Sebelius quotes Kennedy: No religious test

[rug]

By JENNIFER HABERKORN | 5/18/12 11:49 AM EDT

Under fire for requiring employers to provide contraceptives to their employees, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on Friday cited John F. Kennedy’s vision of America, “where no religious body” imposes its will on public officials.

Sebelius was interrupted by a protester shouting about abortion within the first few minutes of her commencement address at the Georgetown University Public Policy Institute, a reminder of the emotional debate over the contraception rule that led up to her speech.

But outside, only about 20 protesters showed up to demonstrate against Sebelius’s speech — a far cry from the thousands of people who signed online petitions protesting the contraception policy. The demonstrators stood outside the entrance to the university holding signs such as “Georgetown: You can’t be Catholic and pro-abortion,” and “Georgetown: We need Catholic role models, not pro-abortion speakers.”

In her speech, Sebelius noted that there are “serious debates under way about the direction of our country” — including “the moral and economic imperative of providing health care to all our citizens.” And she acknowledged that “people have deeply held beliefs on all sides of these discussions.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76488.html

[CanonRay]

1. A very tiny, but very loud, minority

That's what the extreme religious right is in America today. They get press coverage and political power far exceeding their actual numbers. This does not make them less dangerous to our political process, but the press and politicians just need to wake up to the truth.

Whenever the right tries to boycott something, you hear about it once and done...absymal failure. When the left does it, the corporations backpedal as fast as they can. If only we had press coverage and political power to match our true strength.

[cbayer]

2. I agree and I think we have to take back the power that

they accumulated over the last 10 years or so.

The problem with lack of press coverage for liberal/progressive people and groups of faith continues to make this difficult, but young people are voting with their feet.

[daaron]

3. I think liberal/progressive people of faith can have more impact -->

by forming traditional coalitions with all the constituencies on the left, finding common ground, and working on those issues while forming, reforming, and strengthening long-term organizational alliances and networks. In other words, we leave the "of faith" part of our involvement in the shared effort in the name of our respective groups, but in our deeds and words, avoid inserting religious language that might alienate allies in the crucial elbow-rubbing stage.

[cbayer]

4. Agree. That is happening on some levels within the OWS movement.

However, I don't agree that religious leaders and organizations need to be "closeted" in order to get along. If that is a part of their identity and important to what drives their ideology, why should they pretend otherwise?

I think all parties who share common progressive goals should work together. I would no more expect atheists to avoid using "language that might alienate allies in the crucial elbow-rubbing stage" than I would theists. Certainly all should avoid using language that debases, dismisses or otherwise marginalizes those who see things differently, but there is no reason to deny who one is.

[skepticscott]

8. You mean language like

calling creationists "a bunch of dumbasses"? I guess when you say "All" should avoid using language like that, you mean all of us, but not YOU.

[daaron]

9. I didn't say "closeted".

I was very specific about my suggestion. Keep the "of faith" part of the group identity intact, but don't insert religious language or action into coalition activities. There's plenty of room outside coalition activities to express our religious beliefs in full. In the middle of a political rally is just not one of them.

[cbayer]

10. Would you say the same thing to GLBT activists?

Black activists?

Would you have said that to MLK?

[daaron]

11. That's a ridiculous comparison.

Given the privileges that Christians are afforded in our society, both historically and today, it is unfair to compare Christian theology some sort of genetically inborn character trait.

Indeed, I will be surprised if some do not find this comparison offensive.

[cbayer]

12. What about non-Christians? You were speaking generally about religious people and groups.

And, I ask again, do you think MLK should have kept his theology out of his politics?

[daaron]

13. But what privilege does Christianity bring that's greater than majority status?

If we are to open up political rallies - say at OWS or the like - to religious observance, we'd have to accommodate everyone, and we'd never get anything done as everyone inserted their religious two cents. Meanwhile, every atheist or agnostic in the crowd will evaporate and never return. If we are serious about coalition building, we have to put the coalition before our individual identifications, while working on coalition-business. It's really not that hard a thing to do. We do it all the time at work. Why do we expect that partisan politics should be different?

[cbayer]

14. You have moved from saying that religious people should not speak religiously when

participating to saying that they should not dominate (I think). I'm not talking about observances, just the ability to express one's POV within the movement using religious (or any other) ideology. Humanists are there doing it, as are religious people.

It's not an attempt to foist religious beliefs, traditions or policies onto the movement, but to incorporate them, just as other interest groups do.

That's what coalitions are about, imo. Taking groups with diverse identities, finding common ground and joining forces to achieve similar goals.

To expect that those driven by specific ideologies should just keep those to themselves makes not sense. To not let any one of them dominate is a good goal, on the other hand.

This was done successfully within the civil rights movement and it can be done now.

(You still haven't responded to my queries about MLK).

[daaron]

15. I'm saying the same thing I was saying before.

That if we are going to be serious about coalition building on the left, today (not in the '60s, to answer your MLK query), our religious diversity and yes, language, regardless of which religion it is, should be left at the Church, Temple, Mosque, Sweat Lodge, etc. while we work on partisan political projects under the banner of a political coalition. I'm not saying we don't participate, I'm just saying I'm not going to bring up how fascinated I am by Christian history at the next General Assembly or Democratic Party meeting that I attend. That's all. Nothing further implied.

[cbayer]

16. We will just have to agree to disagree here.

I still read what you are saying is that religious people should participate but stay in the closet. You may not speak of it because it is not part of your primary identification. But that is not true for others and they bring a valuable perspective and readiness to work within the group.

I would hope that activist atheists would do the same.

As long as someone is not trying to shove their beliefs down anyone's throat, we need to stop being so sensitive that people can't say who they are or what they believe (or don't believe).

[daaron]

17. I just really don't see how it contributes anything useful.

Even if it is one's primary identification, it isn't relevant, anymore than my coworker's blackness is relevant. How is it "in the closet" if everyone you work with knows you observe religion X, or no religion, and you know if coworker A is black and boss B is gay, etc. Suppose everyone's out of the closet. How is any of that relevant to building and marketing widgets?

It's not. Substitute 'coalitions' for 'widgets' and that's where I'm coming from. We treat the political process with the deference and respect that we casually afford our places of employment.

But I am willing to agree to disagree.

[Thats my opinion]

5. forming new structrures beyond denominational organizations

is what is currently happening. Bob Edgar--a clergy person and now head of Common Cause, is pulling together church voices and secular voices in an effort to offer a Constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

[skepticscott]

7. You mean the young people

who put a rabidly right-wing Republican majority back in the House in 2010?

And the religious right has been taking political power for more than 30 years, as anyone paying attention knows. They are anything but a tiny fringe minority, as has been demonstrated clearly to you on this board over and over and over. There is no one who matters in the Republican party that does not bow and scrape to religious fundamentalism and far-right social conservatism.

[trotsky]

6. You underestimate them at your own risk.

They are not a "very tiny" minority, not by any stretch of imagination. They are a sizable voting bloc, and greatly outnumber those we would consider to be "progressive" Christians.