Obama Nails his Faith

[BenBurch]

Perhaps. However, I doubt most of America would agree.

If Bush had publicly offered the other cheek of the United States, rather than firebombing the caves of Afghanistan, treason -let alone impeachment- would be the likely outcome.

Not gonna happen. Impeachment of a president is difficult at best, and convicting him in the Senate? Especially when he was working the cooperation and law enforcement angle to the maximum? Not a chance.

Hell, he might have had Mossad and the Iranian Secret Police working together on this, and no telling where that would have gone. It certainly couldn't have made matters worse.

Because I wanted OBL arrested and tried. I did not want to have two separate wars to last 6+ years.

We could have gotten him with a pure special forces operation if we had obtained sufficient cooperation from other nations in that region by nationally adopting the post of crime victims seeking justice rather than badass cowboys ready to chew up some landscape.

Or do you forget the overture of sympathy from the leader of Iran at that time? And Gaddafi too. We needed a LEADER to capitalize on those openings. What we got was somebody who learned all would ever know about diplomacy from Rambo.

 

[arthwollipot]

Why?

Because people should work to help their fellow human beings because that's the right thing to do, and not because they are told to do so by an authority figure, fictional or otherwise.

 

[Egg]

Because people should work to help their fellow human beings because that's the right thing to do, and not because they are told to do so by an authority figure, fictional or otherwise.

What makes it "the right thing to do" in your opinion? Isn't your use of "should" suggesting some kind of purpose?

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Because people should work to help their fellow human beings because that's the right thing to do, and not because they are told to do so by an authority figure, fictional or otherwise.

Perhaps so. But in both cases we strive to do what is right in order to personally gain something from it. Surely it is no less noble to do the right thing because you believe you will experience heaven. I'm not advocating religous belief here, nor attempting to denegrate secular acts of kindness, I'm just stating that is the way I believe it is.

 

[LarianLeQuella]

Personally I don't have a problem with somebody believing in god, if it helps them in their lives.

I have two issues that REALLY piss me off though:
1) When theists try to use god or their religious beliefs to excuse their actions (god hates fags, and therefore so can I)
2) When theists try to force their religious beliefs and doctrine on others (creationism, etc)

From what I have seen of Obama, he does not seem to fit into either of these two groups, and I am quite happy about that.

While I think his belief in god is wrong, as long as he does not harm others with his beliefs, I could care less if he believes that jesus walked on water, mohammad talked to god, john smith read gold plates, l ron hubbard wasn't a complete nutbag, etc...

QFT. In the present US climate, I think this is a HUGE IMPROVEMENT!

 

[Undesired Walrus]

We could have gotten him with a pure special forces operation if we had obtained sufficient cooperation from other nations in that region by nationally adopting the post of crime victims seeking justice rather than badass cowboys ready to chew up some landscape.

Yet a Special Forces Operation would surely be the very antithesis of turning our cheeks.

If Bush had -after the deaths of 3,000 people- said that America must turn their collective cheek and love the very man who had just slaughtered so many, I can't fathom that he would be in Office for very long.

I'm not saying such a strategy would be poor or would be clever, I'm just saying that it would not be a case where few of us would find problems with the President's actions.

 

[BenBurch]

Yet a Special Forces Operation would surely be the very antithesis of turning our cheeks.

If Bush had -after the deaths of 3,000 people- said that America must turn their collective cheek and love the very man who had just slaughtered so many, I can't fathom that he would be in Office for very long.

I'm not saying such a strategy would be poor or would be clever, I'm just saying that it would not be a case where few of us would find problems with the President's actions.

Arrest, the goal in this hypothetical, is not slaughter. And you can love the man and hate the sin in Christianity.

 

[slingblade]

Arrest, the goal in this hypothetical, is not slaughter. And you can love the man and hate the sin in Christianity.

Maybe you can.

 

[The Atheist]

Well, you're not just an atheist, you're The Atheist. I wouldn't expect you to like the idea. But if we're talking about how Obama is taking the messages from up above, I'd be willing to wager their pretty rationally received. At least that's been my impression of the man so far.

I agree. I'm a fan, and I can tell you I was a fan long before just about anyone else in this place had ever heard of him.

And yes, you're right about my atheism, but it just feels like a leech on your skin. It doesn't particularly hurt, but it has a bad feel about it.

Why?

What he said:

Because people should work to help their fellow human beings because that's the right thing to do, and not because they are told to do so by an authority figure, fictional or otherwise.

Beautifully put.

The link seems to take me elsewhere.

The link's right, you just have to read through a lot of balls about Tony Blair first.

Some excellent comments from the mainly Brit readership, if you scroll all the way down.

Nice use of "nails" in the thread title.

Cheers! I try.

 

[Rairun]

This is slightly off-topic, but I don't know why some atheists cling to the idea that there is "a right thing to do" without religion. If you think there is, you've stopped believing in god, but not in the whole paraphernalia he brought along with him. If you justify something you did by saying it was right, you are externalizing your values in the same way a religious person does. Unless you give those values some sort of universal status, it makes absolutely no sense to say a person "should" do anything other than what they want to.

 

[arthwollipot]

Not gonna happen. Impeachment of a president is difficult at best, and convicting him in the Senate?

I dunno. Bill Clinton managed it pretty easily.

What makes it "the right thing to do" in your opinion? Isn't your use of "should" suggesting some kind of purpose?

No, there is a secular basis for morality. And it has nothing to do with "purpose" and more to do with the smooth running of a community.

This is slightly off-topic, but I don't know why some atheists cling to the idea that there is "a right thing to do" without religion. If you think there is, you've stopped believing in god, but not in the whole paraphernalia he brought along with him. If you justify something you did by saying it was right, you are externalizing your values in the same way a religious person does. Unless you give those values some sort of universal status, it makes absolutely no sense to say a person "should" do anything other than what they want to.

Not true, and although it is slightly off-topic, I'll elaborate briefly.

As I said, there is a secular basis for morality. It's not an absolute (external) basis; it works purely for the mutual good of all of the citizens in the community. The fact that modern Christian morality shares some elements with this purely secular morality is no coincidence. The same tenets of morality work to ensure society runs smoothly, regardless of whether some people believe that these tenets are externally imposed by God or not. The morality exists regardless of what people think about it, and has come about by purely secular social reasons.

 

[Rairun]

I dunno. Bill Clinton managed it pretty easily.

No, there is a secular basis for morality. And it has nothing to do with "purpose" and more to do with the smooth running of a community.

Not true, and although it is slightly off-topic, I'll elaborate briefly.

As I said, there is a secular basis for morality. It's not an absolute (external) basis; it works purely for the mutual good of all of the citizens in the community. The fact that modern Christian morality shares some elements with this purely secular morality is no coincidence. The same tenets of morality work to ensure society runs smoothly, regardless of whether some people believe that these tenets are externally imposed by God or not. The morality exists regardless of what people think about it, and has come about by purely secular social reasons.

But you do realize that in this case you're only replacing one authority figure (God) with another (society), right? Basically, these two sentences would be equivalent:

1) It would be better if Obama helped fellow human beings because it is the right thing to do, not because God told him to.

2) It would be better if Obama helped fellow human beings because society told him to, not because God did.

 

[SusanB-M1]

But you do realize that in this case you're only replacing one authority figure (God) with another (society), right? Basically, these two sentences would be equivalent:

1) It would be better if Obama helped fellow human beings because it is the right thing to do, not because God told him to.

2) It would be better if Obama helped fellow human beings because society told him to, not because God did.

Mutual support and care were, surely, amongst the most important survival strategies which enabled the human species to flourish instead of becoming extinct hundreds of thousands of years before Christianity came on the scene.

 

[Rairun]

Personally, I would rather have Obama help fellow human beings because that's what he wants to do. It doesn't sound as virtuous, but at least it's honest.

Also, I don't think the belief that God has given us a purpose necessarily means we're bowing down to an authority figure. I have written about this in length elsewhere, but I think that God can work as a metaphor for the resoluteness we sometimes feel when we make a decision. Sometimes we feel so strongly about an issue, and we are so sure of what we want, that it seems impossible to be any different from who we are. We realize that all things, including ourselves, are mere products of the laws of the universe. We feel that our desires and our dreams were created by something larger than any one of us. A secular person would identify this larger entity as the universe. A religious person could call it God. In that sense, it is irrelevant whether one believes in God or not.

 

[Rairun]

Mutual support and care were, surely, amongst the most important survival strategies which enabled the human species to flourish instead of becoming extinct hundreds of thousands of years before Christianity came on the scene.

Sure, but I fail to see your point.

 

[Egg]

No, there is a secular basis for morality. And it has nothing to do with "purpose" and more to do with the smooth running of a community.

As I said, there is a secular basis for morality. It's not an absolute (external) basis; it works purely for the mutual good of all of the citizens in the community. The fact that modern Christian morality shares some elements with this purely secular morality is no coincidence. The same tenets of morality work to ensure society runs smoothly, regardless of whether some people believe that these tenets are externally imposed by God or not. The morality exists regardless of what people think about it, and has come about by purely secular social reasons.

You're explaining why people help each other out in society, but I don't see why you state that it's "the right thing to do". From what you say, it's no more the right thing to do than for groups of humans to go to war with other tribes over resources. A lot of people seemed to take issue when they believed Bush was doing just that over oil.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I think this sharp atheist/theist distinction is unrealistic. Perhaps living in a country of lukewarm theists helps me. There is not just theists or atheists, there is a whole continuous scale from fanatic theists to dogmatic atheists, and most people fall somewhere in between.

Judge people by their actions, not by their beliefs.

Hear Hear!

 

[arthwollipot]

But you do realize that in this case you're only replacing one authority figure (God) with another (society), right?

They're hardly equivalent. In fact, I would go so far as to say that they're about as non-equivalent as it's possible to be.

 

[Lonewulf]

But you do realize that in this case you're only replacing one authority figure (God) with another (society), right? Basically, these two sentences would be equivalent:

1) It would be better if Obama helped fellow human beings because it is the right thing to do, not because God told him to.

2) It would be better if Obama helped fellow human beings because society told him to, not because God did.

Er...

You ARE society.

Society IS you.

What is beneficial for members of society, is by its very definition, beneficial for you.

God is a third party by nature.

 

[Rairun]

They're hardly equivalent. In fact, I would go so far as to say that they're about as non-equivalent as it's possible to be.

Care to explain why? The only difference I can think of is that society exists, so it can actually attempt to punish you if you go out of line.

Er...

You ARE society.

Society IS you.

What is beneficial for members of society, is by its very definition, beneficial for you.

God is a third party by nature.

Are you serious? :| That's some heavily fascist **** right there.