An Open Letter to Senator Barack Obama
Jul. 1st, 2008 10:14 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wolven7Fuel - [Hideaway]--- I sent the following to the Senator, because of two things that have come up, recently. I have no clue if his eyes will ever see it, but I need to stop being merely angry about these things, and do something. This is a long letter:
Senator Obama,
My name is Damien Williams, and I recently graduated with a Master's Degree in Philosophy and Religious Studies, from Georgia State University. I don't know that this letter will reach you, but I felt the need to try.
I have believed that you are our best shot at change and raising the discourse in this country, in a great many years. I have believed that your charisma and gravitas will allow people to listen to you, more easily, as they will feel more comfortable with you. I have believed that your intelligence, your determination, and your convictions will make certain that people Will listen to you, as they see those things in you.
In order that I may keep believing these things, In order that I may feel Good about voting for you, in the fall, rather than merely Less Bad, I need to know the answers to the following questions:
1) Why have you stooped to the level of low discourse, in the matter of Ret. Gen. Wesley Clark's comments? He does no disrespect to Senator McCain to say that, though he suffered, that suffering does not make him qualified to lead. Patriotism is not the same as leadership. Conflating the two is a disservice to rational thought, as it is clearly a logical fallacy. We appeal to emotions and, alarmingly, to pity, when we allow ourselves to be swayed by such unthinking rhetoric.
I don't think that Sen. McCain is a man to be pitied; I believe that he is to be respected for his Service, as Gen. Clark has said, but that we cannot allow our respect for his service and his suffering to blind us to his actual qualifications. Why have you come down to the level of the pundits and the politikers, rather than taking a few days to raise the level of this debate, to make people aware that being worthy of respect in one area does not equate to being prepared to lead a country in ALL areas?
And the second question I and many others will need answered: 2) What are the exact extensions and expansions of your faith-based programs?
Far too often have the evangelicals and the so-called "religious right" been the only ones privileged by the faith-based initiatives. We hear, in this country, about the religious bases, the "family values" voters, but the people we see are overwhelmingly Christian, of some denomination or another.
I was raised Christian, Senator, and my mother is an Ordained Minister of the Baptist Church, but Christians are not the only people who need to be seen, heard, and understood, especially when touching on such extremely sensitive issues as faith-based government sponsored programs. We need to hear from Christians, yes (there are over 22,000 denominations of them, as I'm sure you are aware), but also Muslims, Wiccans, Jews, Pagans (and their many variations), Native Americans, Rastafarians, Shinto practitioners, Buddhists, people of deep faith and belief, all. Perhaps we might even discuss Agnostic Seekers, and allow that Atheists have the right to not have any part of it, so far as that goes.
I know that you have had issues in the past, concerning your faith, and people questioning your patriotism, but we who want change need you to be a reflection of the change we see possible in ourselves. To paraphrase Mohandas Gandhi, we must BE the change we wish to see in the world, but you, sir, you have the Microphone. You have the television cameras. And if you are to be a voice for the fact that we, as a species, as a nation, and as individuals can Truly change things for the better, then we need you to talk about those issues which can change things for the better.
We must stop letting our emotions Cloud our judgment, and allow them to Aid it. That means knowing when something does not pertain to the issue at hand.
And we must be clear and unbiased as to what we mean by "faith," regardless of small misconceptions. Focusing on the shared values that religious pluralism can teach us will help a great many people to understand that, though they may not share specifics, they are searching for answers and a way to make a better world. May I suggest that you speak with Elaine Pagels?
I don't want to put the pressure of "everyone wanting you to be like them" on you, but I was truly disturbed by these developments, and am simply trying to understand. There is not a lot of time, between now and November, I know, and that is why it is so important that you begin laying the groundwork for these issues, Now, while people have time to absorb them.
In closing, I would like to leave you with something Dr. Robert Almeder, professor of ethics and philosophy of science once told me: "Whoever controls the definition controls the discourse." I believe that, for too long, we have allowed the definition to be controlled by those who do not necessarily have our best interests at heart, and I believe that you are in a prime position to shift that control back into the hands of the American People.
Thank you,
Damien Williams
[Edit 11.29am: Needed to send a follow-up:
Senator Obama,
In my last message, I had intended to mention the following:
http://www.pluralism.org/about/people.php#senior_staff
The Pluralism Project and Diana Eck are doing very interesting work, in the area of faith and the American people.
It would mean a great deal to many of us, if you and your staff would investigate their project and progress.
Thank you,
Damien Williams.]
I'm going to go do laundry and mow the lawn. No. Seriously.
Senator Obama,
My name is Damien Williams, and I recently graduated with a Master's Degree in Philosophy and Religious Studies, from Georgia State University. I don't know that this letter will reach you, but I felt the need to try.
I have believed that you are our best shot at change and raising the discourse in this country, in a great many years. I have believed that your charisma and gravitas will allow people to listen to you, more easily, as they will feel more comfortable with you. I have believed that your intelligence, your determination, and your convictions will make certain that people Will listen to you, as they see those things in you.
In order that I may keep believing these things, In order that I may feel Good about voting for you, in the fall, rather than merely Less Bad, I need to know the answers to the following questions:
1) Why have you stooped to the level of low discourse, in the matter of Ret. Gen. Wesley Clark's comments? He does no disrespect to Senator McCain to say that, though he suffered, that suffering does not make him qualified to lead. Patriotism is not the same as leadership. Conflating the two is a disservice to rational thought, as it is clearly a logical fallacy. We appeal to emotions and, alarmingly, to pity, when we allow ourselves to be swayed by such unthinking rhetoric.
I don't think that Sen. McCain is a man to be pitied; I believe that he is to be respected for his Service, as Gen. Clark has said, but that we cannot allow our respect for his service and his suffering to blind us to his actual qualifications. Why have you come down to the level of the pundits and the politikers, rather than taking a few days to raise the level of this debate, to make people aware that being worthy of respect in one area does not equate to being prepared to lead a country in ALL areas?
And the second question I and many others will need answered: 2) What are the exact extensions and expansions of your faith-based programs?
Far too often have the evangelicals and the so-called "religious right" been the only ones privileged by the faith-based initiatives. We hear, in this country, about the religious bases, the "family values" voters, but the people we see are overwhelmingly Christian, of some denomination or another.
I was raised Christian, Senator, and my mother is an Ordained Minister of the Baptist Church, but Christians are not the only people who need to be seen, heard, and understood, especially when touching on such extremely sensitive issues as faith-based government sponsored programs. We need to hear from Christians, yes (there are over 22,000 denominations of them, as I'm sure you are aware), but also Muslims, Wiccans, Jews, Pagans (and their many variations), Native Americans, Rastafarians, Shinto practitioners, Buddhists, people of deep faith and belief, all. Perhaps we might even discuss Agnostic Seekers, and allow that Atheists have the right to not have any part of it, so far as that goes.
I know that you have had issues in the past, concerning your faith, and people questioning your patriotism, but we who want change need you to be a reflection of the change we see possible in ourselves. To paraphrase Mohandas Gandhi, we must BE the change we wish to see in the world, but you, sir, you have the Microphone. You have the television cameras. And if you are to be a voice for the fact that we, as a species, as a nation, and as individuals can Truly change things for the better, then we need you to talk about those issues which can change things for the better.
We must stop letting our emotions Cloud our judgment, and allow them to Aid it. That means knowing when something does not pertain to the issue at hand.
And we must be clear and unbiased as to what we mean by "faith," regardless of small misconceptions. Focusing on the shared values that religious pluralism can teach us will help a great many people to understand that, though they may not share specifics, they are searching for answers and a way to make a better world. May I suggest that you speak with Elaine Pagels?
I don't want to put the pressure of "everyone wanting you to be like them" on you, but I was truly disturbed by these developments, and am simply trying to understand. There is not a lot of time, between now and November, I know, and that is why it is so important that you begin laying the groundwork for these issues, Now, while people have time to absorb them.
In closing, I would like to leave you with something Dr. Robert Almeder, professor of ethics and philosophy of science once told me: "Whoever controls the definition controls the discourse." I believe that, for too long, we have allowed the definition to be controlled by those who do not necessarily have our best interests at heart, and I believe that you are in a prime position to shift that control back into the hands of the American People.
Thank you,
Damien Williams
[Edit 11.29am: Needed to send a follow-up:
Senator Obama,
In my last message, I had intended to mention the following:
http://www.pluralism.org/about/people.php#senior_staff
The Pluralism Project and Diana Eck are doing very interesting work, in the area of faith and the American people.
It would mean a great deal to many of us, if you and your staff would investigate their project and progress.
Thank you,
Damien Williams.]
I'm going to go do laundry and mow the lawn. No. Seriously.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-07-01 03:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-01 03:24 pm (UTC)Damn it, I forgot to mention Diana Eck, and the Pluralism Project.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-01 05:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-01 10:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-01 10:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-01 10:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-01 10:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-07-01 10:46 pm (UTC)