Yes, I've just read Lakeoff's "Don't think about an Elephant", and have taken to heart its message about the need to build new frames for the discussion of our progressive values... and get them out into the public discourse.
I hope this will be the first in a series of "Reframing Workshops" - open discussions here on dKos to consider some of the fundamental values we hold as progressives... and arrive at better ways of putting those values forward as alternatives to those of the right, which has so long dominated the conversation.
I'd like to start by addressing an issue that has been largely left to the right: the role of religion in our national life. The power of the religious right has grown over the last 20 years to the point where it is a clear threat to our secular society. We should be able to strongly advocate our values for seperating church and state in a way that is not only satisfying to humanists... but also to people of faith.
More under the fold...
During the second debate, John Kerry was asked this question about the use of federal funds for abortion:
DEGENHART: Senator Kerry, suppose you are speaking with a voter who believed abortion is murder and the voter asked for reassurance that his or her tax dollars would not go to support abortion, what would you say to that person?
KERRY: I would say to that person exactly what I will say to you right now.
First of all, I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins. I'm a Catholic, raised a Catholic. I was an altar boy. Religion has been a huge part of my life. It helped lead me through a war, leads me today.
But I can't take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn't share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can't do that.
I think this is a good starting point for a deeper discussion, but I think it can be expanded upon... and then should be distilled back to a short, direct response. Because some will wonder why John Kerry can't legislate the articles of their faith... which, after all, to many would seem like the morally upright thing to do.
The reason why is practical, fair, and it honors all religions by favoring none. We live in a diverse nation of many faiths. There are values that all Americans share, and there are values that we don't all agree on... and among those values are our religious principles.
Our govenment regularly participates in spending and activities that different faiths would disapprove of. Many Quakers don't belive in war... yet their taxes pay for our common defense. Many Jews and Muslims object to eating pork... yet their taxes pay for FDA inspection of pork to ensure the safety of those who do consume it. Christian Scientists may not believe in the secular practice of medicine, and yet they pay taxes for Medicare, and support the Center for Disease Control. Mormons don't consume alcohol or tobacco, but their taxes support the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
This highlights the very practical reason why legislating religion is unworkable. Religious denominations disagree strikingly on what behaviors are permissable. And we don't need govenment to arbitrate those differences.
But we share many common values: We all want our property and our persons protected from those who would harm us. We agree that we value personal freedom, education for our children, and equal opportunity. These shared values are the basis for our laws. The law may well permit what faith or morals forbids. By doing so, it offers us the greatest liberty for practicing our particular faith... without imposing another's faith upon us.
This is a secular case for secular government, but I believe that there's a theological case for it as well: if a given faith believes that the favor of God is granted to those who adhere to religious principles, would any benefit accrue to those who adhere to these precepts from the force of law, rather than faith? Most religions would argue that what we hold in our hearts is known to God, and that this is the important measure of righteousness - not behavior enforced by legislation.
Religion is a deeply personal matter. It is between one and one's creator. Goverment is about public policy... and while individuals may be guided by the values of their faith, basing public policy upon doctrine, rather than public consensus, is wrong because it is divisive.
Note that these are statements of values: they aren't specifically directed towards abortion or gay marriage... but the principles can directly relate to both of them.
I'd be very interested in hearing how you would expand upon these points, refine them... and best distill them into talking points.