Video: Obama On Atheism

[Elind]

He said he came to religion by choice, not by epiphany. That's a great line.

Is it really? Seems to me that "by choice" means consciously and logically. I can excuse epiphany, but not logically; at least not in a presidential candidate.

 

[corplinx]

Is it really? Seems to me that "by choice" means consciously and logically. I can excuse epiphany, but not logically; at least not in a presidential candidate.

Who cares? I don't need to make excuses to vote for someone. I usually just vote for whoever will seem to cause the least amount of disruption in my life.

 

[latent aaaack]

edit:

No what he said was that citing his religous beliefs nicely as president will decrease the popularity of the beliefs of the religious right.

He didn't say that.
...

He didn't say it would change the mind of the religious right. ...

What did he say to give you the impression that he was trying or expected to change anyone's religious beliefs?

That's over three people now who have read this small quote and taken a completely different meaning from it.

Please understand I'm only interested in what people are actually thinking about Obama speeches they've heard since I don't see in them any ideas or strengths that would make him better than other dem candidates. I don't care which remaning candidate is elected for separate reasons.

It seems I've found one of many points where some peoples' thoughts diverge from mine inexplicably.

That said - what does it mean when a belief "holds sway" over evangelical Christians in this sentence in Obama's speech that I've quoted several times?

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.

What, using your definition, would the action of causing (through speech) beliefs to go from having sway with an idealogical group to not having sway with them, be called?

You have to understand I'm having fun with this and am enjoying people trying to defend what seem to me like logical screwballs that aren't meant to be interpreted logically but emotionally. Obama, McCain, and Hillary all have approximately the same amount of strengths and weaknesses to me, but this one Obama has is hilarious.

 

[Unalienable]

Mealy-mouthed machiavellian Marxist.

 

[Beth]

Please understand I'm only interested in what people are actually thinking about Obama speeches they've heard since I don't see in them any ideas or strengths that would make him better than other dem candidates. I don't care which remaning candidate is elected for separate reasons.

It seems I've found one of many points where some peoples' thoughts diverge from mine inexplicably.

That said - what does it mean when a belief "holds sway" over evangelical Christians in this sentence in Obama's speech that I've quoted several times?

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.

What, using your definition, would the action of causing (through speech) beliefs to go from having sway with an idealogical group to not having sway with them, be called?

How I interprete this quote is that when only the extremists are talking about their religious beliefs, it gives the false impression that those beliefs are not extreme, but the most commonly held religious beliefs in our society. If others discuss differing beliefs and approaches, then it becomes clear that the extremists are not representative of our society, that we have a diverse population and our laws should reflect that. Laws should be a reflection of the common values of the majority of people in our society.

So I don't think that it is about trying to change their religious beliefs, but to give them a truer picture of the religious beliefs of the rest of society and change their beliefs regarding how the laws of our society ought to be written.

 

[Pardalis]

That's over three people now who have read this small quote and taken a completely different meaning from it.

Yes, different from you, shouldn't this tell you a little something about yourself?

It seems I've found one of many points where some peoples' thoughts diverge from mine inexplicably.

Inexplicably? No, since you are the only one who seems to read something different from his speech, then there must be something wrong with your comprehension. Right?

What, using your definition, would the action of causing (through speech) beliefs to go from having sway with an idealogical group to not having sway with them, be called?

Honesty, openness, forthrightedness, transparency, courage in face of controversy. Take your pick.

 

[latent aaaack]

How I interprete this quote is that when only the extremists are talking about their religious beliefs, it gives the false impression that those beliefs are not extreme, but the most commonly held religious beliefs in our society. If others discuss differing beliefs and approaches, then it becomes clear that the extremists are not representative of our society, that we have a diverse population and our laws should reflect that. Laws should be a reflection of the common values of the majority of people in our society.

So I don't think that it is about trying to change their religious beliefs, but to give them a truer picture of the religious beliefs of the rest of society and change their beliefs regarding how the laws of our society ought to be written.

Yes, I know you interpret it differently but I'm trying to find out why, which is why I asked the two questions in my previous post. If no one wants to try to answer them I see no other conclusion than that Obama's words in this instance are un-defendable and/or mis-spoken and that present supporters are being intellectually dishonest in not acknowledging it.

I too can think of a number of different ways to interpret the quote in a way that makes it look smarter and stupider, but that's besides the point.

Putting that aside, the main thing I find implausible about your interpretation is the claim that conservative right wing Christians will voluntarily give up their policy beliefs once they find out that some other groups in the country have opposing religious beliefs.

You seem to be claiming that conservative Christians believe they should support conservative laws because they currently believe that progressives don't have religious beliefs or they are going against any religious beliefs they do have with their laws. You seem to claim that if they found out that it's in fact a third option, that progressive have different and opposing religious beliefs, right wing conservative Christians would then tolerantly embrace them and the laws these opposingly religious progressives want.

I don't see the basis on which you can guess that this will happen. It goes against everything I've read and heard about religious group behavior, so if you have evidence of why you believe it, I'm listening. I would think it'd be more likely to escalate any 'culture war' if it became an actual religious sectarian rift in addition to a policy disagreement.

Also, another reason this Obama quote is illogical is that it implies that progressives believe what they do for religious reasons. This may be true for Obama, the most outspokenly religious democratic candidate in recent history, but this is not true for the vast majority of progressives.

 

[latent aaaack]

Yes, different from you, shouldn't this tell you a little something about yourself?

Inexplicably? No, since you are the only one who seems to read something different from his speech, then there must be something wrong with your comprehension. Right?

I don't think you normally employ such strange logic if you're on this board. I'm not insulting you by criticizing your leader - keep it civil.

Honesty, openness, forthrightedness, transparency, courage in face of controversy. Take your pick.

These aren't even actions, these are nouns and adjectives.

 

[kosai]

latent:

I think people are done trying to write the Cliff's Notes for this speech for you. You're here trying to dictate here what lofty ideal can't possibly be accomplished, and you should know... you've studied these mysterious creatures called Christians. You seem to like to over-generalize this "religious group behavior" and "everything you've read and heard" doesn't allow the religious acting in line with your already established world view.

I've seen religious people do exactly what you claim is impossible by forming some new conclusions on issues. One example would be abortion, while no one can ever support abortion, it must be legal due to the brutality of illegal abortions. This morally is the same stance as pro-life but politically is left of center.

Also, one can argue as a Christian they do not support gay marriage. However, as an American they must believe in equality under the law. Therefore, morally opposed and politically favorable.

You have preconcieved ideas about what is or is not possible for the religious in America so our arguments will not and have not convinced you.

 

[Pardalis]

I don't think you normally employ such strange logic if you're on this board. I'm not insulting you by criticizing your leader - keep it civil.

How was I being uncivil? You have your own personal interpretation of the speech, there's nothing "inexpicable" about it.

These aren't even actions, these are nouns and adjectives.

Add "being" to all of them. By being forthright and clear about his stance on critical issues, then the religious people will understand his position, and may be more sympathetic to it. If he keeps avoiding the issues, then the religious bigots will attribute to him values and a stance that he does not have, and therefore the religious people will have a wrong idea about him and be scared of him, and choose to side with the religious bigots.

Got it now?

 

[Beth]

Yes, I know you interpret it differently but I'm trying to find out why, which is why I asked the two questions in my previous post. If no one wants to try to answer them I see no other conclusion than that Obama's words in this instance are un-defendable and/or mis-spoken and that present supporters are being intellectually dishonest in not acknowledging it.

You mean these questions?

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?

I’m sorry, I thought those were rhetorical. The answers are (IMO of course) 1. No and 2. I don’t know, but I hope it will persuade them to reconsider some of their opinions. If you meant different questions, you'll have to repeat them because I'm not clear which previous post you meant.

Putting that aside, the main thing I find implausible about your interpretation is the claim that conservative right wing Christians will voluntarily give up their policy beliefs once they find out that some other groups in the country have opposing religious beliefs.

I’m sorry, but I’m unaware of having made such a claim. Personally, I wouldn’t expect anyone to voluntarily give up their policy beliefs (I’m presuming you mean beliefs regarding what ought to be policy in our society) because they found out some people oppose them. I hope that they and we might have a discussion about what is really important to them and to us and work out an approach for social policies that are everyone can live with. I don’t expect that to happen without effort and conflict, but I think a good start is to talk about these things in the way that Obama suggested.

You seem to be claiming that conservative Christians believe they should support conservative laws because they currently believe that progressives don't have religious beliefs or they are going against any religious beliefs they do have with their laws.

No.

You seem to claim that if they found out that it's in fact a third option, that progressive have different and opposing religious beliefs, right wing conservative Christians would then tolerantly embrace them and the laws these opposingly religious progressives want

No. You're making a lot of assumptions about claims that aren't being made.

Also, another reason this Obama quote is illogical is that it implies that progressives believe what they do for religious reasons. This may be true for Obama, the most outspokenly religious democratic candidate in recent history, but this is not true for the vast majority of progressives.

Why would you think that? Many liberals go to church and some atheists are conservative Bush supporters. Given that something like 90% of Americans self-identify as having some religion, why would you assume the majority of progressives (care to define that group for me?) are either not religious or if they are, do not rely upon their religious values when deciding what policies they do and do not support.

 

[latent aaaack]

I was trying to find out what people who think that Obama's speeches demonstrate great president-related wisdom actually think in response to illogical, pointless, but emotionally manipulative statements like this, which are typical of speeches by Obama, I've found.

I'll stick to one point at a time because it get's tedious.

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.

So I don't think that it is about trying to change their religious beliefs, but to give them a truer picture of the religious beliefs of the rest of society and change their beliefs regarding how the laws of our society ought to be written.

the main thing I find implausible about your interpretation is the claim that conservative right wing Christians will voluntarily give up their policy beliefs once they find out that some other groups in the country have opposing religious beliefs.

I’m sorry, but I’m unaware of having made such a claim. Personally, I wouldn’t expect anyone to voluntarily give up their policy beliefs (I’m presuming you mean beliefs regarding what ought to be policy in our society) because they found out some people oppose them. I hope that they and we might have a discussion about what is really important to them and to us and work out an approach for social policies that are everyone can live with. I don’t expect that to happen without effort and conflict, but I think a good start is to talk about these things in the way that Obama suggested.

What are some of the social policies you're referring to that need to be discussed by conservative Christians and liberals?

How would an Obama presidency implement a 'discussion' between these two groups? The half of this speech that I listened to did not contain any plan or idea to do this, only a suggestion that liberals use religious terminology in any speeches they may give like Lincoln and MLK did.

 

[latent aaaack]

OK, just one thing at a time please, I don't want a lame political flame war, in which I'm allegedly dictating what lofty ideals can't be achieved because I hate freshness and change.

Are you opposing my claim that there's close to zero chance of conservative right wing Christians being convinced to change their beliefs (or policies they support) by nice speeches in which liberals cite their opposing religious beliefs to conservatives?

latent:

I think people are done trying to write the Cliff's Notes for this speech for you. You're here trying to dictate here what lofty ideal can't possibly be accomplished, and you should know... you've studied these mysterious creatures called Christians. You seem to like to over-generalize this "religious group behavior" and "everything you've read and heard" doesn't allow the religious acting in line with your already established world view.

I've seen religious people do exactly what you claim is impossible by forming some new conclusions on issues. One example would be abortion, while no one can ever support abortion, it must be legal due to the brutality of illegal abortions. This morally is the same stance as pro-life but politically is left of center.

Also, one can argue as a Christian they do not support gay marriage. However, as an American they must believe in equality under the law. Therefore, morally opposed and politically favorable.

You have preconcieved ideas about what is or is not possible for the religious in America so our arguments will not and have not convinced you.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Obama Reaches Out to Religious Voters

At an evangelical church in Greenville, S.C., Obama said he seeks to be an "instrument of God" and expressed confidence "we can create a kingdom right here on Earth." That prompted Gaddy, of the Interfaith Alliance, to criticize the candidate in a conference call with reporters. Gaddy cautioned against any presidential candidate talking about building such a kingdom while "in an evangelical church in which that terminology has a very specific, indisputable definition that is exclusive rather than inclusive."

Hard to separate what is geared to earning fundie votes and what is fundie like beliefs at this point.

 

[CFLarsen]

Obama Reaches Out to Religious VotersHard to separate what is geared to earning fundie votes and what is fundie like beliefs at this point.

Do you have anything else from Obama that would indicate that he has fundie like beliefs?

 

[Beth]

I was trying to find out what people who think that Obama's speeches demonstrate great president-related wisdom actually think in response to illogical, pointless, but emotionally manipulative statements like this, which are typical of speeches by Obama, I've found.

I'll stick to one point at a time because it get's tedious.

Okay, I can see where what I said is confusing. I'll try to do better.

What are some of the social policies you're referring to that need to be discussed by conservative Christians and liberals?

I think we need to discuss issues like abortion, gay rights, prayer in schools in a way that respects everyone's beliefs and work together search for solutions the majority finds acceptable and yet maintains the minorities rights to live their lives without undo interference from the majority.

How would an Obama presidency implement a 'discussion' between these two groups? The half of this speech that I listened to did not contain any plan or idea to do this, only a suggestion that liberals use religious terminology in any speeches they may give like Lincoln and MLK did.

One thing he could do as president is appoint a diverse cabinet to discuss, direct, and implement national policies. Bush has filled his cabinet with people who all think as he does and that is one reason his policy decisions have been so consistently disasterous.

 

[latent aaaack]

Okay, I can see where what I said is confusing. I'll try to do better.
I think we need to discuss issues like abortion, gay rights, prayer in schools in a way that respects everyone's beliefs and work together search for solutions the majority finds acceptable and yet maintains the minorities rights to live their lives without undo interference from the majority.

I've never heard an argument in favor of abortion, gay rights, or keeping prayer out of schools that's based on a religious belief, have you? If so, what are they and are these really the rule or the exception? This is one reason it makes no sense to me for liberals to use their religious beliefs to 'reach out' to conservatives and get them to accept different laws or make them 'sympathize' with liberals as a previous poster said whatever that means.

One thing he could do as president is appoint a diverse cabinet to discuss, direct, and implement national policies. Bush has filled his cabinet with people who all think as he does and that is one reason his policy decisions have been so consistently disasterous.

That's one thing he could do but not something he's ever said he'd do. His past only demonstrates he's a consistent liberal on the issues. Is there another way he could create a "national discussion" as president or is that possibility only based on him having an idealogical hodge podge of a cabinet and policies?

 

[kosai]

I've never heard an argument in favor of abortion, gay rights, or keeping prayer out of schools that's based on a religious belief, have you?

How hard have you looked?

http://www.rcrc.org/

http://members.cox.net/paulmcc/mcc/samegen.html

While definately an exception at this point, good leadership has the ability to change minds.

 

[latent aaaack]

How hard have you looked?

http://www.rcrc.org/

http://members.cox.net/paulmcc/mcc/samegen.html

While definately an exception at this point, good leadership has the ability to change minds.

I know there are plenty of religious people that support those liberal stances but how many support those issues because of religious commandments I mean. Obama speaks of 'obligations' his religion mandates for him. I think that doesn't apply to the vast majority of liberal religious people and Obama may in fact himself be lying.

 

[kosai]

All I can speak from on the matter is about liberal Christians in my own family. My mother works in a church as an employee, she supports Obama and says her scripture most aligns with Obama's views. She never supported George Bush and believes him to be using the Bible in order to "use the public to do evil."

I really don't think this has anything to do with "religious commandments." Have you actually read the commandments? I think maybe 3 of them are represented in American law. I have yet to hear cry for a "Thou shalt not covet" law being introduced.

You need to keep in mind for Christians the Bible is two things at once, it's an absolute truth dictated by God himself while at the same time being a confusing set of passages that are open to multiple interpretations. This is what a woo-ish belief does, it's eternally confusing because it doesn't make any sense. The bible can be and has been used to enforce liberal concepts.

There was a good article about this subject yesterday in the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy.../02/22/AR2008022202386.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Finally... After pages of bickering on the topic we're left with one simple fact. It's likely going to be Obama vs. McCain. You have to write one of the two names down. Does McCain make more sense to you? Does he appear less religious?