Randy DeSoto sent me an email with a link to his latest article on the website “The Conservative Voice”, in which he discusses what he calls “Obama’s Schizophrenic Views on Faith.”
His email reads as follows:
I’ve linked my most recent article, which opens with a description from a scene from Seinfeld, when Jerry is informed by a rental car employee that the car he reserved is not available. Jerry, in frustration, says that anyone can take the reservation (“Take, take, take”), it’s holding it that is the most important part.
In a the same way Obama talks a good talk about the role religious belief should play in public life. He says, “So to say that men and women should not inject their ‘personal morality’ into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.”
However, where the rubber meets the road on some of the seminal issues of our day, he does not deliver the goods.
The Declaration of Independence inevitably comes into play in my discussion of this subject, making it a very relevant read for the 4th of July holiday.
The link to the article is:
I posted a response to this article which reads as follows:
In this piece you repeat the significant underlying logical (and legal) fallacy which was at the core of your previous discussion of gay marriage. Your assertion that the Declaration of Independence supports a role for religion in our government is a classic rhetorical trick, argument by misdirection.
And the reason for this sophistical sleight of hand is readily apparent: While the Declaration contains four “religious” references (“God”, “Creator”, “Supreme Judge” and “Divine Providence”), the document on which our government is actually founded — the Constitution — contains no reference to a “god” of any kind and mentions “religion” only for the purpose of denying to the government entirely the power to legislate with respect thereto.
I challenge you to show me where in the Constitution we find support for your contention that religion has a proper role in our government?
“Morality”, by the way, is an expression of principles of right and wrong in behavior and is not an inherently religious concept. The implication in your article that religious non-believers are somehow deficient in “morality” compared to religious believers is not only offensive but is also belied by the history of human misery inflicted in the name of one religion or another.
Furthermore, the reason for the Constitution’s mandate that government have no role in religion (and the logical corollary that religion should have no role in government) is obvious. The primary raison d’etre of government is coercion and coerced religion has no proper place in the legal system of a democratic society.
To the extent that Barack Obama is “schizophrenic” on the proper role of religion in government, I fault him only for allowing religion any role at all.