Video: Obama On Atheism

[Pardalis]

Obama is implying (giving him the benefit that he's not just spouting emotionally manipulative fluff) that he's going to give speeches as president which will contain religous terminology such as "the judgement of the Lord" in referenincing people who's policies he disagrees with, like CEOs who don't hire or promote enough minorities for Obama's liking. He believes this will change their behavior and help make them realize that they're immoral.

Unless you have a specific quote to attribute to him, what you just said is pure speculation, and sometimes unintelligible.

This is an example of why I think Obama is narcissitic, preachy, naive and plain weird.

Explain "weird".

I agree that it makes Obama a "nice man" that he believes atheists can be moral too, though.

So what the heck is your problem with him?

Bush has really head-****ed this nation good, is all I can think about when observing a lot of Obama supporters, not you necessarily, but the warning signs are so loud and the supporters so desperate and weird.

Again with "weird". Are you 12 years old?

 

[corplinx]

Funny how the only people drawing weird conclusions from the speech are people who were against Obama from the beginning...

I'm not against Obama per se. He could be the best thing since sliced bread. However, I see no evidence of this currently and he is isn't trying to offer any.

My biggest problem with this speech is he is trying to have it both ways. In that speech he panders to the people disenfranchised by religious talk and policy in government.

To religious people, look at how he talks though:
http://www.skepticalcommunity.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=18888
(link to another forum where I do the majority of my posting now)

He waffles the question on faith based initiates in that response. People really need to lessen their expectations of a Barack Obama presidency since it looks like much more of the same.

 

[latent aaaack]

Earlier in the thread I transcribed a few minutes of the speech I found discussion worthy and that's what I'm referencing. Here he says that peppering political speeches with religious beliefs can transform people's hearts into realizing they were behaving immoral and now should behave according to the cited beliefs.

I assume he's not actually saying something so dumb, but that's what you get if you try to search it for anything other than emotionally manipulaive, grandiose fluff. That's not wrong by itself but what I'm sick of is people mistaking this habit with any actually recommended ingenious plan, logical arguement, or idea. It's more poetry than that.

For instance Kennedy's great speeches often did contain something specific he was going to do - major policies which set him apart from other politicians not appeals to his own innate personal greatness and religious/moral wisdom.

He didn't say it would change the mind of the religious right... And I don't see the contradiction. Progressives shouldn't be afraid of using religous language, and that there are spiritual aspects of problems that need to be addressed, unless using it would involve them faking belief. That seems to be what he is saying.

"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 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."

So after reading this how is Obama saying that the mean CEO's conscience can be transformed?

 

[latent aaaack]

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 [religion] 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.

He he seems to say that progressives citing their religious beliefs to people to with opposing beliefs will make them more likely to change their mind about their right wing religious beliefs. Before this comment he talked about how Alan Keyes said that Jesus wouldn't vote for Obama because of his policy on abortion. If he's not saying that I don't see anything else of substance or greatness in speechwriting.

 

[Pardalis]

He seems to say that progressives citing their religious beliefs to people with opposing beliefs will make them more likely to change their mind about their right wing religious beliefs.

(edited for clarity)

All he's saying is that if he is forthcoming with his own religious beliefs, then the religious right won't be as inclined to follow radical extremists.

He's saying leaders shouldn't avoid the subject, but instead tackle it head on so that the extremists don't have an argument.

I don't see anything wrong with that.

 

[latent aaaack]

(edited for clarity)

All he's saying is that if he is forthcoming with his own religious beliefs, then the religious right won't be as inclined to follow radical extremists.

He's saying leaders shouldn't avoid the subject, but instead tackle it head on so that the extremists don't have an argument.

I don't see anything wrong with that.

'Follow' religious right figures in this case means 'agree with their beliefs' on divisive issues like abortion and other religious right issues, unless Obama is saying nothing actually. Can you name any religious right typical beliefs that Obama citing his religious beliefs would help change?

Have other instances of different segments of a religion both claiming that a certain contentious belief is God's word gone well?

I'm trying to find what parts of the article demonstrate great speechwriting, great wisdom and/or leadership ability that supporters often believe he has.

 

[Pardalis]

'Follow' religious right figures in this case means 'agree with their beliefs' on divisive issues like abortion and other religious right issues, unless Obama is saying nothing actually. Can you name any religious right typical beliefs that Obama citing his religious beliefs would help change?

He's not saying he would convince them, he's saying if he engages the debate honestly and openly he could make people understand his stance, instead of rebuking them away by his avoidance of the subject.

 

[latent aaaack]

He's not saying he would convince them, he's saying if he engages the debate honestly and openly he could make people understand his stance, instead of rebuking them away by his avoidance of the subject.

Why do you think this is a good idea or significant?

Religious righters already know why they believe the way they do. Obama saying that he believes differently because he also disagrees with their belief on the Bible is going to bridge a gap? How would it do that rather than the opposite?

 

[Pardalis]

Religious righters already know why they believe the way they do. Obama saying that he believes differently because he also disagrees with their belief on the Bible is going to bridge a gap? How would it do that rather than the opposite?

Dialogue is always a good thing.

Avoiding the subject only reinforces the extremists.

 

[kosai]

Why do you think this is a good idea or significant?

Religious righters already know why they believe the way they do. Obama saying that he believes differently because he also disagrees with their belief on the Bible is going to bridge a gap? How would it do that rather than the opposite?

Using the term "Religious righters" only serves to illustrate why you are struggling so hard to understand the speech. My parents are Christian and support Obama because of speeches like this one and others he has made. In my copy of the Bible it doesn't say abortions should be illegal or gays can't marry, Obama is trying to open dialog with those with faith. That's the point of the speech, believers and non believers through politics have lost a sense of communication and speaking logically about their disagreements is, according to Obama, a good direction.

 

[chris epic]

I'm just relieved he doesn't have a twang. We haven't had a non-twang president for 20 years!

I'm tired of twang running this country, its time for a chwange!

 

[latent aaaack]

Using the term "Religious righters" only serves to illustrate why you are struggling so hard to understand the speech. My parents are Christian and support Obama because of speeches like this one and others he has made. In my copy of the Bible it doesn't say abortions should be illegal or gays can't marry, Obama is trying to open dialog with those with faith. That's the point of the speech, believers and non believers through politics have lost a sense of communication and speaking logically about their disagreements is, according to Obama, a good direction.

No what he said was that citing his religous beliefs nicely as president will decrease the popularity of the beliefs of the religious right. This is in response to Tsukasa Buddha and Pardalis saying the quoted passage doesn't say he would convince the religious right.

He's not saying he would convince them

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

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.

I also noted earlier that using religion to advance a political agenda will not be a part of the democratic progressive movement in the forseeable future and is only a religious republican right attribute now that he is serving to bolster. That's why your parents like him and when he loses or ends his term they'll switch back to supporting one of the many republicans that do that.

The reason Obama is using religion so much is because of it's history as a central organizing facet of the black community and the civil rights movement, which he talks about at the beginning of the speech. He was converted when he went to Chicago as a community organizer after college, he says. Few if any other liberal democratic leaders come from that background or can authentically use religion politically like that. That's one reason it's a bad idea for Obama to say that only politicians that use religion as much as him can speak in America's language meaningfully to them, since that opens the door to the Huckabee's and the Romney's in your face sanctimoniousness.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Does anyone else feel like this is going on and on like a broken record?

And yay, another accusation that the most liberal senator (statistically) is actually a republicanophile.

 

[Piggy]

And yay, another accusation that the most liberal senator (statistically) is actually a republicanophile.

You mean John Kerry? Or have the Pubbies changed their mind about that?

That's the trouble with being independent, you just can't keep up with what you're supposed to believe.

 

[Pardalis]

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.

That's one reason it's a bad idea for Obama to say that only politicians that use religion as much as him can speak in America's language meaningfully to them,

That's not what he said either.

 

[Beth]

No what he said was that citing his religous beliefs nicely as president will decrease the popularity of the beliefs of the religious right. This is in response to Tsukasa Buddha and Pardalis saying the quoted passage doesn't say he would convince the religious right.

I didn't get that from his speach at all. I'm not sure how you managed that interpretation. What did he say to give you the impression that he was trying or expected to change anyone's religious beliefs? Well, maybe the gang member with the hole in his heart. But I would agree that we need to change our society so that all children grow up knowing they are loved and wanted and cherished. And I agree with him in that I don't think we can change that about our society without bringing religion into the conversation. But I don't think he was asking or expecting that anyone to should change their beliefs.

I also noted earlier that using religion to advance a political agenda will not be a part of the democratic progressive movement in the forseeable future and is only a religious republican right attribute now that he is serving to bolster. That's why your parents like him and when he loses or ends his term they'll switch back to supporting one of the many republicans that do that.

I think that if Obama is elected, than religion will become part of the progressive movement. Futher, I agree with him in that I think it must be part of any successful progressive movement.

The reason Obama is using religion so much is because of it's history as a central organizing facet of the black community and the civil rights movement, which he talks about at the beginning of the speech. He was converted when he went to Chicago as a community organizer after college, he says. Few if any other liberal democratic leaders come from that background or can authentically use religion politically like that. That's one reason it's a bad idea for Obama to say that only politicians that use religion as much as him can speak in America's language meaningfully to them, since that opens the door to the Huckabee's and the Romney's in your face sanctimoniousness.

I don't think Obama is saying that it's bad for other politicians to use religion. I think he's just saying that they should be authentic in talking about where they get their morality from, not that it should be religious. He also said that the morality that forms our mutual public code of laws needs to be justified on a secular basis. Personally, I interpret that as all victimless crimes should be decriminalized, but I doubt he would agree with me on that.

 

[Piggy]

He's not saying he would convince them, he's saying if he engages the debate honestly and openly he could make people understand his stance, instead of rebuking them away by his avoidance of the subject.

He's also saying that if religious moderates, who affirm separation of church and state, avoid speaking of religion in the public square, and relegate discussion of religion to their places of worship, the field will be left to the religious extremists, thereby magnifying the relative importance of their voices, and perpetuating the notion among non-religious persons that all religious persons are extremists.

 

[Piggy]

I think that if Obama is elected, than religion will become part of the progressive movement.

It already is. Just look at the progressive religious group he was speaking to, the Sojourners, one of the fastest-growing blocs in the nation right now.

But an Obama election is not going to convince secular, agnostic, atheist progressives to suddenly become religious.

 

[Piggy]

I would agree that we need to change our society so that all children grow up knowing they are loved and wanted and cherished. And I agree with him in that I don't think we can change that about our society without bringing religion into the conversation. But I don't think he was asking or expecting that anyone to should change their beliefs.

Agreed.

Thanks for the post, Beth.

I know you and I have often found ourselves on very opposite sides of the fence when it comes to religion, but I think you're a really sharp cookie, so it gives me kindof a warm fuzzy to find something we see eye to eye on.

Cheers.

 

[Beth]

It already is. Just look at the progressive religious group he was speaking to, the Sojourners, one of the fastest-growing blocs in the nation right now.

But an Obama election is not going to convince secular, agnostic, atheist progressives to suddenly become religious.

Right and it shouldn't. No one should be expected to change their religion just because someone gets elected president.

Agreed.

Thanks for the post, Beth.

I know you and I have often found ourselves on very opposite sides of the fence when it comes to religion, but I think you're a really sharp cookie, so it gives me kindof a warm fuzzy to find something we see eye to eye on.

Cheers.

Thanks. I was just thinking the same thing about you.