Apparently, Barack Obama did well in the recent primaries, increasing the chances that he'll be the Democratic candidate for president. Right away, we're seeing an old video of an Obama speech (transcript here) being refloated. This is the same speech that prompted me to say I would never vote for Obama. It really is a ghastly exercise in self-delusion and post hoc justification of religious bigotry; I'd say he was pandering to his audience, except that I think he really believes the nonsense he was spouting.
Just reading it again pisses me off, it's so full of stupidity. Look at this:
And by the way, we need Christians on Capitol Hill, Jews on Capitol Hill and Muslims on Capitol Hill talking about the estate tax. When you've got an estate tax debate that proposes a trillion dollars being taken out of social programs to go to a handful of folks who don't need and weren't even asking for it, you know that we need an injection of morality in our political debate.
Good grief. We need Christians, Jews, and Muslims to "inject morality" into Capitol Hill? Capitol Hill is full of nothing but believers, and it's the loudest and most fervent of those believers who passed the regressive taxes we have now. To make it even worse, he turns around a few sentences later and says this:
So the question is, how do we build on these still-tentative partnerships between religious and secular people of good will? It's going to take more work, a lot more work than we've done so far. The tensions and the suspicions on each side of the religious divide will have to be squarely addressed. And each side will need to accept some ground rules for collaboration.
You want to build bridges to the secular part of the nation? Then don't assume the godless are the amoral, unethical, venal part of society that you need to discipline with a ruling majority of religious saints in government.
There's much more in that speech that grates. For instance, he praises Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech for it's religious content, which he claims was necessary. NO. Read it again. King was a minister, and of course his religious tradition informed his speech, and the cadence of the speech is straight from good ol' sermonizing, but the religious references are nothing but little fillips on a call for social justice, for equality and freedom. If you read that speech and come away thinking it's a paean to religiosity, you're missing the point. Atheists and other secularists are moved and inspired by that speech; the religious content is background, not purpose.
So let's be clear here: I despise Obama's faith. I think it has the potential to be a major hindrance to any accomplishments of an Obama administration, and I worry that it would further promote the desecularization of our government. If Obama is elected, I will not be a cheerleader, but a constant critic.
That said, though, in the recent caucus, I made myself a liar and voted for Obama. If he's the Democratic candidate, I'll vote for him in November. (I hope I don't regret it.) I would remind him, though, that the last liberal Christian candidate who made his faith a matter of public discussion was Jimmy Carter, a wonderful human being who was also a one-term president. Piety is no substitute for accomplishment.
I do not aspire to the complete disenfranchisement of all religious people, and I always have to hold my nose and press that lever for some Christian — as an atheist in America, I have never had the opportunity to vote for any candidate in any election who was willing to admit to disbelief. (Think about that—as a group, we lack representation in our government, but it's the other side that is always claiming discrimination.) So there's nothing new in having to swallow my pride and vote for a compromise candidate who represents my views so poorly.
In this election, I'm confronted with a moderate Republican in Democratic clothing (Clinton) who I don't see advancing secular government in a progressive direction; a weak progressive (Obama) who is tainted with religious delusions, but I'm hoping will focus on more practical issues, and the religiosity will not be prominent in his administration; and a mob of flaming lunatics on the Republican side who promise nothing but catastrophe.
I'm reluctantly voting for Obama, but as I said last time, someday I want to vote for a freethought president. I have a dream! Of course, I seem to still be waiting for a chance to vote for a freethought city councilman, so it may be a while.
- Log in to post comments
voting for a freethinker?
you're two centuries too late.
adams, jefferson, and madison would be pilloried today.
washington would be highly suspect.
once upon a time, the u.s. was a republic.
not coincidentally, that's back when its major leaders and thinkers were freethinkers.
I have that same dream, but in the meantime I'll probably be voting for Obama too.
I've become pretty annoyed at all of my super-progressive friends who are head-over-heels in love with Obama. Yeah, yeah, he makes you feel good. Have you LOOKED at his positions, though? Not that freaking progressive. Meh.
I feel for you PZ, one reason I am thinking of voting Liberal Democrat here in the UK is their Leader Nick Clegg's acknowledgement that he is atheist. After Blair's faith based policies and the son of the manse we have as PM at the moment I think we need a good dose of rationalism too. Maybe we can halt the socially divisive increase in faith based schooling this government has overseen. It is this, just as much as Iraq, that has turned me off voting labour despite being a natural labour supporter by inclination.
I personally don't think that Obama's enunciations about religion will come in the way of policy matters. Also, he has many other virtues and I think it's a little unfair to focus only on this aspect of his opinions. On the other hand, there's also really no one better right now. Let's see.
I think you're blowing one speech a bit out of proportion, PZ. Just because he specifically said Christians, Jews, and Muslims, doesn't mean he's leaving out everyone else out. It appeals to the general public to name some major religions, and say that they should be involved. Obama is a politician, and sadly, at this time no politician is going to get elected if he runs around saying how great atheists are. And while it's unfortunate they may have to put up that facade, we can at least know that they will work for our rights once in office. I think Obama is our best shot at having a secular balance in our presidency. If anything, having atheist and agnostic parents should give him some perspective, at least.
Just to show you some of Obama's views, which haven't been taken grossly out of context, here's a letter he sent in response to our club's inquiry:
"Thank you for your letter regarding the protection of civil liberties for non-believers. In his speech on the relationship between faith and politics in American society, Barack spoke to some of the issues raised in your letter.
Here's some of what Senator Obama said:
Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason...
Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy-making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing.
We hope this helps provide some perspective on Barack's views about religion. Please find the rest of his speech for your consideration."
PZ, you're an intelligent guy, and I respect your views (and agree with many of them), but sometimes I think you're just too quick to jump the gun and get offended by everything.
I'm curious how supporting universal health care (a stronger plan than Obama's), abortion rights, civil unions, a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, and the Kyoto protocols makes Sen. Clinton "a moderate Republican in Democratic clothing." You must be thinking about extinct Republicans like Jacob Javits or Nelson Rockefeller. No such animal exists today.
Jenni (#6), could you just confirm whether the paragraph that begins "Now this is going to be difficult..." was Obama's or not? Thanks.
Pah. This is just a variation of Obama's main weakness: he creates division where there isn't any in order to be able to unite two sides.
The tensions and the suspicions on each side of the religious divide will have to be squarely addressed.
This is bullshit. As an atheist I have absolutely no problem joining with Anglicans on women's rights, or on Catholics when it comes to anti-poverty programs, or most mainstream religious folks when it comes to keeping creationism out of science class.
We do have our differences, but these are authentic differences, respectable as differences. They are not some misunderstandings that Obama can wave his magic wand over and helter-presto create Unity. The "religious" position will always against women's reproductive rights. There is no misunderstanding there. I don't have any "suspiscions" of them, nor do they, largely, have any suspiscions of me. We just frackin disagree. In Obama-land, this is an impossibility.
I am voting for Obama; but we'll see how his good ship lollipop fares once he runs into the rocks of Republican opposition. I'm hoping that his kumbaya rhetoric can create the equivalent of a progressive Ronald Reagan. RR wasn't that conservative, but he was so goddamned popular he gave conservatism credibility it didn't deserve, leading the conservative brand to be so powerful as to sustain the Worst President Ever for an extra term. Maybe Obama, even though he's not really that progressive, can set the table so that progressive thought is considered on par with communism.
* er, rather, so that progressive thought is not considered on par with communism.
On the Washington Post's "On Faith" site, one panelist quoted the following statement by Obama at http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/susan_brooks_thistlethwaite/… :
"Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. Democracy requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all...Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality."
I suspect that H. Clinton would be somewhat less likely than Obama to actually bend to the temptation to push for faith-based policies. But Obama, as a former professor of constitutional law, seems to understand and respect the importance of church-state separation and protecting the rights of non-believers. I'm willing to overlook the nonsensical piffle that Obama frequently spouts (apparently with considerable sincerity) for the purpose of getting elected.
You could vote for a freethinker in America (well, you'd probably have to persuade one to run for office in the first place - or at least to admit it), but it would just be throwing your vote away. Sad, but true.
However, one of the many things I like about Barack Obama is that he strongly supports the separation of church and state, and that he SPECIFICALLY includes non-belief, as well as belief in other religions. That's really important. He's not one of those 'liberal' politicians who are only tolerant of other religions. Obama almost invariably - and SPECIFICALLY - mentions non-belief as deserving the same respect.
These days, that's about all we can expect, especially from a candidate who battles right-wing rumors about being a secret Muslim. And it is critically important! Not to mention that he can get voters enthused even in my red state. Yesterday, here in Nebraska, Obama supporters turned out in droves. And we had long, long lines of people registering as Democrats - some registering for the first time, others switching from Republican. The enthusiasm was incredible!
The question is though, does he believe in evolution? As far as I know, Hillary is the only candidate who has stated that she does.
When has there ever been a perfect candidate? Generally we're not going to find someone who agrees 100%. I agree, Obama's faith isn't getting him any points with me, but his willingness to listen to diverse ideas and be inclusive is.
I also have to agree with Jennifurret, and thank her for adding that information from Obama's team.
PZ, this post smacks a little of quote mining.
Indeed, Obama's too divisive to be President.
Hey Bama, O Bama
Bama, Bama, O
Bama,
Hey Bama, O Bama
Hey kB,kB, won't you work for me
simply politicings gotten you this far.
It is Sunday morning, the choices are medieval religious TV, scoop the snow from yesterdays' blizzard, or post an entry on pharyngula. Seriously, since Huckabee may well be the rethuglican VP candidate, either Democratic candidate would be better. That being said, I would prefer not to have to vote for Senitor Clinton as the idea of having the White House in the hands of two families for what could be more than a quarter century is absurd.
"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."
Good enough for me..
civil unions
Yay! Second class citizenship for us queers! Marriage is so special that we have to create a separate legal arrangement which looks almost exactly the same in order to keep the queers out. I love being segregated into a different social institution.
Resign yourself to the fact that the Democratic Party does not welcome atheists, agnostics, and freethinkers into its inner circle. Not that there aren't any in the inner circle, but they are not allowed to speak in public about their non belief. The Democratic Party likes our votes, but they don't want our opinion and they certainly don't want us anywhere near the media.
I supported Edwards in my caucus and wish he was still in the race. He's just as religious as Obama or Clinton, but he is more interested in fighting corporate power and poverty than religious wars. Plus, his campaign didn't abandon Marcotte and McEwan when Bill Donohue went after them. Actions speak louder than words.
Almost on topic. The Huckster won two more states, Louisiana and Kansas. Why do weird things always happen in Kansas?
Huckabee has to be one of the scariest demagogues to seek the presidency for a while. Stiff competition for the bottom of the barrel and he is winning that contest.
As far as I can tell, a vote for Huckabee is a vote for a new Dark Ages and the destruction of US civilization.
The good news, only about 15% of the electorate seem to want to go in that direction. The bad news, 15% of the electorate want to go in that direction
It disturbs me greatly that Barack is probably looking to continue Bush's tradition of ceding more and more power to 'faith-based groups'. We've already got prisons in TX which are being taken over by Christian ministries. You see the light and get time off your sentence for showing moral behavior. Enough.
I'm also disturbed that this speech was received so well on Digg and Reddit overnight. Numerous atheists were commenting how Barack's speech was a model of tolerance.
Haven't we fallen for this one before? A charismatic guy promises to reach across the party line and practice compassionate religious values. It then transpires that the only compromise the religious are interested in are the right for atheist kids to die alongside their more moral religious brothers in foreign wars.
I'm still going to give Barack a chance. Politics is politics and politicians will say anything to get elected. I also think that electing a black (or a woman) president would be a significant milestone in this country.
It's important though that atheists like us make our disagreement heard loud and clear. Barack is our ideological enemy when he speaks of America being a nation of faith.
Keep your eye on the ball, PZ. You shouldn't despise Mr. Obama's religion BECAUSE it is religion -- you should despise the undesirable consequences of religion. When religion intrudes into the public domain, then you are justified in despising it. But it is the intrusion, not the religion, that is the proper target of your despite.
Suppose there were pious individuals who kept their religious beliefs entirely to themselves. They fervently believed in their god, but considered their faith such a deeply personal matter that they refused to discuss it with any other person. It would be impossible to know what these people's religious beliefs were. And there would be absolutely no basis for condemning them, as their spiritual beliefs inflict no injury upon others.
It has long been a principle of Anglo-Saxon law that thoughts and beliefs are beyond the reach of law. Having vicious rape fantasies is not a crime; permitting those fantasies to have physical expression is.
Returning to Mr. Obama, the question we must ask is, have his religious beliefs intruded injuriously into his policies? I see no evidence of such intrusion.
He's a Republican:
I believe in the free market, competition, and entrepreneurship, and think no small number of government programs don't work as advertised. I wish the country had fewer lawyers and more engineers. I think America has more often been a force for good than for ill in the world; I carry few illusions about our enemies, and revere the courage and competence of our military. I reject a politics that is based solely on racial identity, gender identity, sexual orientation, or victimhood generally. I think much of what ails the inner city involves a breakdown in culture that will not be cured by money alone, and that our values and spiritual life matter at least as much as our GDP. -from Audacity of Hope.
He was naming religious belief systems, so of course he didn't say "atheists". That wouldn't make sense.
It would've been nice if he'd said, "secular humanists" or something, but the response to that would mostly be "huh?" or "how dare he!".. not a good move when trying to make a case that an estate tax is the more moral move (in that it would be a distraction).
I also think that electing a black (or a woman) president would be a significant milestone in this country.
Condaleeza Rice for president!
Um, no.
Obama has clearly stated that he believes in evolution (just like all other Democratic candidates):
http://blogs.physicstoday.org/politics08/question_5/
In fact, he has repeatedly said that people's religious views cannot and should not be used as arguments in political discourse but that political decisions must be based on observable experience. Whenever he does profess his religiousness, I get the clear impression that he does so mainly to appeal to the 50 percent of Americans who would never vote for an atheist.
As I no longer live in the US and don't intend to return, I do not vote in presidential elections. But if I did, Obama would be my candidate.
I agree with you on a fairly significant level. On the one hand, Jimmy Carter was possibly my favorite president of the last fifty years and on the other. He was very religious, yet he respected the constitution enough to not allow his religion to dictate his policy. That may well be the reason he was not reelected. He has since become a fantastic humanitarian, even winning the Nobel Peace Prize. But then, on the other hand, there is that little fact that, as a nonbeliever, I have not had the opportunity to vote for an openly nonreligious person in ANY election. It's a bit ridiculous. And while I find Obama to be the least threatening of all the remaining candidates, I really find his religious fervor to be somewhat frightening. As I told my wife the other day: "I really hope Obama doesn't end up screwing us over if he gets elected."
Even better:
"Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy, should we go with Leviticus which says slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deutoronomy which suggests stoning your child if he strays from your fith, Or should we stick with the Sermon on the Mound? A passage that is so radical that our own defense department would not survive its application".
Is this a whiff of textual criticism?
I think you area partially missing his point: religious people too seldom inject their religious beliefs into the political debate in the right way. For example, religious people should have a rigorous anti-poverty agenda. Do they? No. They should have a pro-environment agenda. Do they ? No. They should be doves, not hawks. Are they? No. This list goes on and on.
I think he was calling out the vast hypocrisy of religious people on issues of politics and we need more of that.
I admire your strength in the face of religion, but it isn't, as of yet, practical. As you point out, we don't have a choice of atheist candidates. Everyone we get to vote for is going to be a Christian, or at least won't admit it publicly if they aren't. I've resigned myself to pulling the lever for these kind of people. What I absolutely cannot stand is people like Mike Huckabee who will turn this country into a theocracy. I could never vote for the likes of him. But Obama is not the likes of him. Yes, his focus on religion is grating, but I still believe he favors a secular democracy. That is why I have few reservations in placing my trust behind him.
Our time has not arrived yet, and until it does, we cannot be too picky. But we should, of course, be as loud as possible about it.
Wow, with all due respect to you PZ, this post is below your usual great standard. I thought of all people you should have heard of the logical fallacy called cherry picking. If you listen to the whole speech that you linked to, you can notice a few things.
1) Listening to the context and content of what Obama is saying as he tells us more Americans believe in angels than evolution, notice he is not saying it is a good thing, or praising it in any way. It is a fact. And he actually goes on to later say christians don't have to take the bible literally. (Obviously he himself doesn't)
2)When you complain about Obama supposedly claiming atheists are immoral, heinous etc. go and look at the transcript you provided us with.
"In fact, because I do not believe that religious people have a monopoly on morality, I would rather have someone who is grounded in morality and ethics, and who is also secular, affirm their morality and ethics and values without pretending that they're something they're not. They don't need to do that. None of us need to do that."
Hmmmm.... can someone please say cherry picking again for me?
Indeed I am sometimes concerned when I hear Obama regularly talking about faith in politics. But just remember a few things. He needs to exaggerate his faith as a backlash against the Muslim-smear campaign. He regularly talks about (in that transcript you provided too) the importance of secularism, and gives reasons why church and state must be strictly separated. So when I hear Obama talking about how faith has a role to play in politics, it seems to me he is saying what he feels his faith gives him (perhaps more empathy, etc.) can be used in his career. He regularly criticizes the general idea that faith is only about being anti abortion, anti gay rights, anti immigration etc. and says instead that faith should be used to tackle poverty and genocide and starvation. So when our Mr Obama talks about the role his faith plays in his politics, it's about how he thinks it makes him an overall better person, not about specifics.
I was hoping a better standard of writing than this, PZ.
Perhaps his religious posturing has blocked your secular scrutiny because he's no more progressive than Clinton - in fact, less so I would argue. I'm sitting this one out.
@ 15 and all similar,
Yep, he's a very flawed candidate. Now, show me someone less flawed. Rant if you must, I'll understand. Wish and hope for the chance to vote for a more rational candidate. I do. But if you vote for someone else, you aren't being rational either. The phrase "cut your nose to spite your face" comes to mind.
Yes there were elements of Barack's speech which even a grizzled atheist could heartily agree with. However, he's really trying to be all things to all people and his argument as a whole lacks any consistency.
I watched the whole painful video last night. Over-all I found that for every proclamation of secularism he was able to sneak in a reference to the importance of faith in government.
This is Obama's way with everything. He wants to unite people who fundamentally disagree on points of principle. Maybe when he gets elected we're only going to torture people on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
Now is not the time for liberals to join hands with the theocon/neocon right. This country is on the edge of economic collapse and is the pariah of the world for its military adventures in oil rich countries.
My dreams of 'hope' and 'change' involve rather less money going into evangelical coffers than Obama's.
As a Brit, and an atheist, I just want to say: Obama's still your best bet.
I think Obama is very intelligent. There is no way a non-theist is electable. Obama knows this. My hunch is that Obama sees religion as a useful tool. . .
I hope that is the case.
He's a MUCH better alternative as opposed to Hillary...
I don't vote for someone on religious preference, unless they're like Bush. Economics, Health care, and the war are MUCH more important right now. Obama has evolved to be as neutral as expected in the religious area.
Here in California we actually do have an atheist congressman. Pete Stark acknowledged back in March that he does not believe in a supreme being. Unfortunately, I don't live in his district. I live in Mormon John Doolittle's district.
Elect a black or a woman? Rue Paul for president!
Obama's ability to frame progressive policies in terms of values that make sense across the political spectrum is nothing to be sneezed at. I'm amazed at the inroads he's made with people who are lifetime Republicans while saying things that I agree with as well.
Obama also explains how separation of church and state (even the "establishment clause" preventing government-sponsored religion) benefits religion, and was initially backed by religious leaders. I can try to tell Christians this message myself -- along with the message about shared values -- but they're more likely to believe it when it comes from one of their own. Such leadership will go a long way towards convincing the general population that non-believers deserve rights, fair treatment, and even a place at the table of discussion.
Please see my endorsement of Obama.
Rue Paul for president!
I'd vote for old RuPaul! She's still looking fabulous, and "Peace, Love, and Hairgrease" is a much better campaign theme than "Straight Talk Express."
One of my many issues with Obama, and this isn't fair because its more his supporters, but the way his fans will swear their allegience to republicans rather than vote for Clinton if she gets the nomination (been listening to ann coulter lately perhaps). Just another bit of proof of their fickle unreliability. I don't hear many Clinton supporters trying to hold their votes hostage to force everyone to vote for her.
And notice how when Clinton says whatever all groups want to hear from her, she's got no integrity. When Obama does it, he's just a "uniter".
@ 38,
Rue Paul? Sorry, I got nothing against gay people, lotsa my friends are. Nothing against black people, lotsa friends there too. But she's so tall! Can't abide that. I have to set my standards somewhere.
I am situated in a department that whose politics always lean progressive and often socialist. However, lately all my colleagues have been so rah-rah Obama and I just bite holes in my tongue. The few times I have tried to raise my issues about his religion, gay marriage, and the people who take important roles in his campaign, I feel like I get the weird fish eye. I am not an atheist, I may not even be an agnostic -- though 12 years of Catholic school leaves some strange marks. I also believe that we either need to have gay marriage or that the states needs to get entirely out of the business of marriage. When I bring up my objections, my left-of-center friends respond that he wouldn't be a threat at all to secularism and how he is so inclusive, unifying, and will bring our country together. Meh.... Although, this may be true, it seems that that when we have had individuals elected who where so vocal about their faith, our government has moved in a direction less beneficial to secularists.
Kucinich may be just as religious, but so much more progressive, and I feel that his religion wouldn't come out as much now that he has reversed his strong pro-life voting record. Clinton my be further to the right, but again, somehow her faith is less injected in her campaign. I also like Edwards better.
For the individual who commented that the Dems agree 85% with the author, well this isn't true for me. But since a Green vote isn't feasible, and would possibly be grounds for divorce in my household, I will support whoever is the democratic candidate in November, even though it really irks.
Thanks for verbalizing why Obama really rubs me the wrong way.
#1: voting for a freethinker?
you're two centuries too late.
adams, jefferson, and madison would be pilloried today.
I wouldn't call Adams a freethinker. He was a rather devout believer and critical of Jefferson's and Paine's lack of faith. However, he seemed to shape his religion by his ideals, rather than the other way around.
I was on board with John Edwards until he dropped out (he was the only one talking about power and the class structure in a realistic way). I'll vote for the Dem nominee; both are, I suppose, acceptable, but neither excites me. Clinton's neoliberalism and Obama's "post-partisan" nonsense are both troublesome, but far better than McCain or Fuckabee.
What drives me crazier about all this, though, isn't Obama himself but his supporters. Guys, he's not a messiah. He's a lawyer and politician.
#8: This speech is actually from the same one that PZ posted. He's just cherry picking the parts he read. If you read the whole speech, the overlying tone is fair and balanced. Yes, Obama is Christian, so of course he's going to same some religious things that staunch atheists won't agree with. BUT, at the same time, the fact that he recognizes nonbelievers as moral and good citizens makes me very hopeful.
"In fact, because I do not believe that religious people have a monopoly on morality, I would rather have someone who is grounded in morality and ethics, and who is also secular, affirm their morality and ethics and values without pretending that they're something they're not."
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/
Senator Clinton is very pro-science and seems much less god-soaked than Obama. Hillary said "God bless you" in Iowa to suck up to the Christians there, but she thinks creationists are morons. I would bet she's an atheist, but would rather be president than admit it.
Clinton Says She Would Shield Science From Politics
http://tinyurl.com/ypkubk
Ending the War on Science, Hillary Clinton's Agenda to Reclaim Scientific Innovation
http://tinyurl.com/32ak6o
And Mike Gravel is a Unitarian and never once stooped to God-talk, which is commendable. However, Mike Gravel is a Unitarian, which is a wishy-washy, politically correct, pomo religion which thinks that all religions are equally true and peaceful and that we should all just hold hands and get along. The Archbishop of Canterbury, for example, would fit right in.
If Mike Gravel had any chance of winning he would get my vote.
Gravel was asked if he thought creationism should be taught in public schools.
Mike Gravel: "Oh God, no. Oh, Jesus. We thought we had made a big advance with the Scopes monkey trial....My God, evolution is a fact, and if these people are disturbed by being the descendants of monkeys and fishes, they've got a mental problem. We can't afford the psychiatric bill for them. That ends the story as far as I'm concerned."
I'd vote for Gravel in a heart beat to if he had a chance to win.
I reject the claim that I'm cherry picking: the clear message of this speech is that people of faith have a special privilege and obligation in bringing virtue to government. It is a bad message. It is wrong and it serves to further marginalize the god-free people of this country.
He's a guy with a bias in favor of religion. He's also a politician who's usually good at weaseling away from any revelations that might alienate a constituency. You can find instances of the latter, but it's not going to change my impression.
And please, note the message here: I find him a deeply flawed candidate, but I have voted and will vote for him. Electing a president does not mean we put a saint on a pedestal. I'll give him a shot, but I'm not giving him carte blanche, for the specific reason that I do not trust his leanings toward religiosity at all. If you're trying to argue that I shouldn't find anything substantial to criticize about him, you're not going to get anywhere with me.
49: Wow, yeah, it's hard not to like him despite his irrational fear of nuclear power.
Maybe I'm just deluding myself here, but I feel like he's at least somewhat less likely to throw atheists under the bus simply because his mother, who he said had a pretty strong influence on him, was an atheist. Anyway, at least he knows we exist.
In fact, I find the whole "secret Muslim" thing funny given the fact that what they really should be floating is that he's a secret atheist. It's more plausible and we're apparently less electable than Muslims according to some poll. I read that Obama's father, while having a Muslim background, was also an atheist.
Christ you're fragile, PZ.
"I was not raised in a particularly religious household, as undoubtedly many in the audience were. My father, who returned to Kenya when I was just two, was born Muslim but as an adult became an atheist. My mother, whose parents were non-practicing Baptists and Methodists, was probably one of the most spiritual and kindest people I've ever known, but grew up with a healthy skepticism of organized religion herself. As a consequence, so did I."
Comments 28, 29 and 39 bear repeating.
(Did Obama really say what's copied in comment 28?)
Take half a loaf now, Jeff. Come back for another slice later. We don't see any major candidate acknowledging that adults should be free to marry whom they choose. But if the Democrats support civil unions while the Republicans support a constitutional amendment to "save" marriage, the choice is clear. Accepting civil unions is a significant step in the right direction. (Heck, all marriages should be civil unions as far as the state is concerned. People who want the religious fripperies can include it as value-added entertainment, but government should get out of the "marriage" business.)
Zeno,
I'm familiar with the half-loaf stuff and I realize that it's the best we can get now. But, the only way we got the second-class civil unions was by pushing for marriage itself. By pushing for civil unions, we'll get less than that.
Additionally, don't get the state out of the marriage business (it's too ingrained in international law and the like), stop allowing clergy to certify civil contracts.
Obama on his faith:
The prayer that I tell myself every night is a fairly simple one: I ask in the name of Jesus Christ that my sins are forgiven, that my family is protected and that I am an instrument of God's will. I'm constantly trying to align myself to what I think he calls on me to do. And sometimes you hear it strongly and sometimes that voice is more muted.
Moronic crap. He should call his next book The Audacity of Stupidity.
#53: This is a good point. He's talked about how he has learned ethics and values from secularists and atheists in his family. He's religious, but on a fundamental level he doesn't think "people of faith" have a monopoly on virtue.
I read Mr. Gregory Earl's comment with great interest because he said Obama stood for evolutionary beliefs. However, his citation was not enlightening -- it referenced a blog that in turn referenced a statement here: http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/magazines/barack_obama_i_inhaled_… I've read it several times, and Obama's statement is a muddle -- and he actually seems to say religion is not a question of faith with him because he is certain in his beliefs. If that is the true reading, that it's a dangerous statement. Perhaps Mr. Earl can further enlighten us. Mr. Earl's blog cite also gives Clinton's position, and she is much clearer in her support of evolution and is critical of its opponents. http://blogs.physicstoday.org/politics08/question_5/
I have worried about Obama's faith for some time, because he has sought guidance from prayer (which I think is delusional) and because his spiritual mentor Jeremiah Wright has been close to Louis Farrakhan for years, including traveling to Libya with him in 1984, and recently giving Farrakhan an award. As far as I can tell, Farrakhan is a terrible anti-semite.
I have been going back and forth on a voting decision -- our state's primary is Tuesday. After reading all this, I may be back to Clinton. (I disagree with PZ that she is less progressive than Obama; most commentators view her health plan as much more vigorous than his.)
Maybe instead of bemoaning our choices we should start drafting a platform for a new rationalist party?
PZ, I think a lot of people are reading that statement differently than you are.
you see it as a call to religious people to inject morality. I see it as a statement that christianity isn't the only religion in the US that should be positively represented in Washington. A rather ecumenical statement, really.
I do find it interesting how important a candidate's religion seems to be in the US. I have no idea what my MP's religion is. I only know that my PM is a christian because it's been mentioned. Only reason I know my last PM was a catholic was because the vatican felt it necessary to criticize him for his stand on gay marriage (i.e. for it, as a basic human right).
(of course, I also find this fascination with political spouses weird...I'm not sure what my PM's wife's name is, or if my MP is even married)
I just traced the quote in comment #28 to this: http://www.alternet.org/story/38260/?page=4
It is all attributed to Obama, and much of it is quite good from a secular standpoint, i.e., it's about the best one will get out of a religious believer.
BobC #47 said: Senator Clinton is very pro-science and seems much less god-soaked than Obama. Hillary said "God bless you" in Iowa to suck up to the Christians there, but she thinks creationists are morons. I would bet she's an atheist, but would rather be president than admit it.
I don't know...this is a woman who actually chose to use the words "prayer warriors". Check out this article on her religiosity from Mother Jones magazine, which has the teaser blurb: "News: For 15 years, Hillary Clinton has been part of a secretive religious group that seeks to bring Jesus back to Capitol Hill. Is she triangulating--or living her faith?"
Seriously, does it matter that much whether he believes or not in the invisible bearded guy in the sky? Christopher Hitchens does not, yet he's all for waging war on the infidels in Babylon all the same as the chimp in chief. The thing is, you can't be running for pres. in the US without paying major lip service to the churches.
Obama has the support of Lawrence Lessig (constitutional lawyer, founder of Creative Commons, defender of P2P), btw, while the Clinton Corporation has given the world the DMCA and is in bed with hollywood types. He is the only candidate who is seriously pro net neutrality and open access. If you're a free thinker, IMO, you want someone who is going to guarantee /actual/ freedom of thought, even if he happens to believe in god(s).
PZ said "I seem to still be waiting for a chance to vote for a freethought city councilman, so it may be a while."
Maybe you should stop waiting and run yourself?
PZ "I reject the claim that I'm cherry picking"
Reject it all you want: I hate to say it, but you've misrepresented him here. Cherry picking is perfectly applicable. It makes no sense to simply ignore entire sections that directly contradict your interpretation, and then lamely excuse yourself with saying that he's "weaseling away from any revelations that might alienate a constituency" when you were the one playing fast and loose with the original meanings.
The fact that you will vote for him has nothing to do with making him say things in your summary that he didn't actually say in his speech: you have ignored caveats that seriously weaken your claims and you imply far stronger and more exclusive meanings to things than the text actually warrants. You only need to compare your summary to the text to see this.
The passage you quote is him arguing that its not wrong for people to bring their religious values into political debates. That's a fair point, and I agree with that. And in fact, the text is basically saying that all the Christians, Jews, and Muslims are, in fact, NOT living up to their moral beliefs, and should. What's wrong with that? It's basically calling them hypocrites.
Nowhere does he say that secular people are without values, or that the lack of values in politics is the fault of secular people. And yet this is exactly what you imply.
Talking about religious people and about being a religious person and how those things can be positive and shouldn't get left at the door is not a threat to atheists. It's very easy to frame that sort of thing such that it DOES exclude atheists and argue that they don't have their own values that shouldn't get left behind. But it's also possible to avoid doing that. Obama did the latter. You are claiming he did the former.
I am voting for Obama as well.
Do I really have choice otherwise?
PZ,
I really enjoy your blog, but this is pretty ham-fisted for someone who is usually a bit more, well, discerning. I'm no defender of Obama, but he does go out of his way (in a venue where doing so is itself risky) to avoid the implication you attribute to him:
"In fact, because I do not believe that religious people have a monopoly on morality, I would rather have someone who is grounded in morality and ethics, and who is also secular, affirm their morality and ethics and values without pretending that they're something they're not."
Similarly with the point about King's speech, which, to restore context, goes:
"Imagine Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address without reference to "the judgments of the Lord." Or King's I Have a Dream speech without references to "all of God's children." Their summoning of a higher truth helped inspire what had seemed impossible, and move the nation to embrace a common destiny."
This, rather cleverly, says nothing about Dr. King's beliefs or motivations. The point is a purely rhetorical one--by clothing conceptions of social justice in the common language of religious tradition, King "helped inspire," and who would be bone-headed enough to think that thousands of church groups around the nation would have been equally inspired, absence any content about god and religion? Moreover, especially in King's day, what secular groups would have had anything like similar mobilizing power? No doubt secular groups were equally committed to social justice, but it's not hard to imagine what the common social reaction would have been to a blanket rejection by such groups of religious themes. This isn't logical, it isn't at all fair, but it is entirely democratic.
How to include atheists in the dialog, while writing them off in the end...
From the Obama site: So let's rededicate ourselves to a new kind of politics - a politics of conscience. Let's come together - Protestant and Catholic, Muslim and Hindu and Jew, believer and non-believer alike. We're not going to agree on everything, but we can disagree without being disagreeable. We can affirm our faith without endangering the separation of church and state, as long as we understand that when we're in the public square, we have to speak in universal terms that everyone can understand. And if we can do that - if we can embrace a common destiny - then I believe we'll not just help bring about a more hopeful day in America, we'll not just be caring for our own souls, we'll be doing God's work here on Earth. Thank you.
Thank you, Barack!
By chance, I decided to start catching up on my blogs directly after reading the text of this speech. I'm not American, I AM an atheist, and it thrilled me. The paragraph you quoted first is not my favourite, but contextually, he was addressing the fact that people of faith have a role to play in government. The whole speech was about not forcing your faith on the populace, but rather translating that faith into morality. He talks about how literal readings of biblical stories fail hard (slavery, child abuse, not eating shellfish...) in the arena of building a moral nation. I really think that focusing on that one paragraph is disingenuous, because if you have read the entire text of the speech, then you've also seen this:
"In fact, because I do not believe that religious people have a monopoly on morality, I would rather have someone who is grounded in morality and ethics, and who is also secular, affirm their morality and ethics and values without pretending that they're something they're not. They don't need to do that. None of us need to do that."
He is clearly (and repeatedly) not saying that the godless are amoral, unethical. He is speaking inclusively.
Myers in 2012!
Count another vote against PZ.
Where does Obama say "special"? You mean this?
Believers do have, in one sense, a sort of "special privilege and obligation" --- for the obvious reason: since they run the damn place and will for the forseeable future, they have all the power, thus the responsibility, thus the moral obligation. And you certainly aren't saying you think they shouldn't "inject morality"?
You are just parsing his words incorrectly to fit your own hobby horse.
The more I hear about what Obama actually believes/supports, the more I support Clinton.
I tend to be a little wary of Obama just because his supporters give off too much of the rah-rah vibe, almost reminding me of who supported Ron Paul just two months ago, but the religious rhetoric and his statements on trade, in particular, cause me to distrust him.
Plus, Clinton continues to win me over with everything she says, with her hardline stance on science (if Obama can't even make a hard statement on something obviously factual, like evolution, how can I trust him?) really pushing her over the edge. I'll be voting Clinton this year.
Here, by the way, is what grates me in his speech:
"But a sense of proportion should also guide those who police the boundaries between church and state. Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation - context matters. It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase "under God." I didn't. Having voluntary student prayer groups use school property to meet should not be a threat, any more than its use by the High School Republicans should threaten Democrats. And one can envision certain faith-based programs - targeting ex-offenders or substance abusers - that offer a uniquely powerful way of solving problems."
I'm fine with voluntary prayer groups in schools. But just because "under god" doesn't oppress or brainwash in extreme terms doesn't mean its not wrong. If you are all for voluntary prayer and expression, why support ANY mandate of government directed observance, no matter how trivial? And the faith-based programs stuff walks a thin line. Again, it's fine for organizations that have a religious mission to be contracted to provide services on behalf of the government. But their METHODS and program cannot be exclusively or coercively faith-based. Reforming criminals with Bible readings is out: providing criminals with access to all sorts of materials, including Bibles and religious leaders: that's fine. But what's the difference between "pray away the drug addiction" and "pray away the gay" programs? If the government wouldn't support the latter, why should it support the former?
Yes, he is speaking inclusively. He's also perpetuating stupidity.
He should be ashamed of himself. He should be ashamed that he goes into churches and perpetuates this God crap.
He should be leading people out of their ignorance instead of reinforcing it.
Because our leaders are too chicken to stand up and say that belief in God is bullshit, half of the country is mired in religious ignorance.
Wake up, Obama.
At what point did Obama turn into the Messiah of all things good and pure? The next Kennedy, the harbinger of hope and change. He's an OK orator, but not thaaat good.
It seems like I'm reading a different transcript to the majority of people on this page. I missed the bit where Obama called Richard Dawkins his favorite bedtime read and promised free candy for all atheists. All I saw was a long boring happy-clappy touchy-feely speech which wouldn't look out of place coming from the mouth of that great philosopher Oprah Winfrey (who's incidentally one of his key backers).
This is the guy whose campaign slogan is identical to the catch phrase of 'Bob the Builder' (a British TV program for kids). "Yes we can" is a vacuous rallying call which could only inspire three year olds or Nickelback fans.
I will concede that Obama was right on Iraq, but can't we get a little bit more substance from him? I realize he's going to cure poverty and heal the sick, because that's what Jesus did in the Bible, but would it be asking too much for him to explain how he's going to accomplish all of that stuff? I mean, apart from praying real hard.
Come back Ron Paul supporters, all is forgiven! You're not the most boring people on the internets after all.
As jeffk said, I also think that Obama is not particularly progressive. Of course one would be obliged to vote for him against war-monger McCain, but Hillary would make a far better president.
All religious issues aside, the notion that Obama is the more progressive candidate is ludicrous.
Edwards was at the front of the pack in that regard, with Clinton a short distance behind. Obama was a distant third.
Now he's a distant second, and he continues to make statements that harm the progressive agenda, especially if he does get elected.
Obama's healthcare plan is not universal by any measure. It is, at best, something better than what we have now, which isn't saying much. His beliefs about Social Security are straight from the Republican side of the aisle. There is no SS crisis. His contention that we need to leave bitter partisanship in the past is wishful thinking. All of the items on the progressive agenda will be opposed by all Republicans. None of them can be achieved without bitter partisanship.
There's no question I'll vote for him over McCain, but I'd much rather have Clinton than him, now that Edwards is out of it.
PZ, I don't know how long you've lived in Minnesota, but if you were here in 1998, you had a chance to vote for an atheist governor, Jesse Ventura. Ventura was, IMHO, pretty cool in many ways--I'd way rather have him than our current Governor Goodhair--but he was so abrasive and obnoxious he alienated everyone he needed to work with to get things done.
I recently got into athiesm after reading The Demon-Haunted World, God is Not Great, and The God Delusion this summer, so I'm fairly new to the movement.
I know of groups like Emily's List, that focuses on funneling money and resources to women political candidates. Are there any groups doing work like that with athiests and agnostics? That could be something interesting and useful to be involved with.
cm #65, thanks for the correction. My idea that Hillary is an atheist was just wishful thinking.
Kucinich was actually the most progressive, but Edwards would have been my choice in the caucuses...but he bailed before I could vote. That was my one reservation about Edwards, that he didn't seem to have the heart for the race, and was too prone to fold when confronted.
Frankly, I have no idea who will be better between Clinton or Obama. They both have their strengths and they both have their weaknesses. However, one thing I do know is that we can't afford to have another Republican president in the White House next year, especially one who so wholeheartedly supports the Iraq war and one who promises to nominate right-wing ideologues to the Supreme Court. These two positions alone could cause damage to the nation for decades to come.
Whoever ends up with the Democratic nomination, it's our duty to see that we are united in bringing this country back to it's senses.
Christianjb:
Cesar Chavez is rolling over in his grave
"All religious issues aside, the notion that Obama is the more progressive candidate is ludicrous."
These sorts of debates are, I find, sort of pointless. Countless people on the right deride Obama for being a way bigger liberal than Hillary. "Who is the better progressive" seems to turn almost entirely on what examples get picked. I think it's probably a fools game to think that we can predict which administration will be more progressive. I just hope that Hillary turns out to be a lot more progressive than Bill was, since I think she'll pull this out in the end.
CalGeorge: "Because our leaders are too chicken to stand up and say that belief in God is bullshit, half of the country is mired in religious ignorance."
Like it or not, the reason is not denouncing religion that they are chickenshit, but that they actually believe it. I mean, Hillary is part of a Bible-study group with Sam Brownback for goodness sakes, and she isn't even all that public about it. Obama is part of a church that gave an award to Louis Farrakhan. These folks are not playacting, they are believers, with all the baggage that comes along with that.
Obama at the least acts convinced there is something about his Christian religion that is motivating and helpful for him. But, I believe he has a very reasonable view towards nurturing relationships with secular people (especially since he grew up in a secular family) and he includes several strong statements in favor of separation of church and state.
Here are some quotes:
"In fact, because I do not believe that religious people have a monopoly on morality, I would rather have someone who is grounded in morality and ethics, and who is also secular, affirm their morality and ethics and values without pretending that they're something they're not. They don't need to do that. None of us need to do that.
"For one, they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice.
"Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are 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 nonbelievers.
"And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application?
"Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.
"If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing.
"So the best we can do is act in accordance with those things that we all see, and that we all hear, be it common laws or basic reason."
That said, he does at least come near the line addressing some issues that will concern some secular people:
"Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation - context matters. It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase "under God." I didn't. Having voluntary student prayer groups use school property to meet should not be a threat, any more than its use by the High School Republicans should threaten Democrats. And one can envision certain faith-based programs - targeting ex-offenders or substance abusers - that offer a uniquely powerful way of solving problems."
The above passage does not negate his many strong qualities, in my mind. I do not agree with PZ that a major point of Obama's speech was to state that Christians have a central and privileged position in government or with respect to morality - I gathered the exact opposite. In fact, I believe anyone that left with that impression must have allowed smaller details to cloud the big picture. He recognizes that 10+% of the country is non-religious, and many more also do not practice any organized religion. He sates very clearly that religions people do not need to become secular to be a part of government, but they also can not argue on religious terms in politics, but must instead use argument amenable to reason. I was very happy to watch the entire speech and it made me more likely to vote for Obama, even though I am a secular atheist.
who I don't see advancing secular government in a progressive direction;
Fer Chrissakes Myers, you just better hope the next President stops the war before he or she gets all progressive.
There's my nightmare "bipartisan" policy! 'You give us health insurance, and we will give you the War On Iraq, and then everybody will be happy!'
Unfortunately, we are forced every election to make concessions to our (lack of) beliefs and choose the lesser of two or more evils.
I would like to point out that at his rally last year to open his campaign for Senate, Al Franken made an impassioned stand in favor of all the good that science has done, and stressed that if elected he will work to restore "faith" in the value of science and all the good we can learn from scientific endeavours.
That is the biggest point in my support of Franken this year.
I also suspect that Obama's faith is genuine rather than mere pandering; whether that is better or worse I can't yet hazard a reliable guess. He strikes me as the Dems' answer to Reagan: lots of warm & fuzzy rhetoric to encourage an optimistic "morning in America" feeling (just like his campaign logo!) that will inspire and motivate the electorate as long as they don't examine it too closely. (Like Myers, I'll likely be holding my nose while pulling the lever for Obama.)
(more here.)
First off, it's silly to say you'll never vote for someone over one speech, as PZ seems now to realize.
Secondly, I can't believe all of the people who are trying to make the speech all inclusive:
Ooh, he's willing that not everyone take the exalted religious path, because authenticity matters. Great. I suppose it's better than pushing inauthenticity, but frankly the bit I quoted above could have been stated by many preachers, albeit the more liberal ones.
Still, PZ is somewhat shifting the focus of some of Obama's words. Obama's pushing for Jews, Muslims, and Xians to inject morality into the legislative process, mainly because he's pushing every politician to do so. Is he acting like the religious have some special morality to push, though? I think the context says "yes," for he appeals to Biblical statements about the poor, when in fact there's little sense in the Bible that gov't ought to level inequities, instead exhorting the rich to be better. A lot of religious people do that, too, with little effect.
Overall, the speech is a dog, then. He's claiming that religion betters individuals and the polity, using himself as an example among many:
Yeah, what fucking truth is "His truth"? Hell, or genocide of the Canaanites?
And I'm not saying that Obama's worse than, say, Clinton. I'm just saying that a comparison of the two ought not to gloss over the fact that Obama's telling people that religion has "His truth," something that came out of the lips of Falwell and D. James Kennedy as well. It's BS, and it needs to be called BS, regardless of which dog we send to the White House.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
I'll be honest, I'm anything but an Obama fan. I don't like his pandering to religion. I don't like his messianic/Reaganesque campaign. I don't like his hiring an ex-gay, homophobes to open his campaign venues. I don't like the gutless, Neville Chamberlain way he does politics and refuses to stand up to the gun lobby, energy lobby, anti-abortion lobby, etc..
I firmly believe we're in a serious fight with the ever more nutty Republicans for the future of our country. And someone who compromises and refuses to stand up to Republicans in a "bi-partisanship" manner will accomplish nothing. This election is just too important to elect an empty shirt whose political career is defined best as "caving on virtually everything" while making pretty speechs.
#44 said
"I wouldn't call Adams a freethinker. He was a rather devout believer and critical of Jefferson's and Paine's lack of faith."
yeah, he was devout in a wacky, deistic kind of way. but not only did adams deny the trinity, he also denied the divinity of jesus. here is adams writing on january 22, 1825, to warn jefferson against staffing his new university of virginia with professors from europe:
"The Europeans are deeply tainted with prejudices both Ecclesiastical and Temporal which they can never get rid of; they are all infected with Episcopal and Presbyterian Creeds, and confessions of faith; they all believe that great principle which has produced this boundless Universe, Newton's Universe and Hershell's universe, came down to this little Ball to be spit upon by Jews; and until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world."
got that? it is blasphemy, in adams' view, to say that god appeared on earth in human form. that's devout deism, alright, but it sure wouldn't cut it with falwell or dobson--or most of the current American electorate. nowadays you have to swear your allegiance to the flag and to baby jeebus, your personal lord and savior.
i don't much like the tinge of anti-semitism in adams' complaint (what, it's worse getting spit on by a jew? tell me about it), but i sure would rather have a president who was a rationalistic deist than another christian bigot.
(and obama? i'm hoping that a lot of that talk is just talk).
PZ please take it back. You have to know that whatever candidate gets elected they will only do so by saying such things, true or not, sincere or not, it doesn't matter.
Would you rather McCain be president? Do you not know what is at stake?
Think about the Supreme Court and don't make a stand on principle here, it is too important that you let it go. Hold your nose while you vote if you must.
You know very well what us godless heathens have been through under the current administration. You know what setbacks we have seen and have narrowly avoided. You think things are bad now, just imagine what it will be like when Bush gets a 3rd term.
The day will come when a rational non-believer will run and win, but it won't be soon and it will be even longer if we miss our opportunity to set the country back on course.
-Mark
How about electing someone who doesn't roll-over for the Republicans every time push comes to shove? Because, by-and-large, that's what Demo-Reagan has done.
"Take it back"? Take what back? My admission that I'm currently planning to vote for the guy?
I really don't understand the argument here. I've said that despite my reservations, I'm voting for him...so now I'm also supposed to revere him or something?
I think Obama's position on faith, reason, and the separation of church and state to be far better than I expected possible in this election cycle. The regressive christian right has been so successful in reframing the debate in the broader popular culture that any candidate who stands a chance must pander to faith. The crazy thing about Obama is that he seems to have struck the perfect position. So perfect, one could easily suspect that it is :cough: "perfect by design". Yet it comes off as being completely genuine. I accept it as being genuine, and some of my christian friends and relatives trust it as being genuine (and some of them are committed to voting for him if given the chance).
Read Obama's official statements on faith, given here:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/faith/
Here are some highlights:
Let's all keep working towards neutralizing the power of the regressive christian right, and restoring respect for reason and science. The pendulum has a long way to swing before we can achieve our ideal end state. At this moment in history, I believe Obama is by far the best remaining candidate for helping us achieve our goals.
• Faith should not be used as a wedge to divide.
When hasn't it been? As long as a "faith" has no content it won't divide people, but that's the only way.
Did you miss our podcast on this, PZ?
I'm with PZ on this. Assuming Obama is elected, would he make his decisions during the next major national/international crisis with a firm grounding in reality? Or would he step into a private room somewhere, and pray to the sky fairy for guidance?
We already have a sitting president who thinks he has a direct hotline to God, and who thinks his adventure in the Middle East is divinely sanctioned. We don't need another one. That quote in #59 above where he says he prays each night "...that I am an instrument of God's will. I'm constantly trying to align myself to what I think he calls on me to do" does not inspire confidence.
And yes I know we're going to get someone who self-identifies as religious anyway, no matter who is elected. However, I'm actually more comfortable with a very low-key believer who is mostly posturing as deeply religious for political advantage, than with a true deep believer who poses as someone with a respect for secularism and separation of church and state for political advantage. With Obama, I'm just not sure which of those we're getting.
I did vote for him in our state primary despite that nervousness, mainly because I object to the dynastic, dual-presidency implications with Clinton. Her health care plan is more comprehensive, but she failed last time during Bill's administration by overreaching, and Obama's plan may have a better chance of actually getting somewhere. Also I think Obama will end the war in Iraq faster than she will, with a more direct approach. You can't triangulate your way out of a disaster like that. So Obama remains only the best of a flawed field for me, and not the reincarnation of JFK and Elvis combined, that many seem to think he is.
Here are a couple other paragraphs worth highlighting:
Sure, it would be great if the President of the United States who could speak about religion the same way PZ or Dawkins or Hitchens does, but I hope all of us recognize that's just an impotent fantasy. If we want to make real change in the popular culture, we need a leader who can convince faith heads that the separation of church and state is good for the country and benefits their religious freedom. We need a leader who can speak genuinely about his faith and then assert with authority that faith cannot trump reason in public life. None of the other candidates can do that. I think there is reason to believe that if Hillary is elected, then in 4 or 8 years there will be another evangelical backlash. If Obama is elected, with a little luck, in 8 years we'll be able to elect someone a little more progressive and less overtly religious.
#102 - "Sure, it would be great if the President of the United States who could speak about religion the same way PZ or Dawkins or Hitchens does, but I hope all of us recognize that's just an impotent fantasy."
This is related to the point I was trying to make earlier. Atheists in the US have to start small and run for local offices. Not as Atheists but for what they believe, if religion is raised be honest, don't pander. If people are bigoted towards Atheists we have to prove them wrong.
I wouldn't trust Hillary in the secularism department, knowing the company she keeps.
On the gay front, let us not forget that her husband gave us the Defense of Marriage Act (which she will not repeal) and Don't Ask, Don't Tell. Obama is in favor of abolishing both of these, and goes out of his way to speak of acceptance of gays in areas where it would not be expedient to do so (MLK's church comes to mind).
I'm surprised no one mentioned the drugs.
But, seriously, I was surprised to even see this:
I'm always surprised to see any reference to anything remotely intelligent in these "bios" -- and I think the last time I heard anything that made me blink was Clark saying, on TV, that his "favorite philosopher" was David Hume. Certainly not my "favorite," but still, not too shabby as a choice. (I'm sure most of the audience was, like, "David who?")
Could Obama actually be a Nietzsche dude, masquerading as religious in order to secure power?
Nah...nevermind...
There is one thing I want to pick up on, and that those who say they want to be able to vote for a candidate who is openly atheist.
I live in the UK and I do not know the religious beliefs of any of my elected representatives. They have not felt the need to inform me when canvassing for my vote and I would not think of asking them. I would find it odd if any candidate thought it important to tell me his or her religious views, to the extent where I would be very unlikely to vote for that person. The same would apply if a candidate was making an issue of being an atheist. I would consider irrelevant and wonder just why they were making an issue of it.
I would argue then that rather than wanting to have an atheist candidate to vote for,which would suggest a political system in which religion is still playing a strong role, it might be better to wish for a situation where a candidate's religion is not relevant.
Someday I hope to vote for a candidate who makes the public statement "My religious beliefs, if any, are none of your business. If elected, I promise never to make them your business."
Of course, I was brought up in the Northeastern U.S., where the culture is usually one of live, let live, and consider other people's religious beliefs or disbeliefs to be none of your business unless you're close friends and have a mutual desire to talk about the subject. When political candidates start in on religion, it has the same effect on me as if they started talking about their favorite sexual positions or the detailed results of their recent colonoscopies. ("Hey, dude, I'm glad you had that nasty polyp removed. But what does it have to do with your economic policy?")
MAJeff,
not to get sidetracked here, but if I correctly recall earlier comments of yours, you aren't actually a big fan of gay marriage? I give my own thoughts on the matter less weight, perhaps, than I gve yours, because I (i) am not gay and (ii) am married, so for me the issue is intellectual, not personal.
Still; I have friends who would love to marry if only they could, but they cannot. It angers me that they cannot marry. It embarrasses me that I can while they cannot.
I don't disparage the civil union thing. In fact, my own preferred solution would be that marriage as a legal concept disappear altogether, to be replaced by civil union. The gender of the partners whose union was registered would be irrelevant. Civil union would be the entire basis for the state's contemplation of the people involved.
Now, if a civilly-unified couple chose to carry out some additional ritual because they shared some (most likely, but not necessarily only) religious belief, fair play to them. Their wedding is their own affair, and I wish them all the happiness in the world, whatever they believe (or don't believe) about a world to come.
If a Christian couple think that God somehow binds them together until they die, or a Mormon couple think God binds together even beyond that, well, you and I might think that silly, but I'm not sure how it is our business. And if the sect they belong to refuses its blessing to same-sex couples (or indeed, if only theoretically, it restricts its blessing to same-sex couples) who cares? I am neither a Christian nor a Mormon, for example, and don't care what those people who are get up to, as long as the state is not involved and the believers in question stay out of my face.
Mrs. Tilton,
I'm critical of marriage, not completely opposed. I'm also critical of the movement--but that's a conversation being worked out in my dissertation. But those critiques are mainly about the distribution of benefits, rights, etc. to one and only one family form and how that distribution is related to forms of inequality. (And I'm even more critical of polygamy because it's most often just a way for rich men to collect women's bodies.) However, because the term is so widely used (even having a status in international law) I'm not gonna go toward abolishing it or replacing it with civil unions.
However, as marriage is a civil contract, clergy should have no status in certifying it. You go to the appropriate state office, fill out the paperwork, pay the fee, and you're married. Anything above and beyond that is up to you.
Now, back to the Obama-fest.
One last thing
I don't disparage the civil union thing.
For me, at least, the whole civil union thing is kind of insulting. As I mentioned above, when gay folks asked for marriage, rather than saying ok, legislators decided to segregate us into a separate legal institution, to create all new sets of legal rules just for us, and just to keep us out of marriage. Sure, it provides more security for couples in about 6 states, but the entire process has been demeaning.
And we're supposed to be grateful.
I've never understood this position. Maybe you can help me. Aren't you just suggesting that we take what is now called "marriage", open it up to all couples, and call it "civil union"? Why is this preferable to taking what we now call "marriage", opening it up to all couples, and not changing the name? That's what we've done in Massachusetts and it seems to be working.
CalGeorge wrote
Good point. Here is another good example of how to include atheists in the dialog while writing them off in the end...
We have the same old claims - that this is a nation founded on faith, that all significant social progress was achieved by religious people, and that the majority of the country are religious - that the religious right uses to diminish the citizenship of those who don't believe in a God. In addition this statement insultingly suggests that leaving God out of our pledge will demoralize our troops and mentally damage our children.
These are the words of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton from the Senate floor on June 26, 2002. She still proudly displays the statement on her Senate website.
#107: Someday I hope to vote for a candidate who makes the public statement "My religious beliefs, if any, are none of your business. If elected, I promise never to make them your business."
Obama thinks your wish is absurd:
But what I am suggesting is this - secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King - indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history - were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. So to say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public policy debates is a practical absurdity. Our law is by definition a codification of morality, much of it grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wu-c3VgHCUQ
New Roy Zimmerman Video: "Eine Kleine Barackmusik" by Roy Zimmerman
But what I am suggesting is this - secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square. Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Williams Jennings Bryant, Dorothy Day, Martin Luther King - indeed, the majority of great reformers in American history - were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause.
Best argument is that Lincoln was a closet atheist who only used religion in the same context as Einstein and other secularists. But, in typical fashion, the religious will unabashedly grab the heros, hide the clay feet of their own, and blame the secularists for all manner of evil acts.
Just to make the Obama people fall back in line. Let me mention that Hillary totally likes Deepak Chopra.
I'm actually unworried about Obama and his faith. Son of an atheist and "spiritual" skeptic of religion... I might actually believe a stealth atheist rumor. He describes his conversion not as an epiphany but as a choice. And though, a number of parts of his speech do very much reflect a bit of a naive view on atheism, he fully understands the wall of separation between church and state like nobody I've seen in recent years (outside of Keith Elliot). He was a community organizer for a long time working with churches and they kind of give you dumb ideas about morality.
Admittedly I'd like to ask him a few questions about the speech, it was in front of church folks after all. And a number of things irked me. But, listening to it again (as I did yesterday) it's not that bad.
In one of the debates I remember Edwards said something about believing his religion but refused to use it as public policy. I thought that was stupid. I swore I wouldn't support him, but shortly there after supported him again. Then when he dropped went to Obama (who I avoided initially, in part, because of this speech).
CalGeorge wrote
Good point. Here is another good example of how to include atheists in the dialog while writing them off in the end...
We have the same old claims - that this is a nation founded on faith, that all significant social progress was achieved by religious people, and that the majority of the country are religious - that the religious right uses to diminish the citizenship of those who don't believe in a God. In addition this statement insultingly suggests that leaving God out of our pledge will demoralize our troops and mentally damage our children.
These are the words of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton from the Senate floor on June 26, 2002. She still proudly displays the statement on her Senate website.
NOTE: PZ I'm reposting this. Lately half my posts are held up for moderation and then never get posted, so I'm not sure if this one is still in process or is lost.
"Don't let the pefect be the enemy of the good."
I will never be able to vote without qualms for anyone. I'm voting Obama for pragamatic rational reasons. I also think pissing on any of the better alternatives still in the race is not very pragmatic or rational, especially when you don't have anybody running who remotely lives up to your freethinking acid-test.
In this one respect, even the current Bush outshines Obama in that respect, when he said early on (in a marked improvement over his father):
"But we've got to recognize in our society that strong values are shared by good people of different faiths, and good people who have no faith at all."
He repeated something similar during the 2004 presidential debates. Granted, he's screwed up so many things that this could never have swayed me to vote for the man, but if even he could add that little bit to his speech, then it's a shame that candidates for a party that's expected to at least pay lip service to tolerance for marginal minorities can't do the same.
Taken on the whole, I'd far rather have Obama than McCain (who was luckily the least offensive of his group). Clinton would be better, and Edwards would have been better still. But we shouldn't mistake the lesser evil for a good.
Now if someone could just convince Mike Huckabee (or at least Ron Paul) to run for a third party. . .(evil laughter).
Well, I'm roughly the same age as you (I'll be 50 in July), and I feel I can safely say this: In our lifetimes, there will be no openly atheist occupants of the White House.
With that in mind, I voted for Obama on Super Tuesday, and am very happy to see him gaining momentum. However, I also think the Democrats will figure out a way to blow this, and also predict McCain will win in November... And may even regain their majority in the Senate.
I ain't happy about it, but somehow, some way, I think that's how it'll work.
On Hillary.
When Obama stated that using nuclear weapons wasn't appropriate for use against terrorists, Clinton stated that "I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or nonuse of nuclear weapons."
That's enough for me. She's a hawk, always has been. Look at her record. Still won't admit she was wrong for her vote to authorize war powers for Bush. Do we really need another 4 years of someone who can't admit mistakes?
Again, I'm not rah-rah Obama, but compared to the rest? Come on now.
I think (and hope) that Obama basically means, he expects the religious people to support those progressive values because the are in some ultimate sense foundational to those traditions. IOW, it is hypocrisy for evangelicals to stew over saving themselves from God's wrath etc. when Jesus said of those who didn't express liberal welfare-istic values (!):
"You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me."
Many of those disaffected by religion (especially Christianity) have been turned off by smug righteousness-based Falwellian types and have forgotten just how liberal many of Jesus' sayings were (well not us Unitarian Universalists since we love to quote them to conventional religionists.) Those liberal sayings are the most likely to be accurate, say the critical scholars (our UU minister was a member of the Jesus Seminar.) But Johannine and Pauline theology got the upper hand, with the emphasis on belief, atonement, etc.
I don't have any reason to believe something unnatural happened back then so I consider the teachings to be special insights by a special person. That's still worth being inspired by the best of it. Whatever faults he has and some offbeat church entanglements, Obama will surely not promote religious intolerance etc. One thing I do worry about, as I commented on Washington Monthly:
I like Obama and think he has an edge in the GE for, guess what, likability factor. However, I just saw one of his commercials and it worries me a bit. It was a little grandiose with the slightly messianic buzzwords, I think I even say literally "We can save the world." He is supposed to be reasonably humble, but it comes across a bit like a idealist personality cult. No big deal considering how pitches go, but worth a little Hmmm factor?
Quotemine:
Conversation, context and FULL QUOTE:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Story?id=3441342&page=1
Clinton gave Obama what we call a lesson in history. You, OTOH, just got a lesson on the foolishness of quote-mining on a science board. You might get away with that on the DailyKos, where the thinkin's gone away thanks to the Kool-Aid drinkin', but not here.
What I see is someone who knows how to use diplomacy (Clinton), versus someone who caves even before he needs to cave (Obama). Which is why he's always selling out to the Republicans.
What a record he has!!! He caves on women's rights, so the Republicans can't use "pro-abortion" votes against him. He caves on gun-control, so the Republicans can't use those votes against him. He caves on regulating the nuclear power industry, even after they failed to report leaks, because he's afraid of the Republicans. He constantly votes to support the war, even though he ran as an anti-war candidate because he's afraid of the Republicans.
Of course Obama's not going to use nukes. Fuck, he's afraid of the Republicans and that they might say mean things about him for voting for women's rights, gun control, regulating the nuclear power industry or stopping the fucking war in Iraq.
And you know what, neither is Clinton. But at least she's not going to surrender BEFORE she starts.
#1 you nailed it! Madison, Jefferson, Paine...are rolling in their graves!
A TOTAL LACK OF EDUCATION especially history and political education is rearing it's ugly head here.
Huckabee wins Virginia and Kansas? JEBUS!!!...it is truely an indictment of those education systems...and we should consider it a criminal offense and a huge national security and defense issue...we've literally got the flying spaghetti monster defending us. Virtue and morality would be found if we indicted those governors and houses and senates and throw them all in jail!!! See how they like that morality.
The discussion here should be on education or the lack of it is our REAL enemy...not a virtues or morality stump speech. Obama, Clinton, Arcan, Huckster IMHO are all a bunch of fricken ignorant dopes! In simple, there is no virtue or morality in stupidity.
Everyone here can see religion and stupidity wrecking our country...the more religious and stupid these clowns, er, politicians are (think Bush esp.)the more likely they are to pull the trigger on others, lie, waterboard, sell coke for missles, break and enter, pardon felons, etc...
Now, look at the crime rate in stupid religious states...the more religious...the more criminal...religion creates a total virtue and moral vacuum because it is all lies, lies, lies!
In short, the more honor and virtue we have by these idiotic religious people the more lies and intolerance and dysfunctional behavior we display.
Obviously, I've had it with the whole mess.
I understand that one may have to pander to as many different types to win an election. I fully expect religious talk. I just am suspicious of Obama's self proclaimed role of uniter of the two sides. Is this just code speak for "I won't mess with the status quo to much so don't you republicans worry"?
I'm worried about that and his judgement. He stumped for Joe Lieberman for Jeebus sake.
He also is going to enact standards that will lower carbon emissions 80% by 2050. Coincidently that will be when 1 million species will go extinct due to rising sea levels from global warming.
Way to unite the two sides and not rock the boat, yada, yada.
That is my fear yet I will vote for him if it comes to it rather than a republican. They deserve to wallow in irrelevancy for 20-40 years for what they've done to America and the world.
...he praises Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech for it's religious content...
Aagghhh! Stop abusing the apostrophe, PZ!
Whoa, PZ. That's one heck of a lot of misunderstanding of what Obama said.
You want to build bridges to the secular part of the nation? Then don't assume the godless are the amoral, unethical, venal part of society that you need to discipline with a ruling majority of religious saints in government.
Uh, what? Here's Obama on the subject:
And
And
And
And
Who else on the public stage, let alone someone running for President, talks like this?
This speech confirms more than ever my preference for Obama. Sure he's a Christian; all the candidates were/are Christian. They are all religious rationalizers. But given such a restricted choice, the question is, what is it that they rationalize, and what's their message to their fellow religious rationalizers?
What a record he has!!!
A record you don't present, but only lies straight out of the Clinton playbook instead.
"But we've got to recognize in our society that strong values are shared by good people of different faiths, and good people who have no faith at all."
How is that Bush outshining Obama when Obama said pretty much the same thing in his speech? Did you even read it, or did you just trust PZ's quote mining and mischaracterization?
But we shouldn't mistake the lesser evil for a good.
That's absurd; "evil" and "good" are both comparative, and Obama is definitely "a good" in numerous ways (as is Clinton).
How to include atheists in the dialog, while writing them off in the end...
BS. "in the end", he said "I believe". He is, after all, a Christian.
But, in typical fashion, the religious will unabashedly grab the heros, hide the clay feet of their own, and blame the secularists for all manner of evil acts.
Having a hard-on for Hillary is no excuse for this bullshit. Obama has not blamed secularists for any evil facts.
I reject the claim that I'm cherry picking: the clear message of this speech is that people of faith have a special privilege and obligation in bringing virtue to government
You can only defend that claim by cherry picking. Bad said it best.
Senator Clinton ... seems much less god-soaked than Obama. ... I would bet she's an atheist, but would rather be president than admit it.
That must be some mighty tasty Koolaid.
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0509,lombardi1,61604,6.html
...
Etc. etc.
truth machine #134, Thanks for the information. My idea that Senator Clinton is an atheist was wishful thinking. At least she isn't as god-crazy as Hickabee.
Obama's ability to frame progressive policies in terms of values that make sense across the political spectrum is nothing to be sneezed at. I'm amazed at the inroads he's made with people who are lifetime Republicans while saying things that I agree with as well.
Indeed. People like Moses get this exactly backwards. Or MAJeff:
and Obama's "post-partisan" nonsense are both troublesome ... He's a lawyer and politician.
Odd that you forget the latter when evaluating the former. Obama is aware that poll after poll, for the longest time, has shown that most Americans hold progressive values; that the BS about "moving to the right" has been a myth. And it is around those values that he unites, and his speeches are full of these themes, not just "empty phrases" as his detractors claim. And even his slogans are progressive; it's no accident that "Yes we can!" is English for the farmworkers' rallying cry "Si, se puede!", and "We are the change we've been waiting for" is radically inclusive. Meanwhile Clinton blathers hollowly about being "ready for change, ready to lead" (is that, uh, "change we can believe in"?), while McCain offers "100 more years!".
At least she isn't as god-crazy as Hickabee.
The comparison at point here is to Obama.
P.S. Someone recently told me that Obama, Edwards, and the Clintons are all atheists. When I asked her to justify this claim, she said that they couldn't get elected if they were to admit that they're atheists. My observation that she was assuming her conclusion produced a more detailed (and hostile) expansion of the argument that atheists can't get elected.
What many of the religious and atheists alike fail to understand is that in the realm of politics and culture, appeals to both faith (spiritualism, prophecy) and science (rationality, logic, naturalism) tend to be post-hoc rationalizations. That is, God and Science are window dressing for beliefs they would hold anyway as a matter of group identification, satisfaction of psychological needs, and perception of self-interest.
That's why both theists and atheists are capable of both reasonableness and fanaticism on political and cultural matters.
There is a rather long analysis of what is wrong with Obama's policy at the following site.
"Could the angry blusterers be .... Progressives? Harshing the mellow with their demands for accountability and the restoration of Constitutional government?
Do we really need the kind of politics that tells us to lay back and enjoy it?
The country can't afford to wait for Obama to discover that his strategy of conciliation has failed. Do the math. Reid and Pelosi tried "reaching out" in 2007. Nothing will happen in 2008. Assuming Obama takes office in 2009, it will take his conciliatory strategy a year to fail, which it will, since he's doing the same thing Reid and Pelosi did while expecting a different result.
That brings us to 2010.
Can the country really hold out against a runaway Conservative Movement that long?"
http://www.correntewire.com/obama_stump_speech_strategy_of_conciliation…
You cannot have conciliation or bi-partisanship with today's Rethuglicans. They have to be opposed every inch of the way. Turn their decades long tactics on them. If we try to find "compromise" with the Rethugs, we lose. They do not compromise. Their view is: what's mine is mine, what's yours is mine. There has to be constant bashing of today's conservative, indeed reactionary, ideology.
The site onegoodmove gives more on the problem with Obama.
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/
There is a rather long analysis of what is wrong with Obama's policy at the following site.
It's foolish to confuse a reference to "bipartisan" in a stump speech with "policy". Obama's actual history in the Illinois legislature shows that he politely drags people over to his side. And as President he will have executive power and and a Dem Congress and need not concede anything.
P.S. It helps to pay attention to what Obama actually said:
I've learned in my life that you can stand firm in your principles while still reaching out to those who might not always agree with you. And although the Republican operatives in Washington might not be interested in hearing what we have to say, I think Republican and independent voters outside of Washington are. That's the once-in-a-generation opportunity we have in this election.
It's a campaign strategy, not a governing strategy.
There are some good comments in the DailyKos thread where that "rather long analysis" (which was about a lot more than Obama) was also posted. e.g.,
As an external ovserver I find Obama the ONLY candidate I would vote for given the chance. He's the only one who makes a lick of sense in his speeches and he's the only one who doesn't reference god in his 15min "I just one a ridiculous non democratic bribery contest" speeches.
By the way, the US political system is a joke. Why do you people put up with this nonsense?
Here's a good article on Obama's strength as a political candidate:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/19/14954/786/504/422578
Obama is neither significantly more nor significantly less progressive (or religiose, for that matter) than Clinton. What he is, is a hell of a lot stronger general election candidate. Right now that's just about all I care about, because the prospect of a President "100 years in Iraq" McCain should be intolerable to any sane person.
@Peter M. (#61):
You are right that Obama's statement on evolution is somewhat difficult to interpret. Here it is in it's entirety:
Remnick, who at this point could be considered the President of the United States of Magazines, forced Obama to address the topic of religion. "It's not 'faith' if you are absolutely certain," Obama said, noting that he didn't believe his lack of "faith" would hurt him a national election. "Evolution is more grounded in my experience than angels."
I interpret this to mean that, for him, to have "faith" in something means that you are not certain about it, but that religious people often use "faith" to mean that they are certain. He has the first kind of faith (meaning he is not sure that the teachings of religion are true), but thinks that his lack of the second kind of faith will not hurt his chances. Finally, evolution is true for him because he can experience it (unlike angels, which he must believe in without evidence).
I admit that this interpretation goes somewhat beyond what he says, but it is in line with other statements he has made about religion (for example, that he would call the police if he saw Abraham getting ready to sacrifice Isaac, because although Abraham may be hearing god's voice in his head, our actions cannot be based on such voices but only on what can be directly experienced by everyone).
From that Daily Kos article cited in #145.
"Obama gives us something very different - he wants to change the system."
I doubt this very much. The biggest issue: he is not in favor of universal health care via a single payer system. That would represent true change.
He's for change "we can believe in" - whatever the heck that is. Maybe it's the kind of change he thinks the Republicans will accept.
This is not just unfair to the candidate, it's also unfair to his supporters. The phenomenon you've noticed reflects the fact that Obama's candidacy has provided a home for folks who can't see themselves voting for Sen. Clinton; it does not mean that the core, nor the majority, of Obama's supporters are willing to hold the nation's future hostage to get votes for their candidate.
The truth is that there is a bipartisan constituency that won't (or at least, claims it won't) vote for Mrs. Clinton under any circumstances: Liberals who think she's a McCain-loving, warmongering, Bush-lite corporatist; right-wingers who think she's this close to being a communist; self-appointed moralists on both sides of the aisle who hold it against her that she's married to that "dope-smoking, draft-dodging, skirt-chasing SOB"; a small subset of feminists who are angry that she's stuck by that "skirt-chasing SOB"; and tinfoil-hat-wearing nuts who think she murdered Vince Foster.
Mind you, I think all of that is completely irrational. I think Sen. Clinton is smart, capable, and sincere, and while she might be a bit to the right of my ideal candidate, I think she'd be a perfectly acceptable president, and orders of magnitude better than even the "best" Republican.
But the existence of this visceral negative reaction to all things "Clinton" is real, and must be considered. It doesn't really have anything to do with Sen. Obama... in fact, it predates Obama's candidacy by more than a decade.
As a strategic, political matter, it's important to note that there is some group of people who are willing to vote for a Democrat -- specifically for Obama -- in this particular election, but who are not willing to vote for Sen. Clinton. Obama's position is not anti-Clinton: I've heard his stump speech in person, and while he highlights differences in their positions and records (as any primary candidate must do), he never bashes her personally and never suggests he wants anything but a Democrat in the White House. As an Obama volunteer during the (winning!) Connecticut primary campaign, I never met anyone within the campaign (volunteer or staff) who said they would withhold their vote from Sen. Clinton if she were the nominee. We were all working to win the White House for Democrats, for the sake of protecting the nation (and the world) from the deleterious effects of continuing Republican rule; we just happened to think Sen. Obama will be the better candidate and the better president.
As for Obama's religion, I'm completely satisfied that he's committed to secular government, whatever his personal beliefs. Given that I'm not worried he's a secret theocrat, the fact that he can speak the language of faith is a Feature, Not a Bug[tm], because it makes him a more broadly appealing candidate and thus more likley to defeat Sen. McCaincient.
Considering the percentage of Americans (including many Democrats and liberals) who currently identify as people of faith, it's impossible to imagine anyone winning the presidency without talking about faith at some level. We definitely need strong voices leading the public away from their superstitious delusions; it's unrealistic to expect, at this moment in history, that those voices can come from the Oval Office.
I heard Obama say these words (or words very like them) in Hartford the night before Super Tuesday, and I absolutely believe they honestly reflect his approach: His talk of bipartisanship is not about compromising principles in the manner of Joe LIEberman or John McCain; it's about getting as many of the nominal "other side" onboard with those principles wherever possible.
I would add, though, that it's not just a campaign strategy: Those "Republican and independent voters outside of Washington" will become Republican and independent constituents outside of Washington, and pursuing the kinds of change we need to repair this country after the Bush debacle will require the support and consent of more than just the core of liberal/progressive activists. I think Obama's position is that we don't have to fight with people over things we don't really need to fight about, just because they're "on the other side." If the changes we hope to make are to be sustainable beyond the next election cycle, they're going to need the support of a broad coalition of Americans.
The thing is, far larger percentages of the public support liberal/progressive ideas than actually self-identify as "liberals" or "progressives." To fix things, we need to focus on the ideas, and try to get past the "team mascot" labels.
I see someone did mention Pete Stark, however, percentage-wise, freethinkers are literally the most under-represented "religion" segment of society. I'm not aware of the congressional status of native americans or indians, so I can't claim we're the most under-represented segment period, but I wouldn't be surprised. We're certainly the only segment where laws still prevent us from holding office.
There are laws preventing nontheists from holding office? Where? Any such law seems like it would be a clear violation of the "no religious test" provision of the Constitution. Are there really any such laws, other than archaic provisions that are still on the books simply because they're never enforced, and therefore don't produce the test cases that would get them thrown out by the courts... as they certainly would, even in these days of Republican-packed federal judiciary.
I agree it's virtually impossible for an "out" atheist to get elected to major office... but that's due to politics, not law.
No wonder it's a "dream" - you have to be asleep to believe any of it! Look American atheists, you live in of the most religious countries on Earth. Most Americans are religious, especially Christian. So OF COURSE politicians are going to be also, or at least pretend to be, to garner more votes. Their religion will unshakably take precedence over everything they do. And that includes morality. To them , no religion means no morality, "religion" is synonymous with "morality". Progressive, regressive, Republican, Democrat - they are all religious, to pretend to be...
If the rational, atheist minority don't like the religion-tinted spectacles through which politicians see the world, they can move. Atheists are usually affluent enough to pack up and go live elsewhere, so they ought to, and then return when things are less theistic. But then again, a captain wouldn't abandon ship just because it's sinking, he'd try to stop it sinking.
Would you rather a "man of faith" like Obama be president? Or a woman whose incompetent push health care reform in 1994 catalyzed the emergence of the religious right in American politics, and whose family has Billy Graham on speed dial? Or perhaps a preacher who is substantive only insofar as his cache of one-liners, who resembles a simian and yet doesn't believe in evolution? Even still, you could opt for McCain, who will undoubtedly run on a ticket with that idiot child, Huckabee.
Even if you were a single-issue voter on the matter, Obama's faith is not a dealbreaker, but for each of the other candidates, I think it would be.
Wow. I am usually right with you on issues PZ, but we part ways here. Maybe I am just being pragmatic, but that speech cemented my support for Obama. Hell, I donated after watching it. I know I am not going to get an atheist president, but I will take a man with a faith tempered by reason if I can get it. How often do you get someone willing to call out the ridiculous part of their faith to a religious audience? He understands church/state seperation and appears to let his reason win out on the important issues. Not perfect, but good enough and certainly the best of the possible choices left.
MAJeff, "However, as marriage is a civil contract, clergy should have no status in certifying it. You go to the appropriate state office, fill out the paperwork, pay the fee, and you're married. Anything above and beyond that is up to you."
That is the way it is in France, except you also have to go before the mayor to certify it in a public ceremony. No mention of gawd or religion whatsoever, and I know having done it.
France also has the civil union called the PAC. Furthermore, it is not only for same sex couples. Members of a family, say brothers and sisters, can also sign a PAC for business and personal reasons. It gives the same advantage as "marriage" for regulating inheritance and tax and health insurance issues. If one dies while they share a business or a house, the other is recognized as the inheritor.
Picking up on the marriage/civil union digression...
Dunno if that's what Mrs. Tilton was suggesting, but it's my position... except that I wouldn't use the term "civil union," which has become tainted as a second-class version of "marriage"; instead, I'd call it something like "domestic partnership," which gets to the heart of things (as I'll explain in a sec').
Because the word "marriage" inevitably refers to things I think are no frickin' business of the state, and thus should not be mandated or regulated as part of a civil contract.
Let me 'splain what I mean: "Marriage," as it is commonly understood, involves (it seems to me) two distinct clusters of rights, privileges, and obligations... one cluster involving essentially economic partnership and the other relating to emotional, spiritual, and sexual aspects of the relationship. I believe the state (i.e., the public) does have a legitimate interest in encouraging the formation of economic partnerships between individuals for their mutual support, and for establishing households and raising children (if they so desire), and so I think the existence of civil domestic partnerships is appropriate.
OTOH, I think the state has no interest in inserting itself into the private emotional, spiritual, or sexual lives of consenting adults... and without these aspects, domestic partnerships no longer fit the longstanding definition of "marriage."
So my proposal would be to abolish civil "marriage" altogether and replace it with domestic partnerships, which would be open to any two adults who chose to enter into them, regardless of their personal relationship. These partnerships would include virtually all of the legal rights and responsibilities of what we now call marriage, but would make no reference whatsoever to sexuality, love, or any religious promises. Couples who chose to could still make whatever promises they pleased regarding love or sexual fidelity or permanence, and religious congregations could still consecrate those promises in whatever fashion they chose, but none of that would be any business of the law.
By thus separating out the private/religious aspect of the partnership (we could still call that part "marriage," if we like) from the civil partnership, we would neatly be providing equal partnership rights to all without regard to sexual orientation, while completely defanging the reactionary nutjobs who don't want their sacred "marriage" tainted by teh gayz. In addition, we'd be opening the benefits of domestic partnership to nonsexual pairings -- platonic roommates, adult siblings sharing a home, adult children living with a widowed parent -- to the general benefit of all.
But more importantly, it would be the first step in a larger program. Equal rights for gay people is just the most obvious expression of a deeper principle: that the state has business telling us (which is the same thing as saying we have no business telling our neighbors) who to have sex with, or what kind of sex to have, or what promises we should make to each other about love or sex, or what promises we should make to (nonexistent) God about love or sex.
In a perfect world, I would like the law to be entirely blind to the consensual sexual activity of adults. That is, I think any law that promotes, prohibits, encourages, discourages, or regulates any consensual, adult activity solely based on its sexual nature should be stricken from the books.
Sound radical? Not really: Coercive, nonconsensual activities would still be illegal, as would child abuse and behavior that caused a public nuisance. Public health issues would be regulated as public health issues, not punished as moral failings. In all, it would be a saner policy, and more truly respecting of our professed love of personal liberty.
Of course, it'll happen when pigs fly... [sigh]
Urrrk! In the fourth-from-last paragraph of my previous comment, it should (obviously) be "...the state has no business telling us...."
[blush]
Obama - "I do not believe that religious people have a monopoly on morality..."
It's not acceptable to allow that non-religious peopkle may be just as moral as nutters. The fact is that nutter morality includes rape, child abuse, torture, stealing whole countries, genocide...
The list goes on. It's for nutters to recognise that this is NOT morality and to change their behavious and attitudes.
I am an atheist and I think you HAVE YOUR HEAD WAY UP YOUR ASS. In caps in case you can't hear.
Let's put it this way: if you were a Christian, would you run Mike Huckabee in Sweden? No, that would be suicide.
The guy comes had an atheist Mother, came to religion relatively late in life, is unequivocal in his support of science and the theory of evolution, and this has been entirely consistent over the years.
I'm not exactly sure what you want in a presidential candidate who could possibly win in 2008 America.
I'm glad you mentioned the contemporary tendency to emphasize MLK's religion as though that was all he was about, and as though MLK's religious practice was of the same super-militant variety prevalent in the US today. As you said, his religion informed his words and deeds but it was not responsible for his momentous efforts at building a better society. I've been to more than one MLK event in recent years where churches and right-wingers tried to remold MLK into some sort of religious zealot, and he was absolutely nothing of the sort.
This thread may be dying down, but after thinking about it more during the day, I wanted to make one last comment.
PZ, did you really read the entire speech from beginning to end? I have to agree with some others here -- your criticisms smell of quote mining. Consider the context of the speech. He was speaking in a church to a religious organization. He very skillfully defended both the separation of church and state and asserted the necessity of basing arguments on reason in public discourse. We need leaders with "moral authority" who can do this. You should not be bothered by your vote for Obama, he's on our side in all the ways that really matter.
Heh, I assume it pisses all of you all off that it seems impossible to admit to being a non religious person and be elected a president (well it pisses me off). So i would also suspect it annoys you when someone who is christian or whatever will only vote for a christian or whatever no matter what their record or policies(ie how rove got bush elected). So why do you all seem to want the most non religious person elected regardless of policy?? Slavery was mainly abolished based on pressure from religious leaders. Much of the black movement was fueled by religious leaders (King, Malcomn X).
FInally did you guys read the mother jones piece on Hillary and the book about HIllary's faith? They both are religious christians from liberal protestant churches, they both have spoken loudly about division of church and state and that is fine with me. But read the whole Obama speech about religion before you pronounce judgement based on this post.
According to a recent account in the NYT Magazine, Obama's more of an agnostic than a believer. He claims to find inspiration in church, even if he doesn't really believe the supernatural bits. Now, I know this is enough to make PZ's head explode, but good luck finding somebody better, PZ. Hillary, by all accounts, actually believes this stuff. And I should say, although I'm not a believer, I understand the desire to find community within a liberal church or synagogue. Doesn't make it right, but I understand.
PZ, your non-belief leaves the door open for immorality because nothing is binding you to being good.
Do you see how inane that sounds? See the forest for the trees and don't be so prejudice against anyone who holds faith. It's petty.
Some people see this as a bitter fight to the end. Demonizing the other side is exactly what we don't want to do. It is not practical and simply gives off an elitist vibe.
@ #144 "By the way, the US political system is a joke. Why do you people put up with this nonsense?"
It keeps dangerously incompetent sappy wobbleheads out of the private sector where they could do real damage.
the prejudice is against faith... not the people themselves. faith is stupid. get over it.
If somebody already said this, I apologize.
Oprah endorsed Obama. That says it all.
OTOH, Hillary said (In South Carolina, I think, so it may have been pandering) "What a wonderful day the Lord has made."
I reached the conclusion that it is impossible for me to be represented in an elected government in this country. I am a nonbeliever, I think "professional" athletes are a waste of skin, I value evidence over ideology. Any of these views would keep a politician out of office.
Worst. Endorsement. Ever.
(Meaning only that it was incredibly tepid. Go Obama!)
PZ, I enjoy your blog, and I think reading it has encouraged me to be more forward and honest about my atheism, but every once in a while I read a post like this...and...how can you be so angry and threatened by religious people, or even people like Obama, who from my reading of the speech is not very religious as all? It seems like you deliberately disregarded some parts of his speech....here's a quote from the same speech you were criticizing:
"In fact, because I do not believe that religious people have a monopoly on morality, I would rather have someone who is grounded in morality and ethics, and who is also secular, affirm their morality and ethics and values without pretending that they're something they're not. They don't need to do that. None of us need to do that."
This seems to be in direct contradiction to your statement that he is assuming that: "the godless are the amoral, unethical, venal part of society that you need to discipline with a ruling majority of religious saints in government."
When I read the speech I see a very honest and human portrayal of his experiences with religion, as well as an attempt to extend an olive branch, to heal a rift with a group of people that us atheists, really need to learn to live with and understand as much as well dislike them. If only so people we agree with can win elections.
We *really* don't need to start punishing good politicians for being good at what they do(ie helping people compromise)
You really dropped the ball on this one, PZ. You cherry-picked your quotes, (deliberately?) misinterpreted them, and threw a fit at something that simply was not present in Obama's speech.
In short, you just did what you so often criticize and ridicule evangelicals for.
Comments 28, 29 and 39 bear repeating.
(Did Obama really say what's copied in comment 28?)
This is such a weird and surprising article to me. I have the opposite attitude towards Obama. I'm an atheist and the reason I think Obama is pretty great is that he seems to be a closet atheist accepting the practical necessity of being Christian in order to be elected president. I think the reason he talks about his religious beliefs is to counter his image as a liberal intellectual. The typical dumb religious person is scared of someone smart and rational like Obama. He had to change his PR strategy earlier in his political career because he came off as a typical detached intellectual type. It was only a few years ago that he got good at a more down-to-earth populist style of public speaking. I'm sure there are a lot of hyper-religious people in America who don't trust Obama because he talks, walks, and acts like an atheist intellectual. His parents were atheists and he was obviously a typical skeptical intellectual type of person until he faced the political realities of America and got a nice shiny badge of membership in the Christian club. He has to market himself as a Christian to have any hope of being elected. I mean, just listen to the way he describes his journey of faith in that speech! He practically comes right out and says it was for the expediency of religion as a tool for social change instead of a personal belief. His phrasing is incredibly detached and calculated. He doesn't say it was because he's gaga for God or whatever. It's like he's embarrassed to admit he turned Christian and he has a brilliant pragmatic justification for it. I think Obama is an atheist deep-down inside, but is ambitious and clever enough to hide it. On the other hand, I think either Clinton is a typical semi-non-religious semi-intellectual who pretends to be way more religious than they actually are, but actually cling to the typical little shred of "maybe there really is something to it" instead of being genuinely enlightened and understanding religion as absurdism.
In any case, Obama is a politician. He's selling himself to people. Atheists like him because he's smart and at least understands atheism pretty well. Theists like him because he does an adequate job of proclaiming theism and he sticks to a fairly neutral, non-partisan style of theism that's not very Christian-specific. It's all just image control and marketing to please as many people as possible. I think he's a cool guy, perfectly qualified for the job of president, and a billion times better than McCain, but all the hope and change stuff is just rhetorical fluff. He's just another status quo figurehead for a deeply corrupt and broken government. I would love to see Nader or Paul as president because even though they have a lot of warts they would genuinely try to solve problems at the root and make real change, not feel-good illusions of change. Even with these reservations, I'm voting for Obama and I'll share in the joy of his victory because small steps forward are still steps forward.