« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Atheists Rejoice
When I read Sen Obama's speech on the faith based initiative today, the first things I noticed were his inclusion of secular community organizations among those that should be supported and including people of no faith when he was listing the religions that we should be tolerant of. This is not the first time he has included us. He has included us every time he has spoken of religious tolerance. This marks a change in kind not just degree. He has actually embraced us. No politician has done that before in my lifetime. There is something to complain about in this speech but not nearly as much as there is to celebrate if you are an atheist.
The Working Class Heretic
Advertisement
Comments (120)
But... but... but... I thought Obama was a religious fanatic?
July 1, 2008 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not so much that this overly sensitive atheist can tell it.
July 1, 2008 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's still unconstitutional, from where this more skeptical atheist sits.
Public trust as well as public office are barred from religious tests.
And, does Obama even know, for example about Secular Organizations for Sobriety or Lifering Secular Recovery, among the alternatives to AA and NA?
Does Obama believe, as does Arianna Huffington that AA works better, in part because it’s faith-based, than do non “spiritual” treatments?
The answer is, Yes, Obama does believe that:
And, if Obama is so “inclusive,” then why does he set up straw men like this:
Quotes via Free Inquiry.
(And, no, AA doesn’t work better.)
Would you like to try being more skeptical, and stop giving atheism a bad name?
July 2, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
That second quote is pulled out of the same speech that Dobson quoted trying to paint Obama as a heathen secularist. The fundamentalist on both sides of this argument ar cherrypicking quotes out of context to turn his subtle nuanced position on religion in a personal context and secular arguments in public debate as their favored straman.
July 2, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama and Arianna Huffington believe that AA "higher power" crap? It's to puke. I'm still for Obama, but really. Ike didn't have a religion. He didn't have a political party, for that matter. After the Republicans conned him into leading their tribe, they said he had to have a religion. Presidents have a religion. He said, in essence, pick one for me. They picked Presbyterian, mild, non offensive. Oh, how I long the good bad-old-days before the GOP morons let the religion thing out of the bottle.
July 2, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Alright, I'm agnostic, but I'm still going to jump in on this. That second quote is indicative of how people feel they are being told that they can't have any part of their religion in a public area. Yes, it's misguided, yes its incorrect, and yes you can start going on about oh it's really rich of the majority to talk about being oppressed.
But after you're done with that, you'll be in the same deadlock and super pissed. The thing is a lot of Christians just don't want to be told that they can't practice their morals, their beliefs, and their values in public actions and decisions.
Although you might mean: Hey I keep it cool and don't hang an angel on the Christmas tree in town square this year, they're afraid it's going to mean: Keep all of your values that you cherish away from me because I'm completely against them and they're terribly offensive so you can't practice or talk about them and it should be against the law.
So, in that sense I think what Obama says is really constructive. He's sticking up for the heathens but at the same time he's saying "look let's all get along and stop bitching."
July 2, 2008 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stuff and feathers, Tikitembo. What Evangelical Christians want, with the encouragement of the GOP, is Sharia-Lite. They want the rest of us to follow "God's law." No atheist or agnostic that I know cares what they believe or how they live their lives. We just don't want their values inflicted on the rest of us. We shouldn't stand for our tax dollars being funneled their way. If Janet Jackson wants to flash her nipple, big f'n deal. Having said all that, I remain a Barack Obama fan.
July 2, 2008 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Larry,
Thanks for posting on this subject.
While I'm grateful Obama has been careful to include people of no faith when speaking of religious tolerance, I am worried about his stated wish to expand the "faith-based initiatives" the Bush Administration was going to use to achieve their...er...compassionate conservatism.
I'm Christian and believe in an appropriate role for churches in social activism, but I am very uncomfortable with the whole notion of having a program of "faith-based initiatives" under the direction of the White House. And even though he says proselytizing and discrimination based on religion would be prohibited, I think the potential for abuse would be unmanageable.
July 1, 2008 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
The entireity of this program would be a pimple on the ass of the fraud waste and abuse in military contracts. Also if you look arround the world the nations where the church gets the most state support are the ones where church attendance is the lowest. Do not think that giving churches what they want in the best thing for them.
July 1, 2008 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just didn't like this program under the Bush Administration because I don't believe Bush was concerned about managing the separation of church and state. Even if I trust Obama to conscientiously manage the separation, that doesn't mean I'll trust future Presidents.
It'll just take a lot of reassurances to make me comfortable that this won't be abused.
July 2, 2008 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I trust the ACLU to take care of litigating this to death if it is abused.
July 2, 2008 12:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Word! Now that's what I call civil society.
July 2, 2008 5:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
One might say, and I do, that the existence of this program is an abuse in itself.
That said, I "rejoiced" when Sen. Obama's campaign renounced the AP story yesterday.
July 2, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
And isn't it interesting, that in truth, the basis for all of us in our support of Obama is Faith!
Faith he will prove we are right to hope.
Faith in his judgment.
Faith in his ability to lead us in a better direction.
Faith that we can unite and be stronger for it.
Faith that we are right to trust him with our future.
And he has Faith in us and in America that we can be and do better.
When all is said and done, we base our lives and our country in our Faiths.
July 2, 2008 12:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, in all respect...speak for yourself, sister. I support Obama not out of faith but out of reason. And I am skeptical of this faith-based crap he's pushing. I am voting for the man despite my concerns...not because I have faith he'll do the right thing with regards to Faith-based initiatives or FISA or what have you...I expect--unfortunately--to be disappointed.
But he is a brilliant man who is more in line with my ideals than McCain. I have every intention of calling him out when he begins to act like a Republican. I don't have faith in the man. I know what I know about him and based upon all that...I will vote for him.
Think.
July 2, 2008 7:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
faith - n. Belief in the truth, value or trustworthiness of someone or something. (Websters Dictionary)
July 2, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well...to be honest and pick a few nits, I consider my support for Obama a gamble. I don't have faith in any human being--even the ones I love the most. We're just so flawed.
Let me say, with Obama, I'm taking a gamble and having a lot of hope!
:-)
July 2, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Note the word "Belief" starting that sentence.
I like to define belief as an opinion without a basis is evidence or an opinion that actually is contradicted by evidence.
But regardless of how one defines belief, belief ain't based on fact. If it were, it wouldn't be belief.
July 2, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
...which is not to mention that the whole thing is unconstitutional.
July 2, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, Tom! Long time, no T!
July 3, 2008 7:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Kool-aid must be getting too strong. Now we swoon because Obama included us in the "new and improved" faith based initiative he has put forward. Forgetting of course that prior to this all government funded programs were secular (read atheist).
July 2, 2008 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is a difference between secular and atheistic. By denying this you play into the hands of Christanists who wish to portray secularism as anti religion. Your intolerance of religion reflects poorly on us as atheists.
July 2, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, Larry. I appreciate your understanding of that--it's a necessary part of religious tolerance in this country.
I tip my hat to you.
I'm a Christian, but you and I are quite compatible -- natural allies.
July 2, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you Ma'am.
July 2, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I associate myself with the responses from The Council for Secular Humanism:
http://ga1.org/secular_humanism/notice-description.tcl?newsletter_id=9392743&r=
And Americans United:
http://www.au.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr009=cuzf3rubv4.app5b&abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=9927&security=1002&news_iv_ctrl=1241
This is a bad idea.
July 2, 2008 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know, Larry...I just went back and reread his speech as well. And I have to say, you are trying to make a great deal out of very little. Obama barely mentions secular groups and only in passing. His entire speech is about religious groups and about giving these religious groups--who already do not have to pay taxes--tax-payer money! His sop to secular organizations is just that...a sop.
Your talk of him "embracing us" is over the top. When he gives a speech similar to this--as thorough and all encompassing and focussed as this one--about secular organizations and the non-religious community in the United States, then I'll be as impressed as you. Little toss-offs like the above are not going to cut it for me.
July 2, 2008 8:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, he wants to give taxpayer money to college students who will happily beer bong it away with no thanks whatsoever to the taxpayers who are footing the bill. Hell, he wants to give money to the fucking PEACE CORPS!!!! Can you believe that asshole? Who the hell does he think he is? Fuckin' leftie. That's the problem with these Democrats--they want to raise your taxes so they can fritter the money away on all these stupid social programs. I heard Obama has some deal now where he's going to give taxpayer money to poor people (some sort of coupon or something) to help them buy groceries. For WHAT? What the hell did they do to deserve the money. No fuckin' way. I'm not voting for a guy who's going to turn around and give taxpayer money to a bunch of lazy losers with their hands out.
July 2, 2008 9:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gosh rabbikitty, you sound just like my republican uncle!
July 2, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was Rich Little in a past life.
July 2, 2008 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the relief.
July 2, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're right, Loki. This is political crappola at its worse. He's been looking at numbers and demographics again. They all do. We'd all be better off if there were a federal law against polling. That way politicians would be required to actually read, not mirror. Years ago the social critic Dwight McDonald said people either get what they like (Obama sucking up to the Evangelicals) or like what they get (If Obama had stood up for the principles of a secular society.) His people, their eye ever on those frigging polls, advised the former.
July 2, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
oops, that should be "lead" not "read."
July 2, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
So we're so beaten down that when a politician merely deigns to note in passing that (contra George H.W. Bush) we might actually be citizens too, that's enough to make us fall all over ourselves in gratitude? Count me out, Larry. The Council for Secular Humanism got it right.
July 2, 2008 9:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tollerance should be met with tollerance. I for one am glad to see some tolerance for us expressed. It beats the shit out of being demonized as the evil godless.
July 2, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is somewhat sad, but I admit that I prefer being slapped in the face to being kicked in the groin. No, Obama is not our atheistic messiah. However, I suspect his sympathies to us go even deeper than he's willing to admit right now (or possibly ever). His father was an atheist, after all.
I don't expect more from him on this than I would from any major Democratic figure. I also don't expect any less. Compare his speeches however to Romney's "faith speech", however. Romney seemed to go out of his way to kick us in the groin repeatedly. I don't think McCain is as bad as Romney, but I expect he'd be worse than Obama. Mainly, I think he's trying to keep his mouth shut about it, but I could be wrong.
July 2, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is one elected official who does not believe in an supernatural entity. He's Congressman Pete Stark from California and when he spoke up last year and affirmed that he did not believe in supernatural gods, etc. I actually cried. It was the first time I felt that I truly had representation in government - although in a different state and such a wee bit of representation. I called his office and left a message of thanks with his staff.
So, yes, we probably are beaten down enough that when a candidate tosses us in as an afterthought, it's nice to hear. Certainly beats Bush's dad who thinks we should not be allowed to be citizens.
July 2, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are likely quite a few more who are atheist or agnostic. They're likely afraid to call attention to it, though.
It's a shame.
July 2, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shameful confession here:
I secretly assume a certain number of those who list their religion as Unitarian as probably having a naturalistic worldview. I sincerely hope they do.
July 2, 2008 3:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would be willing to be that there are many in government who profess to be Christian who are elitist atheists who believe that the masses cannot handle the truth and use religion in a purely cyinical way.
July 2, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, OA, you may have something there.
I myself have a lot in common with Unitarians. I'm a Christian, but don't believe in all the "magical" crap (I know, you're saying, "Wha.....???") like the virgin birth and physical resurrection. I don't even think of God in a theistic sense. Nor do I believe any religion has a truer or better understanding of God than others, or that morality is inextricably tied to faith.
My feelings about my Christian faith pretty much line up with this guy's views.
My point is, there may be quite a few people out there who identify themselves as Christians, who don't fit the "conventional" American Christian profile.
July 2, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is absolutely none of my business, and I won't be the least offended if you refuse to answer, but I'm curious as hell:
Why do you call yourself a Christian, given the entire comment I'm responding to?
July 2, 2008 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a great question!
Yeah, I know--I don't believe in all the stuff that's "required" of Christians. Here's what I do believe: Jesus of Nazareth was a real dude who had an extremely rare and strong effect on others because he had a special "relationship" or understanding of God which he was able to convey--more effectively than had ever been communicated before--to the people he encountered. He was so loved because of his "way"--or the way he made others feel when they were in his presence--that made others feel he was something "more" than human.
Actually, though, I think his understanding of God (an "essence" rather than a being) was an extreme statistical rarity--like one in trillions--and his ability to communicate God's essence to much less evolved humans was what made him so special. I think all the mythology and "magical" stuff surrounding the stories about Jesus are the result of a sort of unsophisticated way of grasping his message. Call it the result of the limits of normal human understanding.
Now. A rational and reasonable person (like yourself) would naturally say, "This is still all just manufactured stuff. There's no reason to believe any of this junk." To which I would have to reply, "You're right. I have no reason to believe--nobody has reason to believe."
I confess, I don't have a "good" explanation for why I believe. And I understand that I might be full of shit--but at my core, if I'm completely honest with myself about it, I really believe it. I've simply observed that it's there--it wasn't something I strived for or tried to cultivate.
I understand why this would sound nutty to you. Really it's a conclusion I drew after observing my feelings and my way of coping with some very difficult events in my life. And some very joyful ones, as well.
I could go into more detail but it would bore you to death (you may have nodded off before getting this far in my comment) and it's probably way more information than you wanted anyway!
But I appreciate your interest.
July 2, 2008 10:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know whether this conversation even belongs in this thread, but WTF, hijacking threads has been certified as a full-credit intramural sport at TPM, so...
Your response is neither verbose nor boring in the least, IMNSHO. Given your premises -- and I'm guessing, your upbringing -- it sounds to me like the most rational way to be a Christian. To a person with my mindset, the whole "god" thing is a bit weird, but I can certainly empathise with the desire for one and can understand how that desire could lead to faith.
All that said, you still sound more like a buddhist than a Christian to me. Try this: Sit cross-legged on a pillow, put your hands in your lap with tips of index fingers barely touching the tips of your thumbs, and say, "Ow-oooommmmmmm."
Did that feel right?
July 3, 2008 8:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
One of the reasons I support him. Faith is clearly an important issue for the Senator, and respect for others' views is even MORE important.
July 2, 2008 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Working Class Heretic – I’m with you. Obama grew up in a non-religious household, raised well by his mother and grandparents. He knows first hand that religion is not needed to be taught morals and to lead a moral life. He's also seen the value of religion, not as an indoctrinated child, like many of us, but as an open-minded educated adult.
No politician needs to mention "people of no faith, nonbelievers, atheists and agnostics" but Obama does - consistently. I've noticed it and even stood up and clapped upon hearing it. He is actively including us. Too bad that this inclusiveness is such a big deal in the 21st century, but that's the reality.
I don't know the details of his faith-based plan, but based on what I know of Obama, I'm thinking and hoping (but not praying) that it will work to all our benefit.
PS to bornagaindem: “…prior to this all government funded programs were secular (read atheist)” Newsflash – secular and atheist are not synonyms. Secular is not related to religion, atheist is not believing in god
July 2, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. It may seem like a minor point to some, but it's actually a very major point. Obama is going out of his way to be inclusive. Which is what his candidacy has always been about. Details are important.
July 2, 2008 10:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know, you're right. Details are important - in fact this
"little" detail makes all the difference.
Damn I'm happy to see this.
July 2, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
In this country, about the most atheists can ask for is inclusion and the fact that he always includes atheists is pretty fucking amazing. And as far as I know, it's a first for a candidate.
This makes me feel really good - I didn't know this and thanks for the post telling me about it.
July 2, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
First?? Oh fer chrissakes, even George W. Bush has used phrases like "people of any faith, or of none" in speeches. I don't remember any of you falling all over yourselves to praise him for that.
July 2, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, Obama is just Bush in a Democrat suit. You're soooooo right.
July 2, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Blogging Tip #74: From time to time, it is wise to respond to the actual content of a comment, rather than distorting the comment in order to justify vitriol. WARNING!!! Remember that we said "from time to time." Employing this practice too often can lead to boring results such as rational discourse and the revelation of truth, so use sparingly.
July 3, 2008 7:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
WTF? Your reading comprehension needs a lot of work.
You know who's actually Bush-like here? YOU, since you said something completely stupid (MANY presidents and other politicians have made that little cost-free rhetorical nod to "people of no faith"; Shrub was far from being the first either) and instead of acknowledging that you were wrong, you come up with this weird bullshit attack out of nowhere. Nice work.
July 2, 2008 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Steve, you need to grow up, man. If you don't see the difference between Bush and Obama, you need to wake up, too.
July 2, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Steve LaBonne - regarding G Bush - did he mention people of no faith when he was a candidate? Don't think so. In what context has he used it now? I'm glad he's using it and I don't doubt what you say, and I also don't think you can compare a lame duck president's occasional remark to a presidential candidate's consistent theme.
Tena - Your welcome! and keep listening for it in Obama's speeches. So far, I haven't been disappointed. I'm also waiting - with trepidation - for the msm to notice.
July 2, 2008 10:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another idiot. Since none of you seem to be able to read: I did NOT compare Obama to Bush, dumbasee. I pointed out that not only is Obama neither first nor unique in making a rhetorical nod to unbelievers, but EVEN BUSH of all people has done so. Jeezus. Learn to read, people!
July 2, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
I second the motion that Steve LaBonne grow the hell up. And I would like to make a motion that he LEARN TO USE THE FUCKING "REPLY" LINK, YOU FUCKING MORON.
July 2, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you have anything coherent to say on the topic. bunny? I thought not. The idea that Obama parenthetically mentioning "people of no faith" is some kind of big novelty remains nonsense no matter how many people parrot it.
July 2, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your comment does not, in any way, diminish my fervent hope that you will some day grow the hell up.
July 2, 2008 10:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
And in return, I offer for you my heartfelt wish that you'll someday have something intelligent to say. But I'm not holding my breath.
July 2, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Catbunny humor takes a towering intelect to master I am simply in awe. If you fail to see that I can see where your inability to see the way Sen Obama's discussion of those of us without faith differs from the way other politicians (with the notable exception of our socialist Senator Bernie Sanders) discuss us.
July 2, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
comes from.
July 2, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you have a link to back that up? I'm skeptical. Don't get me wrong—I believe that you believe it, but I won't believe it myself until I see it. (Just call me the doubting Thomas of atheists.)
July 2, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
That was directed to brantflamb. As to Sara- I don't remember about the first Bush campaign, but he most certainly said it multiple times before his reelection, when he was NOT a lame duck.
It's just not nearly as big a deal as people are making it. It cost Obama absolutely nothing to say that, and it's completely irrelevant to judging his faith-based proposals.
July 2, 2008 10:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
"It cost Obama absolutely nothing to say"
So when Obama does something good, you excoriate him. When he does something bad, you excoriate him. With Steve, it's not carrots and sticks. Just sticks.
I for one, as an atheist, love being included for once. Including secular organizations is a great thing.
Obama did something similar when mentioning Arab-Americans and gays in his 2004 speech. Other pols only talk about gays when talking to gay groups, if at all. And Arab Americans, probably not at all, especially in 2004, when most pols were running the other way. Obama's is a big tent, and includes, yes, even the religious.
July 2, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
And Arab Americans, probably not at all, especially in 2004, when most pols were running the other way.Again, Bush did this all the time. Gad, people are so easily satisfied, not even with a mess of pottage, but with one lousy bean.
July 2, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Bush did this all the time."
Bush is not a Democrat. Anything is okay if you are a Republican. Democrats do the same thing and are called "terrorists".
I'm not easily satisfied. I just give credit where it is due. And in the outrageously unfair GOP-driven media environment, a Dem associating with gays, Arab Americans, or atheists is something to be commended.
July 2, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Steve LaBonne – I’m happy to hear that GWB has used the term “people of no faith.” Obviously that the msm has not grabbed on to it when Bush says it, suggesting that if Obama gets jumped on because of it, the campaign can come back with examples of Bush saying it too.
Maybe reporters can do a little historical perspective on the numerous presidents, respected candidates, members of congress, founding fathers, etc. who have made similar remarks. It might even be an opportunity remind people of what the constitution has to say on the subject.
I can also see interviews with current members of congress, especially evangelical christians, getting pinned down on whether they think people of no faith are worthy americans who have the same rights as people of faith. Could be interesting and I bet (but don’t pray) that the conversation will get shut down pretty quickly by “people of faith” (or those pretending to be for political reasons) who see no political advantage in pursuing the topic.
July 2, 2008 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good point. I wish the reporters would also give people some perspective on how much MORE accepted freethinking was as late as the late 19th century even for politicians, and how far backward we've traveled in this respect since then.
Ironically, perhaps the lowest note in recent times was hit by Shrub's daddy, who infamously questioned whether atheists really could be US citizens.
Don't get me wrong, I do give Obama a little bit of credit on this. The point is that it's simply not such a big deal that it should distract attention from a critical analysis of his proposals. Personally I think they're unfortunate, though in the grand scheme of things they're not anything like as significant to me as the Fourth Amendment.
July 2, 2008 11:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
comes from.
July 2, 2008 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Damn!
July 2, 2008 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
The "Damn!" should really be for what I hope is the dawning realization that you allowed your critical faculties to be disarmed just because Obama gave you a meaningless rhetorical pat on the head.
July 2, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry that is not how I see it. I see a guy who is giving us as much as he can and that is more than is politicaly smart in this theistic nation.
July 2, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
For those wanting to see actual quotes from Bush:
http://tinyurl.com/6dkf66 (scroll down to get to "Bush")
July 2, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right now the link is not working for me (I'm getting redirected to my ISP's standard web-page where they suggest alternatives that almost invariably include the very page they say doesn't exist), but I appreciate the link, and until I can look at it for myself, I'll take your word for it. From reading the quotes, however, do you really feel they match Obama's, or are they close, or some other 3rd option I can't think of right now?
July 2, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Since it's not very long I'll just cut and paste the whole thing. Judge for yourself.
I'm mindful in a free society that people can worship if they want to or not. You're equally an American if you choose to worship an almighty and if you choose not to.
-- George W Bush, from the final presidential discussion at the University of Arizona October 13th, 2004), in response to a question by moderator Bob Schieffer of CBS News, quoted from Democracy Now! (October 20th, 2004)
My job is to make sure that, as President, people understand that in this country you can worship any way you choose. And I'll take that a step further. You can be a patriot if you don't believe in the Almighty. You can honor your country and be as patriotic as your neighbor.
-- George W Bush, responding to the question, "How you do balance not promoting a particular religion, while still being influenced by your personal faith?" in Sheryl Henderson Blunt, "Bush Calls for 'Culture Change'" (Christianity Today: May 28, 2004)
Baptists have long upheld the ideal of a free church in a free state. And from the beginning, they believed that forcing a person to worship against his will violated the principles of both Christianity and civility.
-- George W Bush, remarking accurately, indeed, on the role Baptists have historically played in developing and fostering the separation of religion from government and in dismantling the practice of enforced worship on the North American continent (even, at times, serving prison time for refusing to worship properly, which was the direct inspiration of James Madison for the way he designed and interpreted the version of our First Amendment which eventually prevailed), in the White House press release, "Remarks by the President Via Satellite to the Southern Baptist Convention 2002 Annual Meeting" (June 11, 2002)
We all know that men and women can be good without faith. And we also know that faith is an incredibly important source of goodness in our country.
-- George W Bush, in the White House press release, "Remarks by the President Via Satellite to the Southern Baptist Convention 2002 Annual Meeting" (June 11, 2002)
We know that men and women can be good without faith. We know that.
-- George W Bush, gets it right again, in his speech to the National Hispanic Prayer Breakfast (May 16, 2002) (thanks to Patrick Bens)
Americans practice different faiths in churches, synagogues, mosques and temples. And many good people practice no faith at all.
-- George W Bush, finally gets it right in his Easter Address of 2002 (thanks to Jim Dew)
July 2, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do you recognize lip service when you see it, or are you just willfully ignoring it?
July 2, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, the question is, do YOU? Lip service is also what we got from Obama. Means nothing much, in either case.
July 2, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
What would you like me to be particularly upset about, really, so I can just accept or reject that instead of wading through Bush quotes as if that liar's words ever meant anything?
July 2, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not so much. Obama is the candidate who brings up that Chtistians should respect both gays and atheists IN CHURCH. That is not a subtle difference.
July 2, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is lip service, and right now we honestly don't know if Obama is just giving us lip service or not. I'd like to believe it's not just lip service, but honestly, how can we know for certain?
That said, lip service is better than being attacked for being un-American, like what came from Bush pere.
July 2, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It is lip service, and right now we honestly don't know if Obama is just giving us lip service or not. I'd like to believe it's not just lip service, but honestly, how can we know for certain?"
Well, that's presumably because he hasn't done anything as president yet, don't you think? That kind of overarching doubt doesn't really have a limit.
"That said, lip service is better than being attacked for being un-American, like what came from Bush pere."
Bingo. When asked, the first Bush was curiously unsure not simply whether atheists were patriots but whether we were citizens at all.
July 2, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Steve – thanks for reminding me of Poppy Bush’s statement about atheists. Now I see a scenario in which he is asked if he agrees with his son’s and Obama’s position or if he feels that atheists, not being worthy of US citizenship, should be denied the right to vote like felons or aliens. Should be fun.
I have not wanted the rights of atheists to be an issue in this election. Obama has enough on his mind and I’ve always felt any of the democratic candidates would protect non-believers’ rights. Still, raising it could be good if it could be done in the context of putting the right-wing on the defensive.
July 2, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm of mixed feelings on this.
On one hand, the pragmatic in me is in complete agreement.
On the other, the idealist in me recalls what someone said when there was much hand-wringing over CA's recent Supreme Court ruling allowing gay marriage: there's never a good time to suppress rights, and it will always be inconvenient to bring it up until someone does.
July 2, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
The way I see it, we have only two choices at this point, as in any election - democrat or republican. The choice for non-believers and non-christian-fundamentalists and non-theocrats irrespective of religious persuasion is pretty clear, at least to me. Democrat.
So I see no need to make a public statement during the campaign unless it indicates it is trampling our rights. I don't think Obama is. I don't think any democratic candidate would.
July 2, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
If we're never to criticize our candidates, how do we expect ever to get them to improve, or to get better ones? Without question I will vote for him, but I also reserve the right to criticize him when he goes off the rails. As I think he did here, though nowhere near as seriously as on FISA.
July 2, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
We have to be as genorous with our praise as we are with our chastisement. When a candidate treats us better than any candidate before we sould praise the progress rather than bemoaning the fact that it was less than perfect.
July 2, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't make your case stronger with silly hyperbole. Better than McCain? Of course (mighty low standard, that). Better than any before? He's not even better than the average randomly selected Democrat. Judging by this program, he may even a bit worse than that. Not a deal-breaker by any means but hardly grounds for praise.
July 2, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
He has spoken of the us unbelievers in a more inclusive way than any viable presidential candidate in my life time. The bes of all time may be hyperbole butbest in my life time is certainly not. He is head and shoulders above the crowd.
July 2, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that pushing for a more secular society where atheists and theists can rub along nicely together needs timing. We don't need another Pledge of Allegiance lawsuit to get people's dander up come November. Neither candidate is "good for atheists" and we won't have one of those kinds of candidates for a long time.
To be frank, I don't seek "tolerance" for my atheism, since tolerance implies an impermanent state that can be taken away if we atheists get too annoying. I seek freedom from religion and I know it's not going to happen in my lifetime.
Obama, though, will never be a champion for non-believers. He made the ill-considered and contemptuous statement that no one was ever harmed by having to say the phrase "under God" demonstrating that he obviously doesn't remember his school years that well or lacks empathy for nonbelievers living in a society that has an inexhaustible devotion to meaningless ritutalistic theistic rites that exist merely to enforce conformity to the idea that we are a Christian nation.
There is hope in that the number of people willing to call themselves atheists is growing. Interest in atheism is growing as well. That doesn't mean that we will be the majority any day now, but it does bode well for the future.
July 2, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink