The Da Vinci Candidate: Finding the New Balance of the Secular and Spiritual in the Democratic Party

[CorpGovActivist]

Lyrical, fiery, uplifting oratory: throughout our nation's history, we have had leaders who have been able to draw upon a wide variety of resource material - including material rooted in the religious - to inspire, motivate, and exhort us to march on toward that more perfect Union.

Some of my Democratic friends - atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, rationals - bristle whenever they see or hear of Democratic candidates speaking at religious venues or events, "pandering" to an audience that these otherwise logical folks openly disdain.

This attitude has always puzzled me.

Ask many of these same grumblers who their favorite historical figures are, or to rattle off some of their favorite quotes, and a pattern emerges: the people they so often cite were at the forefront of finding a new balance between the secular and spiritual realms of their own times.

Take the genius named in the headline of this topic. The most prominent commissions he received dictated that he portray religious subject matter. But almost singlehandedly, he infused Humanism into his work, and captured the duality of humankind in a way that still draws crowds today. He revolutionized the depiction of spiritual topics - downplaying the "sacred" and emphasizing the "sameness" with the viewer (as much as he dared, given his patrons). Standing in front of a Da Vinci work, the viewer could more readily apply the lessons depicted to his or her own life. It was an early use of the "vernacular," if you will, instead of official Latin. It was a stab at orthodoxy - he took his practical knowledge of anatomy, science, mathematical proportions, and interjected them into his handicraft. To be sure, many who stared in awe at his newly-unveiled works missed the earthier points. But how many more secretly (and safely) drew inspiration of another type, going on to study the disciplines that informed Da Vinci's "religious" works?

Da Vinci understood that the "familiar" (religious/moral topics) could help introduce the unfamiliar (scientific/secular principles) to audiences in a non-threatening (and inherently subversive) way.

Was Thomas Jefferson "pandering" when he couched Humanist principles of equality and human dignity in these words?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

Or - like Da Vinci - did he mix his inks and use his canvas to find a palatable way to present a challenge to the orthodoxy of his day?

Was Abraham Lincoln "pandering" when he gave the House Divided Speech, the Gettysburg Address, or his Second Inaugural?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_divided

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettysburg_address

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln%27s_second_inaugural

Or - like Da Vinci - did he put pen to paper to attempt to give his audience familiar touchstones to grapple with the seemingly unknowable?

It is no small fact of American History that the mention of slaves and servants in the Bible was used as justification for slavery. Lincoln challenged this orthodoxy - and won converts to the progressive position - by striking the balance of the secular and spiritual. It should also be noted that abolitionism had as many religious roots as secular ones.

RFK stands chief in my heart among Democratic heroes who gracefully evoked the mystical, the mysterious, and the spiritual to sow progressive seeds in the minds of those struggling against the programmed orthodoxy of their times:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy

Racism? Bobby invited his audience to contemplate a deity that wasn't white: "But suppose God is black? What if we go to Heaven and we, all our lives, have treated the Negro as an inferior, and God is there, and we look up and He is not white? What then is our response?"

War of choice? Bobby invited his audience to ask themselves: "Are we like the God of the Old Testament, that we in Washington can decide which cities, towns, and hamlets in Vietnam will be destroyed? Do we have to accept that? I don't think we do. I think we can do something about it."

I would far rather see a Democratic candidate who can naturally draw upon as many cultural and religious references - of whatever mintage - to connect with his/her audience and plant those progressive seeds, than to see one who relies solely on secular references.

The Democratic Da Vinci Candidate must do as Da Vinci himself did: go into the very institutions whose ideas he did not always agree with, and win converts to a more progressive, enlightened view of the world with the mastery of his handiwork - showing a new way to interpret old references.

Done deftly, done well, done thoughtfully, and done respectfully, the Democratic Da Vinci Candidate could reduce to ashes the hammerlock on the "values voter" that remains a cornerstone of the GOP/RNC strategy for 08 and beyond.

So, to my otherwise engaging, erudite, and analytical Democratic friends who rant about candidates showing up in churches, synagogues, and mosques to "pander" to "those" voters: as Leonardo himself might say, get some "perspective," will ya?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_%28graphical%29#Leonardo_da_Vinci

; )

- Dave

[niyad]

1. a distinct difference between spirituality (a trait I have not seen in ANY candidate) and

religiousity.

as joseph campbell observed "religion gets in the way of a spiritual experience"

perhaps what you are seeing is disdain for openly expressed religiousity, which borders, to many, on a violation of the separation of church and state.

[CorpGovActivist]

3. Openly Expressed Opinions on Matters of Faith...

... were encouraged by Jefferson and Madison, and is what they meant when they read the doctrine of separation of church and state into the Non-Establishment Clause:

"Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/42.htm

Free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion...

... somehow got perverted into "don't profess any outward sign of your religious opinions in the public sphere," which leaves many Americans scratching their heads.

- Dave

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. Good rant

I'm seeing quite a few non-believers here bristle if even the word "belief" is used, much less other, more religious terms. And I know there is a faction here who paints all people of faith as ignorant or worse (see the graphs on Science and Faith at R/T that were sent to the Greatest Page). Some of these people (not all, of course) are demanding that any word remotely connected to a religious reference be omitted from speeches, etc, by our candidates. This is unwise, for the very reasons you state.

[CorpGovActivist]

4. Even Lapsed {Fill in the Blank}s Remember the Key Stories of Their Faith...

... and those early teachings have a way of remaining personal - if somewhat secularized.

For example, when I heard Obama refer to the "Joshua Generation" today, I immediately knew what he meant. My inner "Bart Simpson-in-Sunday School" still remembered the imagery of the upset victory at the Battle of Jericho, Moses only getting to glimpse the Promised Land, etc. Like many in today's congregation, I suspect, I only took about a second to mentally pivot from the religious reference, and apply its lessons to the secular, present-day situation in this country.

For its intended audience, was the analogy effective at conveying his point in a persuasive fashion (e.g., one that is likely to spark increased activism and voter turnout)? If the answer is yes, then I say we need more candidates who can analogize for "those" audiences in a natural, off-the-cuff way, to sow those progressive seeds.

FWIW...

- Dave

[HardRocker05]

5. render unto ceaser (sp?) what is ceaser's, and unto god what is god's. IOW, religion and politics

each have their own sphere, and let each act within it. yes, there have been religious heroes throughout history, and there have also been religious tyrants, but the political, civil arena should be something totally separated from religion, because it is supposed to serve *all* citizens, and all citizens are subject to it.

[omega minimo]

6. The common goal of the type of genius you point to

is to find universal truths, not to invoke a specific dogma or entity.

"Some of my Democratic friends - atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, rationals - bristle whenever they see or hear of Democratic candidates speaking at religious venues or events, "pandering" to an audience that these otherwise logical folks openly disdain."

If Dem candidates are seen too frequently invoking a particular creed before specific audiences, that might be seen as "pandering."

"Ask many of these same grumblers who their favorite historical figures are, or to rattle off some of their favorite quotes, and a pattern emerges: the people they so often cite were at the forefront of finding a new balance between the secular and spiritual realms of their own times."

That "new balance between the secular and spiritual realms of their own times" is a philosophical quest, a timeless one, isnt' it?