In June of 2006, Barack Obama gave the keynote address at the Call to Renewal. In this address, he clearly describes his view of the role of religion in the public square. This view is certainly not original to him; it is shared by many liberal academics. Here it is:

Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

 

Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing.

Obama argues for the following conclusion: Arguments in the public square cannot appeal to premises that only members of a specific religion would accept. They must appeal to principles that can be evaluated by pure reason, not by any alleged divine revelation.

For example, according to Obama, if I’d like to publicly argue against legally permitting homosexual marriage, I cannot use as a premise something like “The Bible says that homosexuality is wrong.” Since not everyone accepts the authority of the Bible, this premise is not permissible in the public square.

So that’s his position. And clearly that would have huge ramifications for Christians. The following would not be permissible as a premise, for example: All men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. That’s out, according to Obama. Arguing for prayer in public schools on the grounds that God exists and prayer is efficacious would also be out, according to Obama. Arguing against the death penalty on the basis of Romans 12:16-20 would also be out, according to Obama.

Alright, so much for the view. That’s what Obama believes the role of religion should be in the public square: Silence. Religious arguments are inadmissible in Obama’s court.

The larger question is: Why believe this view? What argument does Obama give in favor of this conclusion? Why should we accept that religion should be silent in the public square?

His argument, as I understand it in the above quotation, is roughly this:

Democracy demands that religious appeals are inadmissible. In a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice.

Why think that? He says, roughly:

Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. But religion doesn’t allow for compromise. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences.

OK, so let’s extract the argument.

(1) If Smith believes that God wants us to do X, then (a) Smith will believe that we should do X regardless of the consequences, (b) Smith will be totally unwilling to compromise about doing X, and (c) Smith will be unable to persuade everyone else that we should do X, without appeal to religious premises.

(2) Participation in politics in a pluralistic democracy requires compromise and the ability to persuade other people “of common aims based on a common reality,” i.e. without appeal to religious premises. That is, participation in politics requires that (a)-(c) not be true of you.

(3) Therefore, if Smith believes that God wants us to do X, then Smith will be unable to participate in politics in a pluralistic democracy.

Is that a fair assessment of the argument? I don’t want to be uncharitable to Obama. I really think that’s what he’s saying. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

But this conclusion is far stronger than the conclusion that we cannot appeal to religious premises when arguing in the public square. This conclusion says that we cannot even believe religious premises such as “God wants us/me to do X” and enter the public square! People with beliefs about God’s desires for mankind cannot even enter politics, according to this argument.

That’s certainly alarming. And it contradicts what Obama has said about his own religious faith. He has said, for example, when he describes his conversion in his book The Audacity of Hope: “[K]neeling beneath that cross on the South Side, I felt I heard God’s spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth and carrying out His works.”

If the above argument in (1)-(3) is right, and if Obama has discovered any of God’s truth and is dedicated to carrying out any of God’s works as he says in his book, then Obama himself cannot participate in politics. So that’s one criticism of the argument: it applies to Obama as well. So he cannot reasonably wield this political argument in the public square, since it concludes that he should not participate in politics in the public square.

Now let's ask if it is even a sound argument. Are premises (1) and (2) true? I don’t think either one is true. I think they’re both flat-out false.

(1) is false because of clause (b). I don’t think it’s necessarily true that, if Smith believes that God wants us to do X, Smith will be totally unwilling to compromise. Smith may realize that many people disagree with him about doing X, and he may realize that he’s unable to persuade them to see things his way, and he may be unable or unwilling to compel people to see things his way. And so he may be willing to strike a compromise with his opponents, to get as close as possible to doing X.

Indeed, this happens all the time. Many religiously motivated opponents of gay marriage desire to totally outlaw gay marriage, for primarily religious reasons. Many of them think that outlawing gay marriage is the right thing to do, and that God wants us to do it. And yet many of them realize that others disagree and that they cannot persuade them. And many are unwilling or unable to forcibly compel the country to outlaw gay marriage. And so many of these people seek instead to compromise with their opponents, perhaps by allowing civil unions to protect marriage. But premise (1) says this is just impossible. So much the worse for premise (1): we have clear counterexamples from everyday life. So premise (1) is false.

Premise (2) says that, in order to participate in politics, one must be willing to compromise and one must be able to persuade other people without appeal to religious premises. I think premise (2) is false, and I think Obama himself agrees with me! Elsewhere in this Call to Renewal address, he says:

“Imagine Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address without reference to "the judgments of the Lord." Or King's I Have a Dream speech without references to "all of God's children." Their summoning of a higher truth helped inspire what had seemed impossible, and move the nation to embrace a common destiny.”

He seems to condone Lincoln’s speech and MLK’s speech. And yet the parts of the speeches he praises are explicitly religious, and would not persuade a non-religious person. And clearly Lincoln and MLK were participating in politics in the public square. Therefore, Obama both recognizes the possibility and even praises some instances of religiously motivated participation in politics. That is, he recognizes that there are (praiseworthy) counterexamples to (2). I agree with him. And so he should believe that (2) is false, just as I do.

In conclusion, although Obama’s stated view of religion in the public square is very troubling, he gives us no good reason to accept it. Indeed, Obama himself elsewhere seems to give good reason to reject it! His views on this matter are inconsistent. As for us, there is no reason to think that religious premises are inadmissible in the public square. There’s no reason to think that one must be willing and able to persuade everyone in order for one to participate in politics in the public square. Of course you’ll be more successful in politics if you can persuade everyone, but that’s not a prerequisite to participation in politics. And so we should not be the least bit ashamed about making religious appeals in the public square.