isn’t about whether to have a secular state enforce religious doctrine, although many try to cast it as such. It’s often simply a debate about where to draw the line between conflicting freedoms/rights (free speech vs my unbroken window pane; right to not have a child vs. right to be alive). We all come with different assumptions and basic beliefs.