Obama's speech

A note on one of Tom’s reactions to Obama’s speech. Tom is critical of this passage: “Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. . . . . 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.” Tom’s reaction is that, “[W] e can likely all agree that it is generally best for people in a pluralistic democracy to translate their religious arguments into widely accessible concepts, I doubt that ‘[d]emocracy demands [it]" in each and every case.’”

If Obama meant that each and every citizen or social movement must provide fully adequate secular reasons for their concerns, then I entirely agree with Tom. Regrettably, that seems to be a reasonable reading of the passage. I would note, however, that someone has to provide secular reasons. Government may not pass a restriction of any kind with a whereas clause arguing from the authority of God. That would violate the Establishment Clause. And it should. It is not the role of government to tell us what God has to say about any subject. If Obama meant that as a United States Senator trying to get a bill passed, he would need to provide secular reasons to meet constitutional requirements, I think he would be right. I agree with Tom, however, that it sounds as if Obama is making a point about democratic theory rather than a point about the Establishment Clause.