Denny Burk has picked up on a speech delivered by Barack Obama a few years ago and addresses the presuppositions included within the speech that actually shows it to be the opposite of what it was proclaiming. He then challenges that pressupposition with an excerpt from Albert Mohler's book Culture Shift. Here is an excerpt from Denny's post:
I remember when Obama delivered that speech, and I remember that despite its rhetoric it actually suggests a way of engaging in the public discourse that would silence religious opinions in the public square. Here’s the relevant passage from Obama’s speech:
“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.”
You can read more (including Al Mohler's points) here.
-Does religious "reasoning" deserve a place in an ever-increasing secular society?
-By stipulating terms for those of a religious bent to be heard, do you find this fair? Does secularism have to abide by the same terms?
-Do you agree with Obama's terms or with Mohler's?
-Is this even an important issue?