Friday, July 10, 2009

Do you think he Understands the Difference?

Pope Benedict XVI stressed the church's opposition to abortion and stem cell research in his first meeting with President Barack Obama on Friday, pressing the Vatican's case with the U.S. leader who is already under fire on those issues from some conservative Catholics and bishops back home.

Pope. Leader of an international group of people who have chosen to live according to the strictures of a particular mystical, metaphysical and philosophical belief system, predicated on an ancient text that is generally accepted outside the confines of the church as describing events that often have no basis in reality. Like membership in a club or union, the members of a church agree to abide by it's arbitrary rules and live within it's proscribed boundaries.

President. Elected as leader of a country or nation-state, chosen by the people to represent EVERYONE in that country equally and fairly. To consider the real - world needs and aspirations of his constituency, regardless of their individual spiritual or philosophical beliefs or the demands and constraints of their chosen thought-leaders.

These are powerful men, with very large constituencies and responsibilities. And yet, they are not the same. They are FAR from the same. If Obama (or any elected leader of a diverse constituency, for that matter) allows himself to be influenced by the dogma and doctrine of a narrow group whose ideology is defined by mythology, he will be no different in his governance than Amedinejad. Obama was elected by the vote of the majority of Americans, and is obligated to balance his agenda so as it might serve the broadest measure of the citizenry.

By dint of the constraints of their beliefs and the dictates of the church leadership in Rome, Catholics are by the very nature of that self-identification constrained from various actions and activities, although it does seem odd that these are subject to some evolution over time. While they now can eat meat on Fridays, they are still prevented by threat of excommunication and eternal torment from divorce, contraception or abortion. And this is as it should be. Anyone is certainly entitled to enter into membership agreements that constrain their ability to choose their own actions in exchange for the perceived benefits of said membership. But people who choose to believe a different doctrine, or even who choose not to believe at all, must still be governed as equal citizens under elected democratic leadership.

I am an atheist, and Obama is my president too. He needs to lift his head, square his shoulders and tell the pope "you may instruct Catholics all over the globe, but I lead Americans, four fifths of whom are NOT catholics, so while I deeply appreciate your input, it would be profoundly undemocratic for me to follow that course". Of course, he also must send the same message to evangelical American christians, that they are completely entitled to live their lives in accordance with their interpretation of scripture, but they may NOT impose that scripture on Americans who do not choose it for themselves...

6 Comments:

At 1:08 PM, Blogger Righteous Bubba said...

I don't think much of the article, but Newsweek has the effrontery to publish an article with the subtitle "Why Barack Obama represents American Catholics better than the pope does." Not only are most Americans not Catholic, but most Catholic Americans happily ignore the pope's positions on a variety of things.

 
At 5:08 AM, Anonymous ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said...

In other words...
~

 
At 6:31 PM, Blogger J said...

These are powerful men, with very large constituencies and responsibilities. And yet, they are not the same.

True. El Papa, however archaic, knows a few languages, western history and philosophy and his academic record has been fairly well-established. ObamaCo wouldn't even release his undergraduate transcripts and other documents (and that doesn't mean one sides with GOP or Fox news sorts. Merely a point on transparency). Aristotle and scripture have shortcomings: then so does J-Edgarocracy, the bailout and AIPAC (and muslim fundamentalism for that matter).

 
At 6:38 PM, Blogger mikey said...

Indeed, J speaks the truth.

But a question still occurs...

Would we be somehow better off if Obama gave in to the demands of the Holy See and began to pursue an agenda more aligned with the Vatican's?

I'm going to go with no. No, we would not...

mikey

 
At 7:03 PM, Blogger J said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 7:19 PM, Blogger J said...

Rewrite:

At 7:03 PM, J said...
I'm all for intelligent secularism, ala the US Constitution. Not sure Obama is (remember Wright, Warren, some of BO's puzzling comments to the fundamentalists, his "40 days of faith and family" campaign, etc.). Obama has himself waffled on the A-word (I favor first term A's). For that matter, most of the SoCal Democrat types I meet seem as attached to religious tradition, and monotheistic churches of various sorts (ie xtian, muslim, jewish) as the right does--perhaps even "more faithful" in some cases.

I was impressed by a few parts of Obama's Cairo speech, such as the references to Adams, Jefferson, the Constitution and so forth. That may have been just hype, but that's the tradition he should affirm, warts and all.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home