For all those who think Obama's faith speeches make him like Bush...

remember-Obama is not a war-monger. He's not looking for the "end of times," he's not calling Muslims evil, and he's not using religion to divide people. He's speaking from his heart and I, as an atheist with agnostic tendencies, see nothing wrong with it.

apples and rocks.

We could write a book on this issue alone.

It doesn't make him 'like Bush' other than the fact that he feels compelled to publicly demonstrate his faithiness. As we are teetering on the edge of theocracy, I'd rather our side publicly emphasized their secularness, as Obama rightly did with the flag pin lapel false patriotism non-issue.

Just the opposite.

Do you realize how positively absurd and hysterical that statement is?

Who told you what to wear today?

Seen any cleavage lately?

If you are willing to open your eyes, look into the goings on at the air force academy. Truly scary shit. Try this in google: fundamentalist air force academy.

Terry Schiavo.

We won't have mullahs. We do have televangelists instead. Not dress codes, not yet, but they are just getting started. Abstinence Miseducation? Creation Theory? Not one of the Republican candidates could admit that Evolution is established scientific fact.

By then it's too late to reverse course and get out of the Theocracy. You have to have a revolution then.

I think the difference between 'the current atmosphere is unsettling' and 'teetering on the edge' is not worth arguing about.

But there I do recognize that there is a huge disconnect between what some of us view as the current reality and what others view it as.

If you think that the theocratic forces in the Republican Party:
a) do not exist;
b) have not been successful in pushing their agenda into law and their people into the courts, the legislature, and the executive;
c) are not determined to transform this nation into a 'Christian Republic',

then you are naive. Study up. Enlighten yourself.

a faction that said party is presently running away from, by the way, and whose so-called "gains" have had little to no material impact on the daily life of anyone who doesn't agree with them, that you believe the whole country is teetering on the edge of theocracy?

If so, get help.

Are U.S. troops being force-fed Christianity?

A watchdog group alleges that improper evangelizing is occurring within the ranks.

At Speicher base in Iraq, US Army Spec. Jeremy Hall got permission from a chaplain in August to post fliers announcing a meeting for atheists and other nonbelievers. When the group gathered, Specialist Hall alleges, his Army major supervisor disrupted the meeting and threatened to retaliate against him, including blocking his reenlistment in the Army.

Months earlier, Hall charges, he had been publicly berated by a staff sergeant for not agreeing to join in a Thanksgiving Day prayer.

On Sept. 17, the soldier and the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) filed suit against Army Maj. Freddy Welborn and US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, charging violations of Hall's constitutional rights, including being forced to submit to a religious test to qualify as a soldier.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1004/p13s02-lire.html

So the religious right has a dark side, there are kooks in the military and, under Bush, these types have exceeded proper boundaries, which is one of the reasons why we have elections in this country. How you get from there to having the whole country teetering on the edge of theocracy is where you need to get control of the narrative. I'm sitting in a casino hotel filled with partially clad people right now, most of whom probably voted Republican at least once in their lives and may even go to a megachurch every now and then. The fact is Americans don't have the inherent need, the attention span or the discipline for any totalitarian ideology. The theocracy will have to wait until we've been destroyed by some outside power, and, even then, you'll have to ask over half of America to leave because they won't qualify.

It would just be nice to have a president not concurring with invisible men while making decisions. However, the chances of an atheist getting elected are nil in this unscientific culture, so I just try and ignore the woo-woo stuff.

Religion isn't my bag, but I have no problem with people indulging as long as they don't use it as a shield for such egregious endeavors as war.

I feel "to each their own" and that seems to be his philosophy too.

I'm an out-spoken atheist, a member of the ACLU and Americans United, but I don't get the people who get bent out of shape when a candidate talks about religion.

What they believe personally doesn't make a whit of difference - it's what they want to DO with their beliefs.

Your last sentence sums it up perfectly. :hi:

He does not act like bush. bush is greedy, evil and callous and uses faith for gain. From what we have all seen of Obama he does not. He believes what he says. I don't think Obama would ever say God told him to start a war and all the things bush says God tells him to do which are horrific.

I agree with you!

Extremism is what is negative. Obama has a liberal Christian faith, that has little to do with the religious right. I do as well. Remember, Martin Luther King called on social justice based on his CHRISTIAN FAITH that Jesus preached a radical, revolutionary gospel - that demands justice. That message has been hijacked by fundamentalists, but some of us are still here!

Also, the radical atheists need to remember that atheism itself can become fundamentalist, vitriolic and mean-spirited. I see it everyday on DU and it saddens me that we are all lumped in with the religious right.

Christians On The Left:

SOJOURNERS
http://www.sojo.net

CROSSLEFT
http://www.crossleft.org/

Peace.

You both think faith is a positive thing. I do not. I think that Obama was a community organizer and a high achieving path-breaker at Harvard BEFORE he converted to Christianity and joined the UCC. He does good because he is a good person, not because of faith. Faith by itself is just believing supernatural things that cannot be justified by reason or evidence.

Oh, another thing you have in common with the religious right is that you both call atheists "radical, fundamentalist, vitrolic, and mean-spirited" for speaking out.

I wasn't expecting that.

I'll just say that my faith plays a role in doing things that I may - or may not - have done before. But faith aside, I would still work for peace and justice.

The comment about my saying that atheism can be fundamentalist is something I have "in common" with the religious right is not fair. I don't know - and don't care - what they think. I think for myself and use my faith as a guide. (As have many great liberal leaders in our history.) I know you won't do it, but there is a book called The Dawkins Delusion that you should read that discusses much of what you have learned (or not learned) about faith. And by the way, I have no problem with atheists speaking out. I specifically said the vitriol of so many is what bothers me - and it is THOSE atheists that I call "fundamentalists."

One other thing - go outside and look at the night sky and realize that all the stars are suns like our own. Look at the human body. Look at.....whatever....what "reason" or "evidence" is there that can be proved in any way that YOU don't have to accept by......yep....faith? As we all know, there are many scientific theories regarding the Big Bang, Black Holes on and on. But, nobody can say with any "evidence" (other than faith in their own theories) that any particular way of looking at all of this around us makes 'sense' at all. Did you know that Francis Collins (Human genome mapper) is a Christian? Science and faith are not mutually exclusive.

Your comment as to faith not being a positive thing.... Well, no, not all things regarding faith are positive. Not all things secular are positive. Your comment means nothing. Again, that kind of hatred for people of faith is, to me, a radical viewpoint. For example, for every war based on religion, I can tell you of wars based on liberation and class and territory. PEOPLE are what's wrong. They may have faith, they may not - PEOPLE cause problems, of every stripe and spot.

Supernatural? Everything around us, to me, is a mystery. Our very being here and breathing is a mystery. Going back to a "first cause"...what was the "first cause" of THAT? Any way you look at it, something supernatural is at work.

But, as for Christians, we're NOT all alike. Guilt by association can get nasty. Because the religious right believes in X does not mean I believe in X. What if I said that unbelievers like the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia didn't believe and therefore - you have things "in common" with Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge? That's not a fair argument and yours isn't either.

Sorry for the length.

Let's live and fight for justice in peace.

"The comment about my saying that atheism can be fundamentalist is something I have "in common" with the religious right is not fair. I don't know - and don't care - what they think. I think for myself and use my faith as a guide. (As have many great liberal leaders in our history.) I know you won't do it, but there is a book called The Dawkins Delusion that you should read that discusses much of what you have learned (or not learned) about faith. And by the way, I have no problem with atheists speaking out. I specifically said the vitriol of so many is what bothers me - and it is THOSE atheists that I call "fundamentalists.""

You may not think its fair, but its true. Moreover, you say you don't have a problem with atheists speaking out, unless its "vitriol"...well, what qualifies as vitriol? I think your measure would be different from mine.

"One other thing - go outside and look at the night sky and realize that all the stars are suns like our own. Look at the human body. Look at.....whatever....what "reason" or "evidence" is there that can be proved in any way that YOU don't have to accept by......yep....faith? As we all know, there are many scientific theories regarding the Big Bang, Black Holes on and on. But, nobody can say with any "evidence" (other than faith in their own theories) that any particular way of looking at all of this around us makes 'sense' at all. Did you know that Francis Collins (Human genome mapper) is a Christian? Science and faith are not mutually exclusive."

It's called the scientific method. No faith necessary. How do I know it works? Because it has a long history of working. We have computers and vaccines and cars, and so many things because the scientific method works. We know more about the universe and about ourselves than we did one hundred years ago because the scientific method works. If it were up to faith we'd still think disease and lightning were the results of god's wrath.

Have you actually read Francis Collins book? I have. Do you know why he became a Christian? Because he saw a waterfall. Explain how that's scientific. To be religious, a scientist has to refuse to apply his scientific training to the things he or she believes by faith

Your comment as to faith not being a positive thing.... Well, no, not all things regarding faith are positive. Not all things secular are positive. Your comment means nothing. Again, that kind of hatred for people of faith is, to me, a radical viewpoint. For example, for every war based on religion, I can tell you of wars based on liberation and class and territory. PEOPLE are what's wrong. They may have faith, they may not - PEOPLE cause problems, of every stripe and spot.

Faith itself is defective. Imagine if you paid your bills by faith. You'd pick a random amount, send it off on a random day, to a random company, and by faith believe you'd done it correctly. In any area where there are serious consequences, people do not act by faith. So why does faith suddenly become a good thing when it comes to the supernatural? Once you've committed yourself to faith over evidence, you can believe anything, even contradictory things. How could you reject any idea, when belief is enough to validate it?

Supernatural? Everything around us, to me, is a mystery. Our very being here and breathing is a mystery. Going back to a "first cause"...what was the "first cause" of THAT? Any way you look at it, something supernatural is at work.

Well, then you should probably do some research on evolution and the biological mechanisms that sustain human life, then it won't be so mysterious. I don't know what the "first cause " was, though, and nobody does. that doesn't make it ok to jump to conclusions. We shouldn't believe until there is evidence.

But, as for Christians, we're NOT all alike. Guilt by association can get nasty. Because the religious right believes in X does not mean I believe in X. What if I said that unbelievers like the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia didn't believe and therefore - you have things "in common" with Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge? That's not a fair argument and yours isn't either.

You have to be alike in some ways, or else you couldn't all be Christians. Likewise, all atheists have to have in common that they don't believe in gods, or they couldn't be atheists. Those are basic definitions. What's unfair about that?

I understand that. It's the "hip" thing - especially among the college-age crowd. You have "converted" to atheism and if that brings you peace and understanding - great.

"I don't know what the "first cause " was, though, and nobody does."
Remember that.

Yes! I have read the Francis Collins book. The frozen waterfall was only one thing. The influence of C.S. Lewis was another. It wasn't just one thing.

I love politics and absolutely HATE seeing people of faith being called all kinds of names (stupid, ignorant, you know them) on this political board. I'm not interested in a tit-for-tat with atheist evangelists anymore than I would be with a Mormon or Jehovah's Witness evangelist. The new assault on faith is actually very old. I was there once upon a time. I still own my set of The Works of Robert Ingersoll. I read them all: Hobbes, Huxley, Russell. But, like Collins, I saw something around the age of 35 that made me rethink something that I thought I was absolutely certain about. We are where we are, my friend.

Peace.

You're right about one thing, refusing to sacrifice my intellectual integrity by staying Christian once new information came to light did bring me peace and understanding.

C.S. Lewis was no more scientific than the waterfall. Religious scientists are necessarily engaged in double-think.

Tell me, do you "evangelize" for the Democratic Party? Did you "convert" to whatever your current profession is? If not, why must you try to force a secular person such as myself into a religious understanding? Is it that you can't understand me except in religious terms because you are so used to thinking that way, or are you setting up for the "atheism is a religion" crap that I'm sure you were tired of yourself back in the day?

What would you think of an average joe who went around claiming that Angelina Jolie was in love with him, that she was watching him, and speaking to him in his mind, and that she wanted him to do a bunch of things for her? Even that is more plausible than gods. At least Angelina Jolie exists.

Did you "convert" to whatever your current profession is? If not, why must you try to force a secular person such as myself into a religious understanding?

I've read your posts in the Religion Forum and thought you had used the term "convert" and "conversion" yourself. If I am wrong, I apologize.

That's funny....No, I still don't like the "atheism is a religion," line. However, here's one you may not like any better - atheism is definitely a movement and it's becoming more organized. Make of that, and how it is described, what you will; but I doubt that it would be far removed by way of organization, zeal and evangelism than many religions.

Angelina Jolie? Would that be Jolieanity? If there is still a committed group of people following Jolie and filling churches to worship, contemplate and bow in awe at her creation (films) two thousand years from now, well, I guess you'll be proved right. For now, 2,000 years of those who find reason to believe in God and the Christ passes my test for it being more plausible than Jolieanity. For me, God exists. You cannot, obviously, prove that he does not. I cannot, obviously, prove that he does. But many, many of the scientific theories...err...scientific method, on which you hang your hat can be proved - beyond theory, sometimes wild guesses in the dark (but still call it science!). And the biggest surprise is that there may not be a conflict in the first place. As, in my view, and that of many scientists, God is found within every new scientific discovery. The scientific method could very well be one-step closer to seeing how God put it all into motion. In every cell and molecule, God lives. To me, there IS no mutual exclusivity between science and God. Remember, we know so little compared to what we do NOT know and understand. For me - and millions of others - there lies the mystery and the mind-blowing possibilities of our faith.

Peace, my friend.

In the early 800's, the Archbishop of Lyons wrote a book entitled "Contra insulsam vulgi opinionem de grandine et tonitruis" (Against the foolish belief of the common sort concerning hail and thunder). It attempted to squash the belief that hail, lightning, and thunder were anything other than natural phenomenon. That was written in the so-called "dark ages."

Pseudo-science such as Mary Baker Eddy's "Christian Science" never seems to go away, but the conceit that the faith community has been uniformly anti-science or pro-ignorance is just propaganda. The central concern of faith has been matters of spiritual enlightenment and the application thereof. The most successful theologians have left science to science which, as you point out, does a much better job of it.

Science cannot answer questions such as, "Is the Iraq war a just war?" and it never will. That is a matter of faith and it happens to be a very, very important matter right now.

he is violent, hypocritical, intolerant and dishonest.

I'm a liberal. :)

1. Senator Obama uses and talks in the lingo of most in the African American church tradition. Just like other african american leaders who are religious he uses alot of the same terms and 'lingo'. I suggest people learn alittle about African Americans and religion before throwing stones.

2. Senator obama also is trying to take many of the religious voters who decamped from the democratic party during Reagan and have stayed away thinking republicans are only friendly to people of faith. he wants them back as the country has about 85% who are religious and it's cost us elections in the past.

and yes, I'm an atheist. I agree with your post. :hi:

Why bash Bush when he talks about his faith and not say a peep about Obama.

Oh, maybe it's because Obama sounds sincere. Obama's actions match his words for the most part. Obama hasn't said that God told him to start any wars.

I don't mind it. I gotta tell you though, even as a Christian, listening to some people talk about their faith can sometimes make my teeth itch.

No such reaction with Obama.

I agree with you, and I'm not religious at ALL.

in 99% of the possible ways. But when he starts talking about God's Kingdom on earth and all that, then he IS like Bush in that 1%.

I'd be happy with an Obama presidency, but he needs to be careful about getting into bed with the fundy wackjobs too far.

the campaigning at churches.

I don't think that makes him like Bush.

Here is the source of my discomfort:

I don't like politics in church. Period. It violates my personal sense of that wall of separation.

Obama seems to have spent more time courting the religious vote than the rest. Either that, or his church campaigns and comments on religion get more press. It sets off my alarms.

Obama isn't Bush; he's nowhere close. But in the past, when I read about churches campaigning, or candidates campaigning in churches, it was inevitably a republican.

I want to further separate church and state. I don't want to see Democrats begin to blur that distinction by stepping up the action. If a little politics in church are good, soon it will be more.

At the least, use the church building for a campaign stop during "off hours." Don't campaign DURING SERVICES.

Are you kidding? He's kissing up to a demographic that will never ever ever vote for us and marginalizing a demographic that almost always votes for us. Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought Democrats were the party of inclusion (not to mention the party of the goddamned Constitution). His talk of being an instrument of God and creating God's kingdom on Earth etc are highly offensive to those of us (another reminder: the non-religious are mostly liberals!) that view church-state seperation as a good thing. Quite frankly, it's a big "STFU, you're not welcome here" message to the non-religious, and I have trouble separating that mindset from the GOP.

He's not kissing up. He's speaking his mind to people who WILL vote for him after hearing his message. A REAL Christian is NOT someone like Bush who uses religion to scare people into thinking gay marriage will ruin the marriage of straight people, or who uses it to scare people into starting wars with NON-Christians, or who tries to change the Constitution to outlaw abortion. THOSE are all divisive issues. Obama is a REAL Christian who is trying to bring people together with a message of caring for the poorest among us, for inclusion of all faiths and non-faiths (like me), etc. I am a liberal atheist who has no problem with his message.

Instrument of God? God's kingdom on Earth? That type of phraseology doesn't set off alarms in your head?

gay people being allowed to openly serve in the military, for allowing civil unions with all the rights of marriage, for affirmative action, helping the poor, for allowing women the right to choose, etc.

His positions are hardly notable on those issues, and certainly not different from those espoused by Kerry (or Lieberman!). Where Kerry and Obama differ is that Kerry stated quite clearly that his private religious views wouldn't be what what steers his presidency. Obama's statements point me to one conclusion: his religious views are going to guide his presidency and atheists are not welcome.

That is putting words in the Senator's mouth. He's never indicated that he would be a theocrat, nor has he said anything hostile or demeaning to atheists.

If you're under a bus, you threw yourself under it.

"Whatever we once were, we're no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation,and a nation of non-believers," Obama wrote. "We should acknowledge this and realize that when we're formulating policies from the state house to the Senate floor to the White House, we've got to work to translate our reasoning into values that are accessible to every one of our citizens, not just members of our own faith community."

Dosn't seem like he is excluding atheists to me(how often do you actually tend to hear a politican *include* them)

(mental note to self: Don't post when drop dead tired, makes ya reply to the wrong post)

I guess that speech we're all talking about never happened :eyes:

along with any religion other than Christianity.

No, for two reasons. First, I read the full context of these phrases. Second, I understand what Obama is trying to say with these phrases. Obama's statements have specific meanings withing Christian theology. It's not incumbent upon you, or anyone else, to be versed in this area, but if you have "alarms in your head" over them, then you'd probably be a lot happier person if you knew why they weren't alarming.

The Republicans and their allies in the religious right like to paint the left and the Democrats as being hostile to religion, partly because the Democrats think atheists should be considered full-fledged citizens (gasp!). Obama's frank and open expressions of faith are effectively putting the lie to that claim. If that brings back some disaffected religious voters, it will more than offset the few cranky atheists who refuse to vote for anyone who says "God" in a sentence without "delusion" or "nonsense" closely following it.

A few cranky atheists (that is by the way, 15% of the US population) aren't going for your straw man. Obama's words are those of the theocratic right and will likely disaffect more people than they bring in.

Atheists do not make up 15% of the population of the US. 15% of the population of the US is not affiliated with any faith. That isn't the same thing as being atheists.

Even if you do accept the 15% number, read the responses in the many threads about Obama's statements. Most atheists realize that the Senator was speaking in religious terms to a religious audience and was not making public policy statements; when talking about the nation as a whole, he included non-believers as a part of our national mosaic. They may not understand the terms, but they know full well that Obama was most certainly not using the "words" of the "theocratic right."

Only a few absolutist atheists, who seem motivated to take Obama's words out context, have a problem with this. Just based on the response here, we are talking about a tiny, tiny minority.

You can take you're "we're not gonna take it" position and vote for an atheist candidate (if you can find one). Don't kid yourself into thinking that you are taking the bulk of reasonable and fair-minded atheists with you.

"Those people" are democrats, for the most part.

You think you don't count because of your beliefs about religion, try being the taken for granted for decades black democratic vote and get back to me with your whining.

The entire base of the democratic party is taken for granted, black white hispanic gay straight atheist agnostic and religious, and everyone left of where Eisenhower was in the 50's. We are assumed to have no place else to go to vote while our leaders keep moving the mythical center ever rightward chasing a demographic (or so we are told) that in fact will never vote Democratic.