Video: Obama On Atheism

[Piggy]

Not far from the truth, however, I think the CCCP pack has filters that let you open QuickTime videos in other players

Kewl.

So, uh... what the heck's a CCCP pack?

 

[tek]

Overall, nice, eloquent speech; it was disarmingly sincere and charming. That being said, as an atheist, there was still plenty of stuff that rubbed me the wrong way. Though he did say that the secular did not have a monopoly on morality, he equated religion with morality several other times. (in particular, the part about the gangbanger having a "hole in his heart" or some such nonsense was particularly egregious, considering he had moments ago been speaking about poverty). Or saying that we needed to have christian lawmakers, jewish lawmakers, and muslim lawmakers, because morality has a place in government; and that nonsecular activists wanting the ridiculous addendum of "under god" to the pledge of allegiance removed were "taking things too far" because kids "just mumble it anyway."

Overall, I would describe the theme of the speech as "People need religion, but government doesn't." I don't subscribe to that school of thought. Religion provides a justification for any sort of morality; Obama himself touched on that when he talked about literalist interpretations of Bible law. Oh well. He's still the lesser of two evils, I guess.

 

[kosai]

Overall, nice, eloquent speech; it was disarmingly sincere and charming. That being said, as an atheist, there was still plenty of stuff that rubbed me the wrong way. Though he did say that the secular did not have a monopoly on morality, he equated religion with morality several other times. (in particular, the part about the gangbanger having a "hole in his heart" or some such nonsense was particularly egregious, considering he had moments ago been speaking about poverty). Or saying that we needed to have christian lawmakers, jewish lawmakers, and muslim lawmakers, because morality has a place in government; and that nonsecular activists wanting the ridiculous addendum of "under god" to the pledge of allegiance removed were "taking things too far" because kids "just mumble it anyway."

Overall, I would describe the theme of the speech as "People need religion, but government doesn't." I don't subscribe to that school of thought. Religion provides a justification for any sort of morality; Obama himself touched on that when he talked about literalist interpretations of Bible law. Oh well. He's still the lesser of two evils, I guess.

I agree with most of what you've said here. I guess our expectations have been set rather low however he is making a case in which to please most of the people most of the time. His ideas seem more than fair in a country "where more people believe in angels than evolution" anyway. He's the lesser of 3 evils in my opinion and I look forward to him being the next president. Perhaps he's not "it" for those of us without faith, but he's definately a big step in the right direction.

 

[Cleon]

Kewl.

So, uh... what the heck's a CCCP pack?

The Soviet implementation of QuickTime.

 

[Pardalis]

It doesn't take a stage magician to see through this illusion.

What he said is not flimflam. It's extremely rational and grounded.

Did you even listen to what he said?

 

[latent aaaack]

What do you believe a president's main roles are?

In my opinion a president's main roles don't include teaching the public morality. A president who does that is showing a major personality flaw among the worst a leader can display prior to taking office. Americans have not seen a leader engage in such narcissistic behavior before so have no context or perspective to use to reject it, so instead the narcissist merely looks more moral and wise than any other candidates in exact proportion to the amount he mouths off about how great a person he is.

A president's roles are boring and include mainly marshalling a defense in case of attack, not committing any crimes against the constitution or international law, not enacting any extreme laws or instating any very radical judges, not spending money excessively, and supporting the legislation his/her supporters support.

Are you hoping that stupid people who haven't thought of the arguements Obama brings up will change their mind on important policy matters? What affect will it have on people who's personal opinions and opinions on policies you oppose?

What happens when a new leader as narcissistic and preachy as Obama gets elected and gives these stupid people different arguements? That is the result of legitimizing such a role. You can see the beginnings of it in Huckabee.

We've seen that such simplistic thinking, while seemingly coming from a high and mighty/nothing you do can change nothin' stance is very rarely true. You have no idea what Obama can or can not do if he gets the presidency unless you yourself are now claiming magical powers. He can speak to people, believers and non-believers alike, in an intelligent manner without calling upon magic or mysticism to defend his ideas. He's the first politician who I've felt can speak on such a sensitive manner in an adult way. I doubt you actually watched the video clip, but I ask that not try to derail this thread. If you want to criticize a specific idea at least have the courtesy to quote and argue that rather than post overly simplistic blanket comments. Thank you.

 

[Pardalis]

A president's roles are boring and include mainly marshalling a defense in case of attack, not committing any crimes against the constitution or international law, not enacting any extreme laws or instating any very radical judges, not spending money excessively, and supporting the legislation his/her supporters support.

That's rather strange to put things in the negative form. Is a policeman's job to not let the crooks get away or is it to apprehend criminals?

To do the job wisely a president needs to be able to see all sides of the question, and come to a rational conclusion and decision. For this he/she needs to be rational and morally grounded. From what I've read and heard from Obama, he has shown he has all of that, and in spades.

What more do you want?

 

[Piggy]

Let's keep in mind that Obama was addressing the Sojourners here. He's talking to Christians, and speaking of the relationship of personal faith, public expressions of faith, and secular government.

I don't think anyone on this board would accuse me of being soft on religion. I'm a "strong atheist" or what Douglas Adams called a "radical atheist" -- in other words, I don't hold merely that I don't believe in God, but that no God exists or can exist.

And yet I find no fault in what Obama was saying to this group. I found no hint of any blending of church and state, and his statement regarding the "need" for all religions in Congress is merely a recognition of the facts on the ground -- given that the overwhelming majority of Americans are religious, we need everyone at the table.

Let's not be like the wingers, insisting that only our POV be represented, and rejecting those who seek to build consensus and work with what we have rather than what we would wish to have.

 

[Piggy]

as narcissistic and preachy as Obama

Where do you find these traits in his speech, or in any of his talks or writings or actions?

 

[latent aaaack]

oops -deleted

 

[latent aaaack]

I finally had a bit of time to listen to half of this speech and found it emotionally manipulative, illogical, and plain weird.

I started to transcribe some of it, about five minutes, at a part I thought was especially worthy of discussion. Is this a segment you agree with, first of all?



"If we truly hope to speak to people to where they're at, to communicate our hopes and values in a way that's relevant to their own, then progressives we can not abandon the field of religious discorse. Because when we ignore the debate about what it means to be a good Christian, or Muslim, or Jew, when we discuss religion only in the negative sense of where and how it should not be practiced rather than in the positive sense in terms of what it tells us about our obligations towards one another, when we shy away from religious venues or religious broadcasts then others will fill that vacuum, those with the most insular views of faith. Those who cynically use religion to justify partisanness. In other words if we don't reach out to evangelical Christians and other religious Americans and tell them what we stand for then the Jerry Falwells, Pat Robertsons, and Alan Keyeses views will continue to hold sway.

More fundamentally the discomfort of some progressives with any hint of religion has often prevented us from effectively addressing issues in moral terms. some of the problem here is rhetorical. If we scrub language of all religious content we forfeit the imagery and terminology through which millions of Americans understand both their personal morality and social justice.

Imagine Lincoln's second inaugural address without references to the judgements of the Lord, King's I have a dream speech without reference to all God's children. The summoning of a higher truth helped inspire what had seemed impossible, to move the nation to embrace a common destiny. Our failure as progressives to tap into the moral underpinnings of the nation is not just rhetorical though. So our fear of getting too preachy may also lead us to discount the role that values and culture play in our most urgent social problems.

After all the problem of poverty, racism, the unemployed, the uninsured, all the problems chronicled in this pamphlet are not simply technical problems in search of the perfect ten point plan. They are rooted both in societal indifference and individual callousness. They are rooted in the imperfections of man. Solving these problems will require changes in government policy but it will also require a change in hearts and a change in minds. I believe in keeping guns off the streets of the inner city and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturer's lobby. But I also believe that when a gang banger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels somebody disrespected him we've got a moral problem. There's a hole in that young man's heart and a hole that the government alone can not fix. I believe in our vigorous enforcement of our non-discrimination laws but i also believe in a transformation of conscience and a genuine commitment to diversity on the part of the nation's CEO's would bring about quicker results than a batallion of lawyers. They got more lawyers than we do. I think we should put more tax dollars into educating our poor boys and girls.

...I'm not suggesting that every progressive latch onto religious terminology and nothing's more transparent than inauthentic expressions of faith. As Jim mentioned, the other politicians have come and they're clapping kind of off rythm (mimicks someone moving awkwardly and clapping off rhythm) to the choir. We don't need that (crowd laughs and claps). In fact because I do not believe religious people have a monopoly on morality I would rather have someone who is grounded on morality and ethics and is also secular, affirm their morality, ethics and values without pretending they are something they are not."



Haha, did he just accuse Hillary Clinton of having no rhythm and lying about being a Christian?

 

[latent aaaack]

That's rather strange to put things in the negative form. Is a policeman's job to not let the crooks get away or is it to apprehend criminals?

Apprehending criminals is one of their job duties. Is there a job duty of US president I forgot to mention?

To do the job wisely a president needs to be able to see all sides of the question, and come to a rational conclusion and decision. For this he/she needs to be rational and morally grounded. From what I've read and heard from Obama, he has shown he has all of that, and in spades.

What more do you want?

Yes, questions related to government policies which he'd work on as president. Not philosophical and moral questions which are irrelevent to any duties of a president and only serve to portray the candidate as an unassailable moral/religious/philosophical leader.

This speech to a church excepted (unless it's part of a pattern of giving more speeches to churches than other candidates which is probable), Obama's appeal over other candidates has been his rock star charisma and fired-up speeches which often contain pontifications on moral and philosophical matters as well as the occasional comparison of himself to America's greatest historical figures.

My question was, are you comfortable with presidential candidates taking on this new role? What if republicans start firing up their supporters in a likewise way? It's uncivilized and republicans will win at that.

 

[Piggy]

Haha, did he just accuse Hillary Clinton of having no rhythm and lying about being a Christian?

If that's all you took away from the bit you cited, then you are only trawling the speech for petty interpretations. You seem to be engaging heavily in the partisan effect.

Allow me to provide you with a thumbnail sketch of what you missed. Not that you'll pay it any attention....

"If we truly hope to speak to people to where they're at, to communicate our hopes and values in a way that's relevant to their own, then progressives we can not abandon the field of religious discorse. Because when we ignore the debate about what it means to be a good Christian, or Muslim, or Jew, when we discuss religion only in the negative sense of where and how it should not be practiced rather than in the positive sense in terms of what it tells us about our obligations towards one another, when we shy away from religious venues or religious broadcasts then others will fill that vacuum, those with the most insular views of faith. Those who cynically use religion to justify partisanness. In other words if we don't reach out to evangelical Christians and other religious Americans and tell them what we stand for then the Jerry Falwells, Pat Robertsons, and Alan Keyeses views will continue to hold sway.

Here, Obama -- who, keep in mind, is addressing a group of moderate progressive Xians -- is contending that public discussion of religion by those who believe in a secular government (as well as freedom of thought) should not merely be restricted to the topic of where religion should not venture, but must also include a discussion of the proper and best role of religion in American life, because if they do not, then the only ones left to define the role of religion are the extremists.

More fundamentally the discomfort of some progressives with any hint of religion has often prevented us from effectively addressing issues in moral terms. some of the problem here is rhetorical. If we scrub language of all religious content we forfeit the imagery and terminology through which millions of Americans understand both their personal morality and social justice.

Here, he is noting that if political liberals/progressives take the stance of removing all reference to religion from their discourse, of removing it from their topics of discussion, lot of folks are going to tune them out. It's a pragmatic, realistic approach which allows those in his arena of American politics to be heard by the majority.

Imagine Lincoln's second inaugural address without references to the judgements of the Lord, King's I have a dream speech without reference to all God's children. The summoning of a higher truth helped inspire what had seemed impossible, to move the nation to embrace a common destiny. Our failure as progressives to tap into the moral underpinnings of the nation is not just rhetorical though. So our fear of getting too preachy may also lead us to discount the role that values and culture play in our most urgent social problems.

Citing specific examples of how appeals to the existing religious and moral values of the citizenry in a positive way can bring about transformations in the secular/political realm which are not likely to be achieved solely by reference to law, political expedience, etc.

After all the problem of poverty, racism, the unemployed, the uninsured, all the problems chronicled in this pamphlet are not simply technical problems in search of the perfect ten point plan. They are rooted both in societal indifference and individual callousness. They are rooted in the imperfections of man. Solving these problems will require changes in government policy but it will also require a change in hearts and a change in minds. I believe in keeping guns off the streets of the inner city and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturer's lobby. But I also believe that when a gang banger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels somebody disrespected him we've got a moral problem. There's a hole in that young man's heart and a hole that the government alone can not fix. I believe in our vigorous enforcement of our non-discrimination laws but i also believe in a transformation of conscience and a genuine commitment to diversity on the part of the nation's CEO's would bring about quicker results than a batallion of lawyers. They got more lawyers than we do. I think we should put more tax dollars into educating our poor boys and girls.

A simple admission that gov't can't fix everything, and that many of our problems are not simply a result of cold economics, law, etc. Psychology matters. Community and alienation matter. So if he and his political ilk refuse to even discuss religion and morality in public life, they miss an opportunity to find solutions that may work better than legislation.

...I'm not suggesting that every progressive latch onto religious terminology and nothing's more transparent than inauthentic expressions of faith. As Jim mentioned, the other politicians have come and they're clapping kind of off rythm (mimicks someone moving awkwardly and clapping off rhythm) to the choir. We don't need that (crowd laughs and claps). In fact because I do not believe religious people have a monopoly on morality I would rather have someone who is grounded on morality and ethics and is also secular, affirm their morality, ethics and values without pretending they are something they are not."

There's your dig at Hillary. The only point you noticed out of the entire speech, it seems. And sure, it's a swipe at his political opponent. But he's not saying that non-religious people should be barred from political life. Rather, he's saying, let's stop demanding that everyone be religious, and not try to perpetuate the myth that morality is the exclusive domain of religion. It's silly that non-church-goers have to go through the charade; it should be perfectly acceptable for them to discuss morality and justice without those trappings.

 

[Thorn]

Though, admittedly, I've met some people who have known Mrs. Clinton in the past, and religious was not one of the words they would use to describe her. She also never wore a cross before she was trying to get elected.

You know...I don't know what to think with Obama. I do think his christianity most definately inches closer to another religion, but I seriously doubt its Islam. I really do think he's the closest think to a humanist I've seen running for political office as of late...

 

[latent aaaack]

I don't like Hillary Clinton either actually, at all or the republicans.

I found that passsage weird and incorrect in several ways and just wanted to put it there for discussion first to see if it's defended, so thanks for that.

Firstly, he is expounding on the importance of liberal progressives using religious terminology and publically referencing religion to help convince the public to go along with new, transformational policies (he uses comparison of Civil War era and MLK). Then he says progressives like Hillary Clinton shouldn't use religious terminology because then they'd be faking it. Clinton has not shown herself to be any less religious than other previous democratic candidates for presidents so that would apply broadly.

So then what is his point? He implies that the majority of democratic presidential candidates and politicians aren't religious enough and lack the ability to convince the public using religion to change their minds about policies and personal behavior.

Isn't it a contradiction and an accidental sabotage of his own party (and of non-religious people like me) to say that religious language and concepts should be used in support of progressive policies but that virtually all progressive leaders shouldn't do it? Can you think of many democrats who are publically and authentically religious, and much more so than Clinton or Edwards? That's a religious right attribute that he is legitmizing that will realistically never be a part of democratic progressive behavior, at least not any time soon.

And then there's his arguement that the president citing religious beliefs can help change Americans' minds about policies or personal behavior. Do you really support that?

 

[Just thinking]

Obama is doing nothing more than what Democrats cite the Republicans being guilty of, and that's allowing their religious beliefs guide their policy making. In his case it will be a lot of socialist programs and heavy taxes. When will we ever learn ---- none of them have any clothes.

 

[Pardalis]

Apprehending criminals is one of their job duties. Is there a job duty of US president I forgot to mention?

That wasn't my point. You didn't get it. Why did you choose to put the duties of a president in the negative form?

Is it the president's job to not get caught with his pants down?

My question was, are you comfortable with presidential candidates taking on this new role?

What role are you talking about? (and I would need it in a positive sentence) As far as I can tell, he only gave his opinion, he's not talking about a new duty. He's talking about something that is very real, a reality about his country, alot of people are religious. His duty is to serve everyone, of every faith. Or in your language, his duty is to not piss anyone of different faiths. That's all he said.

 

[Richard Masters]

I usually agree with what Obama says. It's just that he sounds sooo fake.

 

[Piggy]

And then there's his arguement that the president citing religious beliefs can help change Americans' minds about policies or personal behavior. Do you really support that?

Are you speaking to me, here? Using the quote function would help b/c when there are intervening posts, I can't be sure.

But yes, I'm an atheist and an ardent defender of the separation of church and state, but I don't support the denial of reality.

It's perfectly OK for a President, when addressing the nation, to speak of the predominant moral codes we embrace -- across religions and outside of religions.

What I like about Obama is his willingness to simultaneously remind people that there is such a thing as secular morality and no religion has a monopoly on ethics, that ethics does not flow from nor depend upon a religious creed.

Compare that to Romney's atrocious performance, which effectively excluded me and other atheists.

 

[Piggy]

In his case it will be a lot of socialist programs and heavy taxes.

I defy you to cite one concrete example of Obama supporting a "socialist program". And fwiw, we cannot have a military, or interstates, or public education, etc. without taxes. If you believe Obama is supporting frivolous or onerous taxes, some examples would be welcomed.