Obama..... not religious?

@dlowan,

That's what makes this so interesting to me-of the Presidents I can remember in my lifetime - Carter, Bush (the son) and Obama seem to me to have most integrated their faith into their life and state the strongest beliefs(that just made me laugh- sounds like quite the trinity).
While Reagan, Bush Sr. and Clinton- less so - although Clinton was raised a believer, maybe he was less outspoken about his actual beliefs while president because some of his behavior didn't quite fit the profile, and this caused him embarrassment - which would attest to some residual belief going on maybe.

Anyway - no- I don't get this cutting slack stuff. Either you believe believers are deluded and thinking and believing irrationally or you don't.
I think there's a real inconsistency in terms of rational thought by nonbelievers if they're gonna give Obama a by just because he's smart and the president. It's intellectually dishonest.

2 Replies

@sozobe,

Soz- I'm not specifically addressing you, as I can never remember you ridiculing religious faith or belief.
I'm not specifically addressing anyone really - I'm just wondering how those people who do think religious belief is irrational (a few of whom I've read and encountered on this forum) have come to the point that they can align their belief that religious faith is evidence of irrational thought with their own faith in this man who holds what they believe to be irrational and deluded thought.

Or maybe they're just choosing to overlook it in him - and if that's true - why can't they overlook it in others and believe that others who share his beliefs might also be sane and rational and intelligent and not living in a fairy tale world.
In other words give them the same credit.

2 Replies

Clinton at one time considered the ministry. He would have made a great Elmer Gantry.
I can name off the top of my head many religious persons who are figures of admiration, and who attained greatness one way or another. So what? We compartmentalize. Nobody I could name is wholly rational about everything.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

I understand that Edgar - I just think it'd be interesting to read how nonbelievers would approach Obama on the matter of his faith and if it would be at all similar as to how they approach and deride others for holding the same beliefs and faith.
that's all

1 Reply

@aidan,

I don't care about their religion unless they attempt to infiltrate it into policy...

They can believe in the spaghetti monster seriously, as long as they do not pander to a spaghetti monster agenda.

0 Replies

@aidan,

OK, cool.

Yeah, that's what I was going to say... I'm not religious myself but have a great deal of respect for various religions and for many religious people. (Not all -- fundamentalists often get my dander up, for example.)

0 Replies

I would tell Obama the same thing I tell a2k, should the occasion arise. I suspect he would listen politely, without rancor, then go about his business.

0 Replies

@aidan,

If Obama came to this site to defend his faith then I'm guessing that folks here would have very similar discussions with him as they do anyone else who comes here to defend their faith.

Other than far right-wingers as a group with GWB as an example, I can't think of too many examples where people here went out of their way to discuss someone's faith unless that person was here talking about it to begin with.

There are many people of faith here. Those who talk about it get responses (usually, the vehemence of the response is consistent with the stated vehemence of the member's faith). Those who are respectful about their own faith and the faith of others are generally treated with respect.

0 Replies

I hope that Obama is an atheist. I would understand that lies that it took for him to get elected. I could forgive him for those.

0 Replies

@aidan,

Quote:

Anyway - no- I don't get this cutting slack stuff. Either you believe believers are deluded and thinking and believing irrationally or you don't.
I think there's a real inconsistency in terms of rational thought by nonbelievers if they're gonna give Obama a by just because he's smart and the president. It's intellectually dishonest.

a. False dichotomy. It is perfectly possible to be agnostic...ie not hold a position either way.

b. As for giving Obama a by, as far as I can see, whatever irrational beliefs he may hold about gods and such, he intends to keep them out of the presidency. I suspect we would be hard pressed to find a person without irrational beliefs. We have more cause to worry about other sorts of irrational beliefs in a president who is clearly very tolerant re religious beliefs may have...eg if he harbours irrational beliefs like his predecessor such as invading Iraq is a good idea.

A concern I DO have is that he professes religion now because in a country like the USA, you're likely not getting into power unless you at least appear christian.

I have no idea whether this is true of Obama or not...but even if it is so, it seems to me more a fault with the mass irrational beliefs of a lot of Americans and a culture that is deeply conducive to hypocrisy in public life.

Pragmatically, I see much greater reflective capacity and intellectual openness in Obama than in Bush. It's a positive step, even if he is not perfect.

If he's religious, at least he is tolerant and respectful...and prepared to name it in a country so full of religiosity...of disbelief.

1 Reply

@dlowan,

I'm not talking about agnostics. I'm talking about affirmed nonbelievers who have stated that they believe people who do believe are deluded and irrational-period.

3 Replies

@aidan,

I was just wondering - I found it interesting to think about.

1 Reply

@aidan,

Obama could well be deluded in matters of religion. It seems he just might be, at least a little bit. But he is obviously in control of himself to the extent the matter will never become an issue. I think if an atheist made an assault on Obama's character because of this, the atheist would end up being the foolish one and would deservedly get brushed aside. To me its a non issue.

0 Replies

@aidan,

dlowan said:

Quote:

A concern I DO have is that he professes religion now because in a country like the USA, you're likely not getting into power unless you at least appear christian.

I think this is becoming less and less of an issue. At this point, in the general public, I think professing christianity is becoming more of a liability than anything else.

There are people who hold political and governmental positions and offices of all faiths or no faith at all, and as the demographics of the US continue to change, I can easily picture a nonchristian being elected president- and in the not too distant future.

1 Reply

@aidan,

ok, how about Christians who think some other Christians are religious nutters?

Are we supposed to give the Christian nut a break because s/he/it is also a Christian?

~~~

I think an irrational Christian is irrational first, and it is that irrationality I take issue with. I don't want people to have the impression that Christians/religious people are generally irrational. It doesn't help any of us.

There are many Christians/religious people at A2K who are rational/respectful/honest/quiet, and they are treated with respect/admired for their honesty and ability to post rationally/appreciated for their restraint in promoting their belief systems.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

Agreed.

0 Replies

@shewolfnm,

shewolfnm wrote:

I am coming to that same thought.

honestly, i personally do not care one way or another so long as what ever religion he is , is NOT the driving force behind laws he may make.

His opening point in that clip is the laws about abortion.. being religious in nature.. and that according to him is wrong. That thought process I can agree with because it allows people to 'think for themselves' intead of governing on someone elses religion.

But I wonder what religion he belongs too only because.. well.. that would mean he is the first president who would NOT be christian..
Isnt that correct?
And if so, that is a historical thing as well..

He has stated publicly and often that he is a Christian. Anyone wondering at this point just ******* ain't paying attention.

1 Reply

@snood,

What people say does not always prove what they are.

I do not think Obama is very religious, but whatever it is, is also his politics. One only has to look at Wright and the church, the church was a political organization masquerading as a religion. Black liberation theology, on which the church is based, is political, and it uses religion to bolster its politics, but religion is only a component of what it is.

Obama's true religious belief, who knows, I certainly do not, but one thing is evident, it is not a mainstream type of Christianity, it is a very highly politicized form of it, he will use it to further his social engineering. For example, loving your neighbor means taxing the bejeebers out of the producers with money to give to the non-producers or the low producers, to spread the wealth around, as old Karl had ideas of doing.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

I do not think Obama is very religious, but whatever it is, is also his politics. One only has to look at Wright and the church, the church was a political organization masquerading as a religion. Black liberation theology, on which the church is based, is political, and it uses religion to bolster its politics, but religion is only a component of what it is.

Trinity is not the only church that is a political organization masquerading as a religion. Do you have the same disregard for the others? Here's two examples just from current news reports:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2009/0126/1232923365952.html

Quote:

Senior Vatican figures criticise Obama
PADDY AGNEW in Rome

Mon, Jan 26, 2009

SENIOR VATICAN figures have criticised President Barack Obama on the same day that it was officially confirmed that the Pope had lifted the 1988 excommunication of four traditionalist “Lefebvre” bishops.

On Saturday, Msgr Rino Fisichella and Msgr Elio Sgreccia, two senior figures at the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life, and the Vatican daily, L’Osservatore Romano, were all critical of President Obama’s decision to rescind the so-called “Mexico City Policy”.

This policy banned the granting of US foreign aid to family planning organisations which advocate or provide abortion services.

Introduced by president Reagan in 1984, it was rescinded by president Clinton in 1993 before being reinstated by George W Bush in 2001.

“Of all the good things he could have done, he [President Obama] has chosen the worst. This is a hard blow not just for us Catholics but also for all those who want to fight against the slaughter of the innocents that is brought about through abortion,” said Msgr Sgreccia, president emeritus of the academy.

The concerted Vatican criticism of President Obama contrasts with what, until now, has been the generally warm reception afforded him by Pope Benedict. Since his election victory the pope has sent two telegrams of congratulation to President Obama.

Pope Benedict prompted criticism on Saturday with his decision to lift the 1988 excommunication of four traditionalist “Lefebvre” bishops, members of the Society of St Pius X.

Pointing out that one of the four bishops, Richard Williamson, is a Holocaust denier, Rabbi David Rosen, of the American Jewish Committee, called the pope’s decision “shameful”, adding that it was “a serious blow for Jewish-Vatican relations”.

Quote:

Pope lifts excommunications of 4 bishops
By NICOLE WINFIELD " 1 day ago

VATICAN CITY (AP) " Pope Benedict XVI has lifted the excommunications of four traditionalist bishops, including that of a Holocaust denier whose rehabilitation sparked outrage among Jewish groups.

The four bishops were excommunicated 20 years ago after they were consecrated by the late ultraconservative Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre without papal consent " a move the Vatican said at the time was an act of schism.

The Vatican said Saturday that Benedict rehabilitated the four as part of his efforts to bring Lefebvre's Society of St. Pius X back into the Vatican's fold.

But the move came just days after one of the four, British Bishop Richard Williamson, was shown in a Swedish state TV interview saying that historical evidence "is hugely against 6 million Jews having been deliberately gassed."

Jewish groups denounced the Vatican for having embraced a Holocaust denier and warned that the pope's decision would have serious implications for Catholic-Jewish relations as well as the pontiff's planned visit to the Holy Land later this year.

"I do not see how business can proceed as usual," said Rabbi David Rosen, Jerusalem-based head of interrelgious affairs at the American Jewish Committee and a key Vatican-Jewish negotiator.

He called for the pope or a senior adviser to issue a "clear condemnation" of all Holocaust denials and deniers.

Shimon Samuels of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Paris said he understood the German-born pope's desire for Christian unity, but said Benedict could have excluded Williamson. He warned that his rehabilitation will have a "political cost" for the Vatican.

"I'm certain as a man who has known the Nazi regime in his own flesh, he understands you have to be very careful and very selective," Samuels said.

The Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said Williamson's views were "absolutely indefensible." But he denied that rehabilitating Williamson implied that the Vatican shared them.

...

Quote:

In a statement Saturday, Fellay, who is one of the rehabilitated bishops, expressed his gratitude to Benedict and said the decree would help the whole Roman Catholic Church.

"Thanks to this gesture, Catholics attached to tradition throughout the world will no longer be unjustly stigmatized and condemned for having kept the faith of their fathers," Fellay said in a letter to his supporters.

Fellay, meanwhile, has distanced the society from Williamson's remarks about the Holocaust, saying Williamson only had authority to discuss matters of faith and that he was personally responsible for his own opinions.

But Fellay also berated Swedish state television, accusing it in a Jan. 21 letter of having introduced the Holocaust issue in the interview "with the obvious intention of misrepresenting and maligning," the society.

While Williamson's comments may be offensive and erroneous, they are not an excommunicable offense, said Monsignor Robert Wister, professor of church history at Immaculate Conception School of Theology at Seton Hall University in New Jersey.

"To deny the Holocaust is not a heresy even though it is a lie," he said. "The excommunication can be lifted because he is not a heretic, but he remains a liar."

1 Reply

@George,

George wrote:

Quote:

Just a tad overstated, there, but your point is well taken.

There is a convergence of those who are major fans of Mr. Obama but who are
no fans at all of religion. They are more than willing to cut him some slack, not
only because of his politics, but also because of his statements specifically
including non-believers.

I'm OK with that.

Exactly. Buried in the hundreds of pages of the Obama '08 thread during the Wright indignations, I said as much. I was not and am still not happy with how much religion has permeated Obama's political discourse, but I understand why it was necessary so he could defend himself against the "He's a Muslim" accusations.

The fact that he now specifically includes non-believers in his verbal considerations reassures me.

It's interesting that during Kennedy's presidential campaign the big criticism of him was that he would be unable to maintain a supreme allegiance to the Constitution and laws of the U.S. while a practicing Catholic. Now it seems to be a litmus test for some that Presidents and their religious beliefs are supreme.

0 Replies

Obama..... not religious?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know