President Obama was invited to give this year’s commencement address at Notre Dame and well as receiving an honorary law degree from the university.   Being invited to deliver the commencement address is worthy; after all, he is the president and leader of our country.  The office of president should be given a measure of respect that it deserves and this means that he is a significant person in our country and world.   However, many in the Catholic and Pro-Life communities are angered with the awarding of the honorary degree for a politician that has one of the worse records on right-to-life issues.

I heard most of the Obama's speech and then I looked up the full text.   It was a fine display of oratory skills.   President Obama has never failed to deliver a speech that was not well received by the physical audience as well as the larger virtual/public audience.   This is a testament to skills of his speech writers and well as his personality and skills in speech making.   The element of his speeches that keeps getting over looked is the content and the implications of those ideas he presents.

This is the section of the speech that bothered me:

The soldier and the lawyer may both love this country with equal passion, and yet reach very different conclusions on the specific steps needed to protect us from harm. The gay activist and the evangelical pastor may both deplore the ravages of HIV/AIDS, but find themselves unable to bridge the cultural divide that might unite their efforts. Those who speak out against stem cell research may be rooted in admirable conviction about the sacredness of life, but so are the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes who are convinced that their son's or daughter's hardships can be relieved.

The question, then, is how do we work through these conflicts? Is it possible for us to join hands in common effort? As citizens of a vibrant and varied democracy, how do we engage in vigorous debate? How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?

Nowhere do these questions come up more powerfully than on the issue of abortion.

<< story from Audacity of Hope >>

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.

So let's work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies, and making adoption more available, and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term. Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause, and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women."

Understand - I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away. No matter how much we may want to fudge it - indeed, while we know that the views of most Americans on the subject are complex and even contradictory - the fact is that at some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.

Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words.

The idea of “Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words” sounds it very nice.  This should be the very heart of our debate. We should debate the issues clearly and as logically as we can. But, we also must be on guard that we done turn that debate into personally attacks, demonizing the opposition, and avoid bring in side issues and/or red herrings to obscure the debate.    But the underline tone of these remarks is that we can agree to disagree.  Somehow, this is supposed to be a good thing?

The problem is agreeing to disagree is this: ethical and moral issues require be a choice. Issues like limiting abortions, outlawing euthanasia, regulating reproductive technology, or embryonic stem research require some kind of action to allow, limit, or outlaw them.   This rhetoric of that the camps may have irreconcilable difference is more of a cover to say. Yes, we can talk but as president, I will win the argument and my policies will be carried out over your objections.

So for, the respectful debate of issues has escaped the public debate, especially with the serious right-to-life issues. There is still the very lowest level of name calling and demonizing those that disagree with each other.   I fear that the nice words of respective debate and open hearts and minds have had very little to change the tone and attitude of the people of all sides of these issues.