I’ll start with your last comment. I meant no disrespect in wondering if you read the speech (I didn’t specifically claim you hadn’t); it’s the second time I’ve brought that up, and you didn’t say anything one way or the other the first time. Hell, I hadn’t read it all until we were a few comments in. I wondered only because I’m seeing now that the words we’re using mean different things to the two of us. And on the contrary, I think it’s remarkable that we’ve had this long of a discussion without the thread being dragged into the black hole of the abortion debate itself, and should pat ourselves on the back for that.

This is a good example of the interpretation differences I think we have; you said way above, “I have felt that President Obama has a pretty good sense of the right setting for sensitive discussions such as abortion, but it failed him this time.”. The obvious problem I see with that statement is that it is the core concerns of abortion that are sensitive, and not the idea that the two sides should work together on shared goals. Obama didn’t say anything that would make anyone on either side of the abortion debate squirm, except that he dare mention it at all, and there isn’t anything sensitive about what he said. Yes, you can say that he shouldn’t say the word ‘abortion’ at all in so close proximity to his SC nominee which I can see at least where you’re coming from, but I think the debate preceding his visit at least balances that, which I don’t think is that outlandish an idea either.

“If you’re going to talk about abortion, then talk about abortion. ”

Well we certainly disagree on this, and that’s in part because I agree with you that yes, obviously, a purely political speech that distracts from the graduation is inappropriate. If we’re going to view that as a spectrum, it seems that saying nothing is one end and getting into the nitty-gritty of specific points of his abortion positions is at the other. What he talked about is in the middle and almost tangential; he didn’t talk about abortion really at all, he talked about the abortion debate. If he would have gone into the details you suggested of how he arrived at his specific positions on abortion, which is delving straight into the abortion debate itself, I think it’s clear that the charge that he’s distracting from the graduation by using the speech as platform to expound on his controversial views would be more valid manyfold, and there would be things he said in that case that many in his audience would have sensitivity to. Instead, what he said wasn’t controversial at all.

As far as ‘agree to disagree’, I usually hear that term used as a debate or conversation ender; the debate goes round and round, and someone finally says, ‘we’ll just have to agree to disagree then’, meaning there’s no point in debating it any longer. That interpretation is the opposite of what he said, but I’m probably mistaken about what you meant by that. I think you and I are in agreement though that of course disagreeing sides should work together on common causes.

“Then again, it is also silly to claim that our ability to work together on one issue, such as education, makes it ok that we can’t work together on another issue, such as abortion. Clearly, making such a claim in a speech in an attempt to address concerns about abortion is a meaningless, unnecessary political dodge.”

Well it’s good then that Obama didn’t say anything like that. He said the exact opposite of, “…makes it ok that we can’t work together on another issue, such as abortion.”; he said explicitly that it’s not okay that we can’t work together. At most he said it’s okay that we have valid disagreements about abortion, which is non-controversial and self-evident. I’m unclear where you’re getting this from.

“It says nothing about how we should address abortion itself…”

Hey, if you’ve got the answer to that decades-old question, the country is all ears. I think reminding everyone that you can work together, a sentiment we both agree on and that I don’t think does get enough emphasis, is a good start.

“Here are the five paragraphs from the speech where President Obama defends his own Christianity:”

First, I’d have to ask what you mean by ‘defend’? Defend against whom or to whom? Not the protesters; they were primarily protesting having a pro-life president speak and receive an honorary degree, not that he had the wrong Christian beliefs (although I’m sure some accused him of that). It seems pretty clear that he’s discussing his Christian upbringing in your quoted section, and examples of Christians who inspired him and why he was drawn to the church; a testimonial that is not so unlike millions of other Christian testimonials. Isn’t discussing your Christian beliefs perfectly appropriate and non-controversial at a commencement at a Christian university? To discuss your Christianity and what it meant to you?

Again, no ill will intended to you personally, and enjoy the long weekend. (and I’ll definitely check out your blogposts on JFK; interesting stuff)

That’s an excellent addition. I don’t what to mis-frame the debate. The Reticulator makes a good point about my questions.

“I inferred maybe incorrectly from the word ‘dodge’ that you meant it would have been preferable if he would have talked about the core concerns that you listed if he’s going to talk about abortion at all, which if so I definitely disagree with.”

You have inferred correctly. If you’re going to talk about abortion, then talk about abortion. At no point in the speech does he explain how or why he came to hold the views that he does. Everyone knows Obama is pro-choice. Everyone can see his voting record. How many people know the how or the why? Furthermore, why does he feel that his beliefs about abortion should be adopted nationally?

I may actually be moving into the realm of “what if” for a moment, but what if President Obama said his beliefs stemmed from a Bible-based defense of women’s rights? What if he had detailed the passages from which he formed these beliefs? He’s a Christian. Catholics were the ones with the problem in the first place, but how many catholics have actually studied this issue biblically? How many catholics have simply accepted the party line, so to speak. In addition, if he had said that, then he would have actually spoken to the issue rather than around it. This would have been a different story.

Of course, he *still* wouldn’t have been giving a commencement speech if he did that, which is why I think he should have avoided it altogether.

“I certainly didn’t take his remarks as ‘agree to disagree’;”

Looks like he’s saying that here:

‘That’s when we begin to say, “Maybe we won’t agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this is a heart-wrenching decision for any woman to make, with both moral and spiritual dimensions.”‘

As you put it, President Obama is calling us to “disagree but work together for shared causes.” Sounds like agreeing to disagree about abortion, but then working together on, for example, preventing unwanted pregnancies. I like this idea. Of course we should work together on the things where we have some agreement. Why let our differences on one issue prevent working together on a different issue? That’s just silly.

Then again, it is also silly to claim that our ability to work together on one issue, such as education, makes it ok that we can’t work together on another issue, such as abortion. Clearly, making such a claim in a speech in an attempt to address concerns about abortion is a meaningless, unnecessary political dodge. It says nothing about how we should address abortion itself, and it has no place in a graduation ceremony. Unfortunately, that’s basically what Obama did.

“I do wonder if you’ve read his speech; quote me anything that is a defense of his Christian beliefs.”

Here are the five paragraphs from the speech where President Obama defends his own Christianity:

“I was not raised in a particularly religious household, but my mother instilled in me a sense of service and empathy that eventually led me to become a community organizer after I graduated college. A group of Catholic churches in Chicago helped fund an organization known as the Developing Communities Project, and we worked to lift up South Side neighborhoods that had been devastated when the local steel plant closed.

It was quite an eclectic crew. Catholic and Protestant churches. Jewish and African-American organizers. Working-class black and white and Hispanic residents. All of us with different experiences. All of us with different beliefs. But all of us learned to work side by side because all of us saw in these neighborhoods other human beings who needed our help – to find jobs and improve schools. We were bound together in the service of others.

And something else happened during the time I spent in those neighborhoods. Perhaps because the church folks I worked with were so welcoming and understanding; perhaps because they invited me to their services and sang with me from their hymnals; perhaps because I witnessed all of the good works their faith inspired them to perform, I found myself drawn – not just to work with the church, but to be in the church. It was through this service that I was brought to Christ.

At the time, Cardinal Joseph Bernardin was the Archbishop of Chicago. For those of you too young to have known him, he was a kind and good and wise man. A saintly man. I can still remember him speaking at one of the first organizing meetings I attended on the South Side. He stood as both a lighthouse and a crossroads – unafraid to speak his mind on moral issues ranging from poverty, AIDS, and abortion to the death penalty and nuclear war. And yet, he was congenial and gentle in his persuasion, always trying to bring people together; always trying to find common ground. Just before he died, a reporter asked Cardinal Bernardin about this approach to his ministry. And he said, ‘You can’t really get on with preaching the Gospel until you’ve touched minds and hearts.’

My heart and mind were touched by the words and deeds of the men and women I worked alongside with in Chicago. And I’d like to think that we touched the hearts and minds of the neighborhood families whose lives we helped change. For this, I believe, is our highest calling.”

Lastly, I have read the speech. I have watched the video. Please don’t claim that I haven’t. I am not accusing you of that despite the fact I disagree with your opinion of what he said. Respectful disagreement indeed.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/chi-barack-obama-notre-dame-speech,0,2951798.story

If you do a search for “obama notre dame ‘yes we can’”, you’ll see that it was mainly reported in conservative and Catholic news sources, not other news sources.

There was a youtube video of it that was going around the day after – basically a guy stood up in the nosebleed seats and started shouting “Abortion is murder!”; his shouts were drowned out by crowd noise, including the chants “We are ND!” and “Yes we can!”

To be fair, I don’t think that “Yes we can!” was a direct response to “Abortion is murder,” but rather just a showing of support for Obama against the protesters. I also doubt that there were any audience plants by Obama, as Spartan suggests.

Yep, sure did. Undoubtedly those were audience plants by Obama so that he had more cover to bring up his controversial message of working together on common issues despite our disagreements so he can gain support for his next Supreme Court nominee.

Are you kidding us? Did it really happen that way?

Anti-abortion people who frame the issue that way, or who let the issue get framed that way for them, are playing a sucker’s game.

Here is a conversation I had on this subject several years ago, as I remember it:

Me: No, I don’t think abortion is murder.

She: I’m glad you’re finally beginning to see the difference.

Me: Similarly, I would be glad for you to begin to see the similarities.

Without question, agreed, Aaron. Nor is that his responsibility. I agree with your core concerns, with the addition of the question of the boundaries of a woman’s rights. What I’m responding to is your criticism of him, “speaking about an issue without addressing the core concerns of that issue”, which you called a political dodge. I inferred maybe incorrectly from the word ‘dodge’ that you meant it would have been preferable if he would have talked about the core concerns that you listed if he’s going to talk about abortion at all, which if so I definitely disagree with.

“President Obama’s remarks were basically a call to ‘agree to disagree’ as respectfully as possible, which is hard to do and wholly unsatisfying in the best circumstances. ”

I certainly didn’t take his remarks as ‘agree to disagree’; “understand, Class of 2009, I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away.” and “Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction.” doesn’t sound like agreeing to disagree. You’re not objecting to ‘respectfully’ are you? And sorry, speak for yourself; I don’t find it ‘wholly unsatisfying’ to find respectful common ground with people I disagree with. Quite the opposite.

“Shouldn’t a graduation ceremony be about hope for the future rather than a call to settle for disagreement and a defense of the speaker’s own Christian beliefs?”

He didn’t say settle for disagreement, he said disagree but work together for shared causes, which is *hope for the future*. Do you really take the position that they shouldn’t? I do wonder if you’ve read his speech; quote me anything that is a defense of his Christian beliefs.