Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Obama Talks About Atheism
link.brightcove.com — Obama's speech on atheist and faith may be the most important pronouncement by a Democrat on faith and politics since John F. Kennedy's Houston speech in 1960 declaring his independence from the Vatican. Obama offers the first faith testimony I have heard from any politician that speaks honestly about the uncertainties of belief.
dreamflows- 5066 diggs
- digg it
- dreamflows, on 02/10/2008, -8/+794http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_rene ...
"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. Folks tend to forget that during our founding, it wasn't the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment. It was the persecuted minorities, it was Baptists like John Leland who didn't want the established churches to impose their views on folks who were getting happy out in the fields and teaching the scripture to slaves. It was the forbearers of the evangelicals who were the most adamant about not mingling government with religious, because they did not want state-sponsored religion hindering their ability to practice their faith as they understood it.
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? So before we get carried away, let's read our bibles. Folks haven't been reading their bibles.
This brings me to my second point. 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."- skulljar, on 02/10/2008, -53/+13Just to mention, many of the laws mentioned in the Old Testament have been fulfilled and are "off the books." Think of it as if there was no longer such a thing as an internal combustion engine, and all legislation regarding emissions have been rendered null.
- HunterSeeker42, on 02/10/2008, -28/+7Yep. Jesus came to fulfill those laws and promises in the Christian faith.
- EditorResponse, on 02/10/2008, -47/+3Obama's Farrakhan Test
Cut and paste becasue Digg truncates:
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article
/2008/01/14/AR2008011402083.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Barack Obama is a member of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. Its minister, and Obama's spiritual adviser, is the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. In 1982, the church launched Trumpet Newsmagazine; Wright's daughters serve as publisher and executive editor. Every year, the magazine makes awards in various categories. Last year, it gave ITS HIGHEST AWARD the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it said "truly epitomized greatness." That man is Louis Farrakhan.
But the rap on Obama is that he is a fog of a man. We know little about him, and, for all my admiration of him, I wonder about his mettle. The New York Times recently reported on Obama's penchant while serving in the Illinois legislature for merely voting "present" when faced with some tough issues. Farrakhan, in a strictly political sense, may be a tough issue for him. This time, though, "present" will not do.
What do we know about Muslim Louis Farrakhan?
Cut and paste becasue Digg truncates:
www.adl.org/special_reports/farrakhan_own_words2
/farrakhan_own_words.asp- smacksaw, on 02/10/2008, -1/+26Quit emailing that ***** to my mom.
- jackal42, on 02/10/2008, -7/+5i enailed your mom too
- bjornski, on 02/10/2008, -3/+11Links work just fine, you just have to be smarter than a text editor.
http://www.adl.org/special_reports/farrakhan_own_w ...
Farrakhan is a notorious racist. What's your point?
Should we also do some associations about Christians and John McCain by doing a writeup on David Duke?
As Farrakhan being an "issue" for Obama? Why? Because his priest gave that other guy an award?
I've heard conspiracy theorists put some pretty strange connections together, but you're really reaching here to smear Obama, Editor.
You shouldn't be having an issue with the Obama/Farrakhan connection, you should be having an issue with this priest. There might just be a reason why his priest decided to give Farrakhan an award, IN SPITE OF his obvious racism.
And ANY information coming from the ADL is ***** and lies. They're the Jewish version of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Agitators. - chicofaraby, on 02/10/2008, -0/+14You DO realize that posting this type of crap only makes you look like a stupid racist, right?
Not that you need any help.... - wakananda, on 02/10/2008, -1/+11It's a FACT: Obama's mailman's grandmother has poopy drawers. When, I ask you, will Obama have the courage to stand up and ANSWER for underwear of this woman, whose own SON frequents the Obama household on a daily basis? Can we afford to deliver our nation into the hands of this evasive, cipher of a man, whose daily associations are clearly - unwholesome?
- EditorResponse, on 02/10/2008, -47/+3Obama's Farrakhan Test
- fasda, on 02/10/2008, -11/+12You know at no point did Christ in the bible say the Old testament and the prophets were wrong in anyway so no if you truly believe then they are still on the book. which makes Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all crazy.
- schnikies79, on 02/10/2008, -9/+5He didn't say that because thats not what he meant. Jesus never said or meant they were wrong, but by the death and resurrection they are no longer needed. In other words they are now outdated and have been replaced. There is no more need for them.
- hikinthru, on 02/10/2008, -7/+7The "Old Testament" didn't exist in Jesus' time. The books chosen to be in our King James' version, including what we know as the "old testament" weren't decided on and published until 1600 years after Christ was alleged to live.
- TheGuruStud, on 02/10/2008, -1/+1Can you imagine the even more horrific lines in the earlier versions? It probably says to kill your mother if she's atheist haha.
- ICSU, on 02/10/2008, -1/+14Actually, he said they are still valid.
Matthew 5:17
"Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill."
- ncairns, on 02/10/2008, -3/+28The Old Testament also says that the word of God is immutable and will stand forever.
- blackolive, on 02/10/2008, -5/+20LATE RANDOM COMMENT:
Obama is wrong to say Lincoln was religious, Lincoln said this:
"The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma."
-- http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=123913
Many times Lincoln was quoted reading prayers & such written by others.- GawtMilk, on 02/10/2008, -1/+2Huh? I think you might be interpreting that wrong. Lincoln was a president, not a priest. He's saying he "believes" in the Constitution. That doesn't disprove or affirm his Christianity.
- lgc90, on 02/10/2008, -1/+2Wasn't he Jewish? I mean, heck, his name was Abraham...
- GawtMilk, on 02/10/2008, -1/+3He attended many churches, yet never affiliated with any. In history class they never told us he visited synagogues. I think they painted him as a big supporter of "Separation of Church and State", yet still a follower of religions, while still being very open to atheism and other faiths.
- Kerrigore, on 02/10/2008, -1/+1I don't think he really said Lincoln was religious, he just pointed out what one of his speeches would be like without any reference to God. He does say at one point that he is "Motivated by faith", but other than that, he just said Lincoln used religious language, which is true of every American president as far as I know.
- TheShom, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1True, nothing was done away with. The Word wasn't removed by the messiah, it was removed be Emperor Constantine. Read up on some history.
- blackolive, on 02/10/2008, -5/+20LATE RANDOM COMMENT:
- eclectro, on 02/10/2008, -8/+3Even though the eternal combustion engine might would "be off the books" (and I don't see how it is) all the stink and CO2 is still left in the air to clog our lungs, kill our climate, plant and animal life, for a long time to come. Your statement makes a lot of sense, in the proper context.
- forgiste, on 02/10/2008, -0/+9The eternal combustion engine? But isn't that like perpetual motion? WITCH! YOU SHALL BURN FOR YOUR HERESY!!
- GawtMilk, on 02/10/2008, -0/+3They made eternal combustion engines years ago. The catch is that it needs an eternal source of energy.
- forgiste, on 02/10/2008, -0/+9The eternal combustion engine? But isn't that like perpetual motion? WITCH! YOU SHALL BURN FOR YOUR HERESY!!
- Zachiatrist, on 02/10/2008, -14/+7The old testament law was a covenant with the nation of Israel. God made a deal with them that if they remained pure and kept his laws he would watch over them and they would multiply and eventually a savior would come. That is why it is said that Christ "fulfilled" the old testament law. AKA God kept his part of the deal, so there is no longer old testament law.
When someone says that Christians should follow old testament law they do not have a good understanding of covenant law or biblical context. It's a silly argument and it makes if obvious you don't know what you're talking about.- ICSU, on 02/10/2008, -1/+5You do realize that the 10 commandments are from the OT?
Well, Christians don't seem to follow them; that's true.- expatcatalyst, on 02/10/2008, -0/+2Huge difference in something directly from G-d (10 commandments) and the total of something like 614 precepts developed into Mosaic/Rabinic code via the Talmud.
- spinchange, on 02/10/2008, -3/+2^They're also pretty universally followed too. They *help* form the basis of modern law becuase they're good principles to live by. The reference is to burnt offerings, animal sacrifices for atonement, and generally anything else like that in the OT.
- ICSU, on 02/10/2008, -1/+5You do realize that the 10 commandments are from the OT?
- HunterSeeker42, on 02/10/2008, -28/+7Yep. Jesus came to fulfill those laws and promises in the Christian faith.
- Falldog, on 02/10/2008, -21/+5So, which came first, this keynote address or The Audacity of Hope? It's pretty much word for word lol
- HunterSeeker42, on 02/10/2008, -4/+180I like this guy. He just said what was exactly on my mind. Separation of Church and State protects both Church and State. I don't know if hes the right candidate or not, but this is a plus argument for me.
- wtfpwned98, on 02/10/2008, -1/+32Get used to it...he's one of the only people I've ever known who I can never disagree with. He's not too far to the left, not too far to the right...he's just always saying something that makes sense. With most politicians, you disagree with them as soon as they side with some special interest...Obama always seems to be siding with something like, I dunno....logic?
There's a reason that the media seem to be biased in his favor...even guys like Rush Limbaugh have a hard time pointing to any of his statements and disagreeing with them, though you can expect them to find things once the Democrat-Republican debates start (if Obama is nominated).- Xenufield, on 02/10/2008, -13/+3Not too far to the left? Perhaps you need to look at his voting record.
- Kerrigore, on 02/10/2008, -0/+8Well, to look at it fair-mindedly, what seems "too far to the left" to one person will seem "just right" to another, and the gentleman above was just expressing his opinion that to him, Obama is "just right". I mean, some people like their porridge hotter than others, amirite?
- artofwar420, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1Finally somebody who seems to understand us.
- fyngyrz, on 02/10/2008, -1/+6I was impressed by the majority of his speech; I thought it demonstrated an excellent grasp of why government needs to keep its nose out of religion, and a decent, if not great, grasp, of why religion needs to keep its nose out of government. The ease with which he wants to allow religion in the pledge (he argues it isn't significant, and kids don't care), the careless way he wants to allow religious use of school property (young republicans and young democrats can meet there, they don't threaten each other, why not the religious of various stripes and the non-religious) left me feeling that he has little empathy for the secular child and for that matter, the secular family. It bothered me a great deal to be asked to claim that the country was "under god", an entity I understood then, and now, to be a figment of the imagination of others; I think he has no sense at all of how aggressive religious groups can get over doctrine, how dismissive they can be of others, and for that matter, I think he doesn't remember how cruel children in general can be. Religion isn't like a political party -- as he said in his speech, the expectation with religion is that you are expected to do *exactly* what "god told you" in your book or revelation or whatever. Religion does not belong in the pledge, the schools, the congress, or anywhere else in the acts and actions of government. Sure, your morals and ethics may inform your outlook, but you do indeed have to make law for the others at the table, and you do indeed need to do this over common ground, not *your* ground. So I found this disconnect in the speech a little disturbing.
Secondly, his mention of "getting guns off the streets" speaks to me of someone who does not understand the constitution. If you want to *legitimately* make it so that gun ownership is limited such that these young men do not have the absolute right to keep and bear arms, then you need a constitutional amendment. Which is fine - if you can get it.
The bottom line is: If you think you can just toss out one part of the constitution, then the rest has become just as uncertain to hold up at any point in time when it becomes convenient in your thinking or as a matter of current social policy to skip, adjust, or outright ignore any other constitutional provision.
This is one of the things that is wrong with our congress, our judiciary, and the executive today -- they think that the constitution is -- and yes, I'm going to drag George Bush into this again -- "just a god-damned piece of paper. But it isn't. It is the constituting authority for the federal government, and the limiting authority for state governments. When the constitution is ignored, all we have left is a dictatorship.
Having said all that, it was a pleasure listening to an intelligent man speak on serious issues in a serious way. Compared to Bush's intellectual capacity, Obama feels like Einstein, Newton, and Michelangelo all rolled into one well-spoken human being.
- Xenufield, on 02/10/2008, -13/+3Not too far to the left? Perhaps you need to look at his voting record.
- mscf, on 02/10/2008, -1/+5Separation of Church and State has always been about protecting Church more than protecting the State. I don't know if it is blindness that has caused many conservatives to miss this or if it is an intentional misreading of the true nature of the law for the sake of extending personal power, but abolishing the separation of Church and State would destroy the vibrant faith community that exists in America.
Religion at its best challenges the status quo, and as such, the biggest problem with religion in America is that it has become little more than a tool of the status quo. - expatcatalyst, on 02/10/2008, -1/+2Yeah, you said it exactly! Since Ron Paul won't win and doesn't appear to want to go independent, I have been looking around and you hit the nail on the head1 Thanks.
- wtfpwned98, on 02/10/2008, -1/+32Get used to it...he's one of the only people I've ever known who I can never disagree with. He's not too far to the left, not too far to the right...he's just always saying something that makes sense. With most politicians, you disagree with them as soon as they side with some special interest...Obama always seems to be siding with something like, I dunno....logic?
- Zandarrr, on 02/10/2008, -10/+151Ok Obama, you've finally won me over.
Obama '08! - EditorResponse, on 02/10/2008, -116/+6Ok Obama, you've finally won me over but what about Barak Obama's current African "Christian" church?
Obama's Farrakhan Test
Cut and paste becasue Digg truncates:
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article
/2008/01/14/AR2008011402083.html?hpid=opinionsbox1
Barack Obama is a member of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. Its minister, and Obama's spiritual adviser, is the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. In 1982, the church launched Trumpet Newsmagazine; Wright's daughters serve as publisher and executive editor. Every year, the magazine makes awards in various categories. Last year, it gave ITS HIGHEST AWARD the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it said "truly epitomized greatness." That man is Louis Farrakhan.
But the rap on Obama is that he is a fog of a man. We know little about him, and, for all my admiration of him, I wonder about his mettle. The New York Times recently reported on Obama's penchant while serving in the Illinois legislature for merely voting "present" when faced with some tough issues. Farrakhan, in a strictly political sense, may be a tough issue for him. This time, though, "present" will not do.
What do we know about Muslim Louis Farrakhan?
Cut and paste becasue Digg truncates:
www.adl.org/special_reports/farrakhan_own_words2
/farrakhan_own_words.asp
-------------------------------------------------
Tell me more about Barack Obama's church. What is it like? What follows is documentation from Barack Hussein Obama's current African "Christian" church.
Obama's activist church enters spotlight
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17701499/
Wright also told The New York Times in an interview published March 6: "When his (Obama's) enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli" with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan to visit Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, "a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell."
-------------------------------------------------
What is Trinity United Church of Christ like?
Trinity United Church of Christ adopted the Black Value System written by the Manford Byrd Recognition Committee chaired by Vallmer Jordan in 1981. (The church removed the information you are now reading soon after Obama began to run for office of the president of the United States of America!)
1. Commitment to God
2. Commitment to the Black Community
3. Commitment to the Black Family
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
6. Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness"
9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community
10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions
11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System
12. Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System.
Now if the above was rewritten what would we see:
1. Commitment to God
2. Commitment to the White Community
3. Commitment to the White Family
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
6. Adherence to the White Work Ethic
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness"
9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the White Community
10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting White Institutions
11. Pledge allegiance to all White leadership who espouse and embrace the White Value System
12. Personal commitment to embracement of the White Value System.- MacEnvy, on 02/10/2008, -1/+30That's it. Reported for spamming. I've had enough of you. I've seen that copy/paste at least a dozen times in the last week from you, and I'm just going to start reporting it as spam. If you don't have anything to add to the discussion don't hit submit.
We need better troll controls on digg. It's getting out of hand.- Shirt, on 02/10/2008, -3/+9What a dick.
- bluezinc, on 02/10/2008, -1/+7Editor, get a life. That is all.
- intotheforest, on 02/10/2008, -0/+7Every one report this guy for spamming, we dont need people like this on digg.
- silaska, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1There is an enormous difference in the role of the church and its power when it is aligned with rich vs poor, powerful vs powerless, hegemon vs subordinated, white vs black. so no, this is not the black KKK
- MacEnvy, on 02/10/2008, -1/+30That's it. Reported for spamming. I've had enough of you. I've seen that copy/paste at least a dozen times in the last week from you, and I'm just going to start reporting it as spam. If you don't have anything to add to the discussion don't hit submit.
- yndy, on 02/10/2008, -4/+39Thanks for posting this excerpt. I'm not an Obama supporter and wouldn't have watched the video - but this is impressive.
Makes me think. - microbefox, on 02/10/2008, -2/+35That part of the speech hit the mark I never realized was there until he said it. Obama is a well spoken and forward thinking man.
- deanlowe, on 02/10/2008, -4/+80That speech was not about atheism.
- daizaru, on 02/10/2008, -0/+8That snippet is only a portion of a 40 minute video, but arguably the best part.
- blackjack75, on 02/10/2008, -0/+26There's one sentence about it. And he's the only candidate (remaining) that has the ball to mention us as group equal to others. Of course to get elected in America you _have_ to keep repeating "I am a christian, I go to church every Sunday", and he usually does. But still it's refreshing to see how smart and open-minded he is.
- Kerrigore, on 02/10/2008, -0/+6It's more than one sentence if you count "nonbelievers" and "those without faith" as referring to atheists. But yea.
- rentmitchum, on 02/10/2008, -2/+55Wow. I agree, not really about atheism, it's about how public officials should act. I've decided officially. My vote goes to Obama this year.
- tinko, on 02/10/2008, -4/+51It seems Obama understands the true message of the Bible. Huckabee on the other hand..
- kirakun, on 02/10/2008, -0/+36... understands the USE of the bible to get votes.
- ICSU, on 02/10/2008, -15/+5Actually, it's the opposite.
If you think that the Bible is the book of love, study history.- Daniel591992, on 02/10/2008, -1/+14History is the book of love?
- chicofaraby, on 02/10/2008, -0/+7I wonder, wonder who... who wrote the book of love?
- Daniel591992, on 02/10/2008, -1/+14History is the book of love?
- blackeagle613, on 02/10/2008, -4/+7Wait are you telling me that the earth isn't 6000 years old?
- streak, on 02/10/2008, -29/+5Wow, is that a verbatim quote from Obama? He's amazingly naive. Clearly Obama and many of you don't understand the meaning of "separation of church and state" as it pertains to the U.S. Constitution.
- JulioChavez, on 02/10/2008, -0/+15Is that all? ( Go on... )
- iainc, on 02/10/2008, -1/+10Amazingly naive -- how so? I think you're going to have to demonstrate the validity of your argument, or you should be dismissed.
This man is a realist and he is grounded in common sense. He will lead and inspire people of all faiths and no faith, a quality that is sorely lacking in this world.- streak, on 02/10/2008, -2/+1Obama is a flat-out liar, but he tells a good fairy tale in those mellifluous tones--just what people who are sick of Bush and the war would like to hear. To wit: he can not be the high ethical person he portends to be and also yank the troops out of Iraq in 18 months, what would be an unconscionable act.
- streak, on 02/10/2008, -2/+2Assuming the above is a direct quote, here's an example of Obama's naivety:
"Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. [...] 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?"
Obama is here trying to create tension by beckoning to our basal feelings, because nowhere in the Constitution does it talk about expelling people. In fact, the Constitution provides for equal protection and it keeps the government out of our religion. It is not intended however keep religious people (of any faction) out of government, a point he fails to mention. What he does say is just a load of nonsense. Perhaps it sounds good to you, though, if you failed U.S. history.
Here's another quote: "This brings me to my second point. 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." Well, that's a sweet thought (as in fairy tale), because in practice it means passing legislation that feels right to the legislators or is demanded by their constituents, even when couched in "reasonable" terms. Pretend all you want about how reason enters into it, go through all your reasonable motions, but in the end, reason is merely a veil over opinion. And ultimately it's the opinions of the Supreme Court justices who decide what's Constitutional and what's not. Again, for a smart man, this shows Obama's incredible naivety, but it's what many people want to hear, so perhaps he's actually very attuned to the naivety of the population.- iainc, on 02/10/2008, -1/+1"Obama is here trying to create tension by beckoning to our basal feelings, because nowhere in the Constitution does it talk about expelling people."
He was clearly illustrating a point: that even if the US consisted solely of Christians, whose Christianity would be taught?
"In fact, the Constitution provides for equal protection and it keeps the government out of our religion. It is not intended however keep religious people (of any faction) out of government, a point he fails to mention."
On the contrary, his entire speech was about accommodations that needed to be by atheists for people of faith, in government, and vice versa. I think he made that quite clear. He does, however, reinforce the founding fathers' belief that religion (not men of faith) be kept out of government.
"What he does say is just a load of nonsense."
I respectfully disagree, and I suspect that you and I must agree to differ.
"Perhaps it sounds good to you, though, if you failed U.S. history."
It does sound good. I'm agnostic but I don't discount other folks' need for spirituality and faith, nor do I disrespect them for having either. As such, it was immensely refreshing to hear such an upstanding, moral young man of religious conviction acknowledge that people of faith have no monopoly on morality and that he re-affirmed the founding fathers' belief in the separation of church and state.
As for US History, you have me at a disadvantage. Being British, I wasn't in a position to study it. - streak, on 02/10/2008, -2/+1If the quote was complete, then you've put words in Obama's mouth.
"it was immensely refreshing to hear such an upstanding, moral young man of religious conviction acknowledge that people of faith have no monopoly on morality"
Perhaps you tire of people who are trying to deal with the real issues.
- iainc, on 02/10/2008, -1/+1"Obama is here trying to create tension by beckoning to our basal feelings, because nowhere in the Constitution does it talk about expelling people."
- outsid3rNo17, on 02/10/2008, -4/+22He is too wise for America.
- skribeForti, on 02/10/2008, -0/+10Not when he says things like that. From the country that gave the world Jefferson, Franklin and Lincoln. He'd fit right in.
- streak, on 02/10/2008, -4/+1Hardly. He fits in with the children whose parents do their homework for them.
- tikiman453, on 02/10/2008, -1/+6sounds like that's exactly what we need.
- rollem, on 02/10/2008, -1/+3Maybe he's wiser than we deserve, but hopefully he's not too wise to be elected.
- streak, on 02/10/2008, -1/+4No, America is too stupid.
- skribeForti, on 02/10/2008, -0/+10Not when he says things like that. From the country that gave the world Jefferson, Franklin and Lincoln. He'd fit right in.
- dantrenner, on 02/10/2008, -30/+45. The United States Constitution provides separation of the church and state?
True
False
Scroll down for correct answer:
/
Make a choice. Try answering before you scroll down for the correct answer:
Make a choice. Try answering before you scroll down for the correct answer:
Make a choice. Try answering before you scroll down for the correct answer:
Make a choice. Try answering before you scroll down for the correct answer:
Make a choice. Try answering before you scroll down for the correct answer:
Make a choice. Try answering before you scroll down for the correct answer:
Make a choice. Try answering before you scroll down for the correct answer:
Make a choice. Try answering before you scroll down for the correct answer:
Make a choice. Try answering before you scroll down for the correct answer:
Make a choice. Try answering before you scroll down for the correct answer:
Make a choice. Try answering before you scroll down for the correct answer:
Make a choice. Try answering before you scroll down for the correct answer:
Make a choice. Try answering before you scroll down for the correct answer:
Make a choice. Try answering before you scroll down for the correct answer:
Make a choice. Try answering before you scroll down for the correct answer:
Make a choice. Try answering before you scroll down for the correct answer:
Make a choice. Try answering before you scroll down for the correct answer:
/
/
Answer: It is important to note that no where in the United States Constitution
do the words ‘separate, separated, or separation, church, and state’ appear.
However, those words do appear in a foreign constitution:
Article 52 [Religion] (1) Citizens of the USSR are Guaranteed freedom of
conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to
conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda. Incitement of hostility or
hatred on religious grounds is prohibited. (2) In the USSR, the church is separated
from the state, and the school from the church.
The First Amendment does not provide for separation between church and state.
The idea of "separation" was only to prevent a state church from receiving
federal tax funding as Europe still practices. This provision did not prevent
the individual states from providing a church with state collected taxes. In
fact, ten of the original 13 colonies had state supported churches. Only New
Jersey, Pennsylvania and Rode Island did not have state supported churches.
ALL the Founding Fathers expected the Bible to have a major influence on our
government, even those who were not Christians. Read the debates from the
Congressional Record. Now read the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of
the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances."
From "My Little American Test" by Don Wood- uu2b, on 02/10/2008, -1/+13WRONG. The First Amendment simply does use the word "separation". Seems pretty simple in the first line:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
You say that the bible should have a major influence, then what happens if we also want have the Koran as a major influence? How about a book on Satan worship? The bible should be left at home, everyone knows this.
Never heard of Don Wood...google for "My Little American Test"...nothing.
My point is that quoting an unknown text by an unknown author does not make an argument. Here's one by Thomas Jefferson. Ever heard of him?
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their "legislature" should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."
You Lose - streak, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1I didn't know the USSR constitution was written in English!
- MadKennyP, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1In its 1879 Reynolds vs. U.S. decision the United States Supreme Court said Thomas Jefferson's observations in his letter to the Danbury Baptists 'may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment.'
In the Supreme Court's 1947 Everson v. Board of Education decision, Justice Hugo Black wrote, 'In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state.' It is only in recent times that separation has come under attack by judges in the federal court system who oppose separation of church and state."
- uu2b, on 02/10/2008, -1/+13WRONG. The First Amendment simply does use the word "separation". Seems pretty simple in the first line:
- mrcoderga, on 02/10/2008, -1/+33The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
-- Thomas J.- Xenufield, on 02/10/2008, -0/+10dugg because Jefferson is the greatest american ever. Forget Reagan, give us a Jefferson POTUS and people will see just how wonderful this country once was.
- frostedflakes, on 02/10/2008, -25/+2Notice how he didn't mention gays when he spoke of Leviticus? Dancing around the gay issue eh Obama? ***** this guy. Mike Gravel 2008.
- heybobzmuda, on 02/10/2008, -1/+8He mentioned discrimination against gays as being unacceptable in his speech on Saturday, February 9th in Virginia.
- streak, on 02/10/2008, -2/+1You mean, like the "don't ask, don't tell" doctrine? ROFL!
- ahvi, on 02/10/2008, -0/+2That was an amazing speech by the way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hUngQ8-wLU- streak, on 02/10/2008, -2/+2Amazingly vapid. Elect Obama and prepare to be exceedingly disappointed with government.
- Fafnir43, on 02/10/2008, -0/+5I think it was more or less implied. The subtext was "if you hate gays because of Leviticus, you should also be firebombing seafood restaurants".
- Kerrigore, on 02/10/2008, -0/+4He obviously can't mention every issue in every speech if he's going to cover any of them in-depth. This speech obviously wasn't about gay rights, or any other issue that FOLLOWS from the religion/public reason division, but rather about the nature of that division itself.
- heybobzmuda, on 02/10/2008, -1/+8He mentioned discrimination against gays as being unacceptable in his speech on Saturday, February 9th in Virginia.
- ahvi, on 02/10/2008, -3/+18"Non-believers", finally we're acknowledged by one of the major candidates.
- Kerrigore, on 02/10/2008, -0/+8I think that if it weren't for the anti-atheist, anti-non-believer attitude of most of America, Obama would probably address us much more directly, but for now he has to be careful if he doesn't want to be voted down by the evangelicals... he also wants to unite, and not divide, and it's a sad fact that many on both sides seem to find the other quite offensive.
- iainc, on 02/10/2008, -1/+12On the issue of abortion, I was particularly impressed with the humility Obama showed to the Doctor who was writing him regarding the issue. Demonstrating that even the ordinary guy on the street could teach Obama something, and that Obama is willing to listen and learn. This is a man I can truly look up to and learn from.
- Ravenlock, on 02/10/2008, -1/+5This is fantastic. It's probably the best speech about the proper role of religion in public policy I've read delivered during my lifetime. It's been a long time since I've truly believed that a candidate *deserves* to win a contest, but I think now I do. He's got my vote.
- skulljar, on 02/10/2008, -53/+13Just to mention, many of the laws mentioned in the Old Testament have been fulfilled and are "off the books." Think of it as if there was no longer such a thing as an internal combustion engine, and all legislation regarding emissions have been rendered null.
- GhostyBoy, on 02/10/2008, -17/+594I was under the impression that Obama was all inspiring sounding yet vague speeches, but damn! He actually has something to say and he's ***** smart!
- Napoleone, on 02/10/2008, -56/+72No one ever said he was a dumb man. Digg far enough into my comments and you will see me saying he is both intelligent and of much integrity, and that I would vote for him.
On the last two points, however, I no longer feel the same way. Not after I took the the time to dig deeper into his policies and found much disappointment. His record proves he's lacked the character to stand firm on the issues he said were most important to him, and that's troubling.
Neither Barack nor Hillary could be worse than Bush. But it wouldn't be too hard to improve upon Bush, either.
When I watch the throngs of people mesmerized by Obama's speeches, including the one I just saw him give, on MSNBC, I sympathize with their emotional response to his words. But I pity them in the same way I pity religious people. He has himself a cult of personality. And there's nothing in his record that makes him deserving of that type of adulation. It's frightening quite frankly. It's something I warned against when I told Paul supporters that their "Ron Paul" chants were bordering on idolatry. You'll also find that in my digg comments if you look back far enough.
I now feel that all hope is lost. There will be no accountability for those who started the Iraq war. The Real ID will be a matter of fact. The FBI biometrics data-bank will be a matter of fact. The TSA database will be a matter of fact. Warrant-less domestic spying on electronic communications will be a matter of fact. The North American Union will be a matter of fact. The CIA would continue its reign of terror as a matter of fact. The drug war will continue to victimize the poor as a matter of fact.
Those are the things I wanted to have changed. The change you people want is merely a more palatable version of the same. I was confused by the end of 1984. Now it makes a lot more sense.- nblsavage, on 02/10/2008, -7/+32Dugg you up. I may have disagreed with you from time to time but it's obvious you've put more thought in to your position than most people.
- orca94, on 02/10/2008, -9/+4He didn't put any more thought into what he said than any other Paul fan posting on Obama threads. he may have expressed his points better through more effective writing, but his arguments are the same ***** that every other RP fan has been preaching about all along. He hasn't put any more thought into his arguments than anyone else. He's just another ***** ***** supporting Paul who can't help bending the truth in some pathetic attempt to get that piece of ***** elected elected.
His points:
"REAL ID"
"Patriot Act"
"Obama has no issues he's just a good speaker"
"Obama is a liar"
"North American Union" (***** psycho babble might I add)
Same *****, different screen name.- spyd3rweb, on 02/10/2008, -2/+2North American Union is ***** psycho babble?
- nblsavage, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2@spyd3rweb, yes to everyone but you and your fellow paranoids
- orca94, on 02/10/2008, -9/+4He didn't put any more thought into what he said than any other Paul fan posting on Obama threads. he may have expressed his points better through more effective writing, but his arguments are the same ***** that every other RP fan has been preaching about all along. He hasn't put any more thought into his arguments than anyone else. He's just another ***** ***** supporting Paul who can't help bending the truth in some pathetic attempt to get that piece of ***** elected elected.
- tschau, on 02/10/2008, -7/+12You said something smart and did your best to convey it well... and everyone dugg you down. That sucks. Good point about the end of 1984, I'd forgotten about that part.
- bizkit00, on 02/10/2008, -4/+16Too vague, rewrite the part about voting against the issues that are most important to him. The burden of proof is on you until you come up with some specific info.
- Garbagio, on 02/10/2008, -1/+2Well, I don't see it as vague at all because of the immensity of the reason why I disagree with Obama as well. It's an all encompassing view of what Obama can and will do if elected. His past history shows him as a person who has changed stances when voting in bills. The connection of Obama's words and his actions are especially important because he hasn't laid out any concrete plans. It revolves around "Trust me. I'll do what I am promising" and people believe him. They want to believe him, he has the charisma to make his stories excite you to get to that land of the future.. Then we start hearing things about flip flops. Multiple ones on issues that I think actually shouldn't matter, but he has lied about them and has been caught outright with editorial evidence and comparisons as well as video.
Here's one comparison about doing a business deal, whether or not it was connected to his campaign,n with Rezko, a Slum Landlord who gave him a deal on the closing price of his land.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXAQ3BHTbjs
This one below goes more in depth about the case with Rezko and what may have led Obama to not be forthcoming on this issue.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/184540,12230 ...
This is one of other examples as well. I've been digging into all the major campaigns and Obama can talk the talk, but whether he wants to do what is in the people's best interests or not is where the question is. He has great character but if he screws up, you may not have another 4 years to look forward to have a new 'change-monger' in the house..
- Garbagio, on 02/10/2008, -1/+2Well, I don't see it as vague at all because of the immensity of the reason why I disagree with Obama as well. It's an all encompassing view of what Obama can and will do if elected. His past history shows him as a person who has changed stances when voting in bills. The connection of Obama's words and his actions are especially important because he hasn't laid out any concrete plans. It revolves around "Trust me. I'll do what I am promising" and people believe him. They want to believe him, he has the charisma to make his stories excite you to get to that land of the future.. Then we start hearing things about flip flops. Multiple ones on issues that I think actually shouldn't matter, but he has lied about them and has been caught outright with editorial evidence and comparisons as well as video.
- deskimo, on 02/10/2008, -2/+11I understand your concerns, but can you point me to specific places where you think Obama betrayed his own beliefs or didn't stand firm? I would like to know out of curiosity. Because everything I've seen/read/heard about the man is that he is a transformational figure who honestly believes in what he is saying and acts accordingly. And I would be deeply disappointed if your recent turn to cynicism turned out to be based on accurate discoveries.
- Napoleone, on 02/10/2008, -4/+17Before you take a look at the links, allow me to make clear a few things. I believe him to be a wise man. And I don't expect infallibility from any individual, much less a politician. But in my view, he's also overly-pragmatic. He's shown he's willing to compromise where instead he should stand on principle.
For instance, he strongly criticized the Patriot Act, and actively campaigned for his senate seat on the issue of repealing its worst provisions, yet after making only the most modest of modifications to it, he went ahead and voted to reauthorize it.
He also voted for the Real ID. And when asked if he supported it, he said he didn't because it was poorly funded. To the average person, that would make it seem as though he were against the Real ID, when in actuality he merely objects to the fact that it's not funded properly.
He says on his website and at campaign rallies that the troops will be out of Iraq within 16 months of him taking office. But in a September 27, 2007 debate, when asked if combat troops would be out of Iraq before the end of his first term, i.e. 2013, he said, "I think it's hard to project four years from now". http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/09/27/dems.debate ... He says the troops are coming home, but he also says we need to re-deploy the troops "on the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan." http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/obama_vows_t ...
Now, I've seen this man in action in the senate. I know he'd be a quite capable leader; one of the best in a long time. But I'm a fervent believer in the concept of strong laws above strong leaders. And he signed on to some pretty bad laws while in the senate. There's a part of me, though, that hopes he's merely been playing politics. But at the same time, it offends me that someone would play politics with my rights.
There are other issues, but I'll let you be the judge of whether or not these amount to anything that would merit you taking the time to look into any others.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-12-22-2 ...
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/2/2/182546/1998
http://firedoglake.com/2008/02/06/nobodys-hands-ar ... - Jibaku, on 02/10/2008, -1/+12Nobody's closet is completely skeleton-free.Views are not static, they are fluid and evolve. We are all accurately branded "flip-floppers". And politics do not change in a straight line. He's not a god, he's a human. As highlighted in the speech, we need an individual who knows how to speak on even ground with people of disparate viewpoints; this is not remotely limited to religion.
"At first, Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said the candidate had "always" supported decriminalizing marijuana...[then] his campaign reversed course and declared he does not support eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana possession and use."
The fact is that marijuana has been classified as a schedule I drug, classified as having "a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use..." etc. The first step in the process of legalizing marijuana is to reduce it's classification to Schedule II where it would be permissible for Doctors nationally to study and apply it for medicinal purposes. In schedule II there would still be penalties for unprescribed use, but they would be less stringent due to the drug's subdued reputation on the scale of harmful substances. This is how you reverse the vilification of the substance in peoples' minds and bring the population as a whole around to becoming comfortable with it's common use. This is how you wean fearmongering profiteers of a scapegoat and an income source. Legalization will follow.
That's just a single example of how we need to realize that change requires strategic foresight and planning.
- Napoleone, on 02/10/2008, -4/+17Before you take a look at the links, allow me to make clear a few things. I believe him to be a wise man. And I don't expect infallibility from any individual, much less a politician. But in my view, he's also overly-pragmatic. He's shown he's willing to compromise where instead he should stand on principle.
- orca94, on 02/10/2008, -11/+10More Paul spam. Prove where his record has strayed from what he preaches. The only thing you'll be able to bring up are a bill he voted for where there was a rider for Real ID, and a revision to the Patriot Act that made it less offensive. Those don't count, A) because with the terrible legislative system we have that allows for riders that are completely and utterly ridiculous on bills that would otherwise be great legislation, you can't fault someone for voting for a bill that does more good than harm, especially if it wouldn't have passed otherwise B) because a revision to a law that makes it better than it was before is better than no revision at all.
- JeffD, on 02/10/2008, -1/+11"The North American Union will be a matter of fact. "
No it wont, Canadians don't want it either and were not going to let it happen. Unless you count a US/Mexico union as a NA union, then I guess its possible.- blackjack75, on 02/10/2008, -3/+1That said I am pretty sure the Canadians will agree to totall erase the frontier one day or another, which is a first step. Of course now is a bad time since the U.S. has given such a bad image lately that even Canada wants to keep the frontier close.
We also had the same reaction in Europe but with time we got used to the idea and I can't say it's a bad thing. Of course it benefits big corporations stranglehold over a larger piece of land but it can be a tool to erase frontiers, which are an artificial construct based on fear.
In understand the difference here is a bit different since it's mostly one huge country trying to assimilate two smaller ones, but you could say the same about France and Germany swallowing Belgium..- Kerrigore, on 02/10/2008, -0/+2"it's mostly one huge country trying to assimilate two smaller ones"
Oh come on, we Canadians aren't that ambitious. On a related note, Obama is one of the first prominent American leaders who I'd choose to have as a leader in Canada.
- Kerrigore, on 02/10/2008, -0/+2"it's mostly one huge country trying to assimilate two smaller ones"
- blackjack75, on 02/10/2008, -3/+1That said I am pretty sure the Canadians will agree to totall erase the frontier one day or another, which is a first step. Of course now is a bad time since the U.S. has given such a bad image lately that even Canada wants to keep the frontier close.
- Singularitarian, on 02/10/2008, -0/+2The internet is still brand new, and we are only just beginning to see the way it spreads enlightenment. Things seem bad now but there's much to be hopeful about.
- someuser90, on 02/10/2008, -3/+9"His record proves he's lacked the character to stand firm on the issues he said were most important to him"
BE SPECIFIC!
THIS IS THE BASIS FOR YOUR WHOLE POST, AND YOU DON'T GIVE ANY EXAMPLES!
- nblsavage, on 02/10/2008, -7/+32Dugg you up. I may have disagreed with you from time to time but it's obvious you've put more thought in to your position than most people.
- dn11, on 02/10/2008, -5/+31You should listen more often and more closely in that case! just because he uses political slogans again and again to get people "fired up" doesn't mean he is without substance - he just knows that he has to speak to different audience at different times with different tones. His "substance" - such as what you see in this speech - would be lost on the masses
- grakker, on 02/10/2008, -14/+3Actually, it means that, in most cases he is without substance. I will vote for whoever gets the nomination from the Dem side. And I haven't been a registered Dem in many, many years. After Kucinich dropped out, so did I, as far as really caring. I'll vote for him if he wins. I'll vote for Clinton if she wins. I don't really give a *****.
- deanlowe, on 02/10/2008, -2/+6You're saying he think "the masses" aren't smart enough to get him?
- dn11, on 02/10/2008, -1/+10No, I'm just saying he can't give this sort of speech - something with this much detail and nuance at every campaign stop. Having gone to an Obama rally that took place in a coliseum with 14,000 people in attendance that had the feeling of a rock concert - this sort of lecture would not have translated. He is using the language he needs to communicate to certain audiences at certain moments. The polls and statistics show that his supporters are actually more educated than Hillary's on average - but the slogans, the inspirational "vagueness" are indeed used strategically - they are the things that cement him in the minds of people who are not necessarily dumb, but who would not otherwise be moved to support a candidate at all. I support him not because of the slogans but because I've read his books, looked at his lesser known more in depth speeches and interviews, looked at his actual platform - but it was his ability to simply communicate that got me interested in him in the first place.
- deanlowe, on 02/10/2008, -1/+1In summary: He talks down to people at rallies.
- Vektuz, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1to be fair, "the masses" voted bush in.
edit: twice - cleverboy, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1A recent article discussed the fact that many of his early speeches were VERY detailed, and turned out to be snore fests. People's eyes glazed over. You need broad strokes for the masses. It's not that they DON'T understand, its that they're not in a venue where they're as amenable to understanding as they are to speeches about an overarcing "vision". He's begun to again inject more frequent specifics on issues into his stump speech, but like any recipe... you don't want to unnecessarily ruin the meal (especially when you've provided all the details on your website and aren't simply there to read from it).
- dn11, on 02/10/2008, -1/+10No, I'm just saying he can't give this sort of speech - something with this much detail and nuance at every campaign stop. Having gone to an Obama rally that took place in a coliseum with 14,000 people in attendance that had the feeling of a rock concert - this sort of lecture would not have translated. He is using the language he needs to communicate to certain audiences at certain moments. The polls and statistics show that his supporters are actually more educated than Hillary's on average - but the slogans, the inspirational "vagueness" are indeed used strategically - they are the things that cement him in the minds of people who are not necessarily dumb, but who would not otherwise be moved to support a candidate at all. I support him not because of the slogans but because I've read his books, looked at his lesser known more in depth speeches and interviews, looked at his actual platform - but it was his ability to simply communicate that got me interested in him in the first place.
- JettaMan, on 02/10/2008, -18/+5"Obama's speech on atheist and faith may be the most important pronouncement by a Democrat on faith and politics since John F. Kennedy's Houston speech in 1960 declaring his independence from the Vatican."
Or maybe it's not. - rentmitchum, on 02/10/2008, -1/+14We just aren't used to a public official opening their mouth lately without spewing a bunch of ***** and rhetoric. This is a rare treat, and I really want to vote for Obama, moreso than ever. I've pretty much made up my mind he's who I want to the president, or bust.
- BeyondDGrave, on 02/10/2008, -17/+4Obama said that god practically talked to him. Did you even watch the video? This sounds like just another Politician that has imaginary friends talking to him to persuade the masses that he is just like the others... It's just Garbage In....Garbage Out... and people such as yourself have failed to realize it.. smart... ha!
- Hillsfar, on 02/10/2008, -4/+13Those who convert feel that call from the divine. Obama is not saying that he knows what God wants for America - he spends most of his speech talking about the ridiculousness of those who would presume to speak for God. Obama is saying he felt called to Christ - i.e. called to become a Christian. That's all.
- mistafreeze, on 02/10/2008, -0/+7It would be a political death, to say he is an atheist.
Therefore to ensure the most votes, he has to be a member of the popular religion (in America that is Christianity)
- mweflen, on 02/10/2008, -1/+15Yes, he clearly is an intelligent guy with serious ideas about democracy, faith, and living life as a human being on this earth. He's clearly read his Kierkegaard and his Plato as well as his bible. Too bad he doesn't express any of this on the campaign trail, as your comment indicates. Instead, he has dumbass cheers like "yes we can" (a bad idea strategically, btw, due to the uncomfortable Jesse Jackson echo...).
Which is not to say the other candidates don't do this. It just sickens me that even the intelligent candidates find it necessary to dumb things down for the average troglodyte mouth-hanging slob in America. It frightens the ***** out of me that the United States has fallen so far.
Why can't a candidate run on being smart? That being intelligent allows you to assess problems and propose solutions to them that are cogent and effective?- Anzat, on 02/10/2008, -1/+13Obama is smart enough to know you can't win by running on being smart.
Hillary is trying to run on being smart, even though Obama is much smarter. He's winning.
He's counting on people who truly value smarts to figure out that he's the smart one on their own, and they have. There's another segment of people who vote based only on their vague feelings about a candidate, and Obama's counting on more of THOSE people wanting a candidate who inspires them than a candidate who "feels" smart and competent. And he's right. - schrankage, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1Obama has to act a certain way and meet certain (low and pathetic) standards to get elected. Once that happens, the academic crowd will start seeing more of what they crave.
- Vektuz, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1Its because candidates CANNOT run on being smart.
average people do NOT vote for the smart one. They vote from the pulpit and they vote with their hearts but they do not vote with their brains. Otherwise bush wouldn't have been in power not once, but TWICE.
- Anzat, on 02/10/2008, -1/+13Obama is smart enough to know you can't win by running on being smart.
- streak, on 02/10/2008, -8/+2He's smart and at the same time incredibly naive, but damn he has a sweet voice!
- blackjack75, on 02/10/2008, -0/+8The true genius in Obama is that he can say smart things without getting hated by the broad base (including a bunch of idiots...). Think about Noam Chomsky saying the exact same thing. He'd have stated the same truth but using words that while being just a true would have hurt and alienated a lot of people.
- hamobu, on 02/10/2008, -1/+4Main stream media portrays him in sound bytes, and makes him sound like some feel good vague preacher, but he actually has something specific to say.
- Napoleone, on 02/10/2008, -56/+72No one ever said he was a dumb man. Digg far enough into my comments and you will see me saying he is both intelligent and of much integrity, and that I would vote for him.
- realmadrid1919, on 02/10/2008, -105/+31Found religion just as he got into politics, very convenient. I guess that if I ever decided to get into politics myself I'd be forced to pick up a bible too if I wanted any success. I don't think I could lie to myself though. I"m not saying Obama is anything other than what he says he is, its just good for him he became religious considering his career choice. I actually think Obama is the better choice than any other candidate left in the race, so go Obama.
- anselm83, on 02/10/2008, -6/+46He "found religion" before he got into politics; very inconvenient for your theory.
- keithburgun, on 02/10/2008, -13/+3C'mon man. Why did realmadrid get modded down? He was completely correct. GWB did the same thing, all politicians do that, they're super educated atheists and then oh, I want to run for office, suddenly they're religious.
- realmadrid1919, on 02/10/2008, -1/+1I think they feel that I'm attacking Obama, which I,m not. I just think Obama may have fallen into the same situation that I would I I decided to run for public office. It just seems convenient, lucky for Obama, and myself since I feel he is the the best choice left.
- spinchange, on 02/10/2008, -0/+4I want to say upfront that I just voted for Obama in my state's primary. I support him. But he did pretty much acknowledge that he accepted religious faith @ the black church in Chicago AFTER he was working with them as a secular community/political organizer. He explains that he was raised with Christian and Muslim influences but his mother was an ardent atheist. He said he grew up and became an adult "sharing her skepticism." of organized religion.
- cleverboy, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1"Community/political organizer"? Dude... come on. I read his book. Being a "community organizer" and making sure people get out to the polls and vote does not mean you're "in politics". The general implication that people "find religion" before getting into politics usually means a year before they run for public office, they walk into church for the first time in 5-10 years and suddenly start going regularly. Obama's been going regularly for over 20 years. 20 years. That's not the traditional "just finding religion" as we generally know it... as it involves public office. In dealing with the various churches... he was invited, and over time, he found his faith. At certain points, a person can gain the benefit of the doubt.
- realmadrid1919, on 02/10/2008, -1/+2First, my comment was not a "theory" it is speculation. Im not claiming to know anything about Obama, I'm just saying its a possibility given my understanding of his life story.
- stephend, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1You might be right about that, but their point still stands. No religion = no chance of office.
- keithburgun, on 02/10/2008, -13/+3C'mon man. Why did realmadrid get modded down? He was completely correct. GWB did the same thing, all politicians do that, they're super educated atheists and then oh, I want to run for office, suddenly they're religious.
- fcbfan, on 02/10/2008, -3/+4real madrid fan? ..buried.
- realmadrid1919, on 02/10/2008, -1/+1Your a Genius!
- bitspace, on 02/10/2008, -1/+1Buried for great irony.
- realmadrid1919, on 02/10/2008, -1/+1Your a Genius!
- Risiko, on 02/10/2008, -0/+8Your argument has some validity. The truth is, however, we won't ever know Obama's real motivation for 'finding religion'. I suspect that, being the highly intelligent man he is, he'd understand religion for what is it -- human-created. Nevertheless, his attitude towards religion, if you listen to his speech carefully, is one of skepticism. He says that directly. Granted, he is comfortable speaking in religious terms, and at least appears that he has a strong belief in a personal God, he is fairly vague about it. Like most people in real life, you don't really know their deepest core beliefs.
In the end, he's probably not claiming anything he doesn't believe. That is, he isn't lying. On the other hand, by maintaining a certain level of vagueness about his deepest religious beliefs, he allows himself the hope of being elected for the highest office in the land.- realmadrid1919, on 02/10/2008, -0/+2I agree. I was just acknowledging a possibility and to me it seems a logical one. I was just kinda putting myself in Obamas shoes.
- cleverboy, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1To be honest, whether its calculation or conviction, it doesn't matter in the end. It is absolutely *impenetrable* to somehow divine another persons spirituality or relationship with God. In fact, its dangerous to do so. Some of the biggest "preachers" of our time have been revealed to be two-faced charlatans. My pastor has ALWAYS said that TRUE Christians approach their religion with questions. You wouldn't identify it as "skepticism", but basically you're acknowledging that there is a struggle at play, and that the imperfect nature of reality requires that people work hard to strengthen their personal relationship with God with questions that reveal revelation. Simply "believing" is a truly "weak" and flimsy thing. You don't often hear people acknowledge this in church, but they do. It is the foolishly religious that simply answer that "bad things happening to good people" is "god's will", and have no true "wisdom" to share, consistent with their faith.
- dustinhansen, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1That's kind of a cynical thing to say. There's really no evidence to support he "found religion" for political purposes only. Why does it matter what he really believes when he gives a speech like this? Like it or not, there are just as many religious people than nonbelievers in this country... we need someone that can pull us all together!
- anselm83, on 02/10/2008, -6/+46He "found religion" before he got into politics; very inconvenient for your theory.
- whizbang, on 02/10/2008, -5/+269http://www.barackobama.com/2006/06/28/call_to_rene ...
"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."- computergod, on 02/10/2008, -17/+7Interesting stuff, I just have to wonder the intended audience. This, to me, reeks of potential narrow casting. Where was the speech made? What organizations was it sent out to?
- iamtwp, on 02/10/2008, -1/+10It was made as the keynote address at a Sojourners/Call to Renewal conference in June 2006. The organization is a Christian organization that focuses on social justice issues, community development, and urban renewal.
- computergod, on 02/10/2008, -1/+3Never heard of them, but I'm glad to know it was religious based. Pretty recent too, just wish it was after he put his hat in.
- iamtwp, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1They're definitely worth looking into. Introduced me to another side of faith that I didn't know existed after growing up in the midst of the hardcore religious right. Not all Christians are whackjob republicans.
www.sojo.org
- iamtwp, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1They're definitely worth looking into. Introduced me to another side of faith that I didn't know existed after growing up in the midst of the hardcore religious right. Not all Christians are whackjob republicans.
- mCanada, on 02/10/2008, -18/+72Glad to see part of his family is atheist. If he gets into the WH, It's a start for us
- Lyk4n, on 02/10/2008, -5/+23I agree, it's a shame you're being dugg down. Most likely religious people trying to suppress your views.
- ZenMojo, on 02/10/2008, -3/+30A little annoyed at the tribalism expressed at the statement (although I didn't digg it down). We need an Atheist in office, we need a Jew in office, we need a Mormon in office, we need an Aborigine in office, we need an Asian in office, etc. While the idea that only white guys have been in office is frustrating, it's not as if a white Protestant male can't carry out the concerns of the electorate.
- Lyk4n, on 02/10/2008, -16/+2The only person who could do that properly is an Agnostic, a true neutral. No one who is biased can do the job properly. On either side.
- iamtwp, on 02/10/2008, -7/+8There is no such thing as a true neutral. Everyone is biased in some way.
- Shirt, on 02/10/2008, -1/+19It doesn't matter what faith they practice. All that matters is if they understand that their faith isn't supposed to affect anybody else's.
- Coffeedemon, on 02/10/2008, -3/+3"The only person who could do that properly is an Agnostic, a true neutral. No one who is biased can do the job properly. On either side"
He'd be branded a flip flopper.
- ZenMojo, on 02/10/2008, -3/+30A little annoyed at the tribalism expressed at the statement (although I didn't digg it down). We need an Atheist in office, we need a Jew in office, we need a Mormon in office, we need an Aborigine in office, we need an Asian in office, etc. While the idea that only white guys have been in office is frustrating, it's not as if a white Protestant male can't carry out the concerns of the electorate.
- GregR, on 02/10/2008, -2/+7As he said, "fair minded" is the key. He seems to believe this is true and if he becomes Pres. then hopefully he practices it.
It's sure nice to hear someone running for Pres. that actually has two brain cells to rub together and uses them. Seems to be far too few recently. - mindwalker, on 02/10/2008, -0/+3It's also refreshing to learn of someone's being born Muslim and later becoming an atheist.
- Lyk4n, on 02/10/2008, -5/+23I agree, it's a shame you're being dugg down. Most likely religious people trying to suppress your views.
- afruff23, on 02/10/2008, -21/+3"healthy skepticism of organized religion herself. As a consequence, so did I."
Oh, and that totally explains how he joined a Church with a crazy pastor.- ZenMojo, on 02/10/2008, -2/+8Crazy church and its damn same-sex marriage ceremonies...
- alkaline213, on 02/10/2008, -2/+6all pastors and church goers have to be pretty crazy to believe in a giant dude in the sky that watches when you jack it.
- Lyk4n, on 02/10/2008, -10/+56Hooray for his dad coming into the light of reason! I'm happy that Obama has some real experience with Atheists. Some Christians don't understand that we don't worship Satan. He simply doesn't exist..
- Scagli3tti, on 02/10/2008, -1/+4Well his dad left his family when Barack was 2 years old so I don't know how much "real experience" with Atheists is derived from his father. Nonetheless the sincerity of his desire to push religion out of the forefront of American politics seems genuine to me.
Here's the source in case anyone's anal:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_obama#Early_li ... - kupo19, on 02/10/2008, -0/+5I hate how everyone considers atheism a religion. Um... helloooooo.
- Scagli3tti, on 02/10/2008, -1/+4Well his dad left his family when Barack was 2 years old so I don't know how much "real experience" with Atheists is derived from his father. Nonetheless the sincerity of his desire to push religion out of the forefront of American politics seems genuine to me.
- dn11, on 02/10/2008, -1/+41"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".
- Rikushix, on 02/10/2008, -1/+10That's what I like about him. I'm an agnostic, and thus I feel that there are a great many flaws in the concept of organized religion and today's practicing examples, but I wholeheartedly support spirituality. Obama has tons of the latter while making sure the former is not put on a elitist pedestal.
- texasflip, on 02/10/2008, -0/+8This speech/sermon is something, that as a burgeoning non-theist, I really needed to hear. It shows Obama's true talent for bringing people from 'opposing' sides to a common ground. He demonstrates to us that our differences are small when compared to our similarities. Some argue that he panders to both sides of an argument. I believe that through inspiring rhetoric he helps us break down the societal barriers that factions in America have been using to barricade themselves in a moral trench-war. If Obama's message of tolerance can become widespread, then there is hope that we can all live together peacefully...not only within our country's border but together on this earth.
- caleb4mj, on 02/10/2008, -1/+8I may or may not be an atheist, but atheism is not my "religion". So I don't care whether or not they understand atheist "values" or whatever. But I do care that they will take into consideration the ideas and values of all citizens regardless of their religious association when making decisions that affect us all.
- computergod, on 02/10/2008, -17/+7Interesting stuff, I just have to wonder the intended audience. This, to me, reeks of potential narrow casting. Where was the speech made? What organizations was it sent out to?
- dreamflow, on 02/10/2008, -6/+73MIRROR
Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-tdM265j7Q
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xj86Xlbvq4A
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bz4nPeC8SIM
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaNAT6rh-Ao
Part 5 : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjNYCByGAR4- crimson117, on 02/10/2008, -1/+6http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=1038ACF008 ...
- sarixe, on 02/10/2008, -3/+1not really needed...
- DuppyLoLo, on 02/10/2008, -12/+268Obama is Genuine, well spoken, intelligent, inspiring, internationally favored, funded by the people, and more likely to make a positive change in Washington. If Hillary were elected the Democratic nominee she has a big chance of losing to McCain because of her clouded history and the fact she refuses to release her White House documents and Tax info. Even if she won the election in November she will be beholden to the corporate interest and Washington Lobbyist who funded her campaign. This is election is too important. We need someone who will win and is beholden to the people above all else. I began as a hillary supporter but the more I learn I know I could not vote for her anymore. I swear if she wins the nomination I will vote Green Party before Democratic. Let's put Obama in the White House!
- Servebot, on 02/10/2008, -1/+25im still in awe of how mcain even has a shot at winning this...
- MacEnvy, on 02/10/2008, -1/+17Just look at who he was up against in the primary, and it all becomes clear. McCain's a big fish in a little pond.
Obama's a tidal wave.
- MacEnvy, on 02/10/2008, -1/+17Just look at who he was up against in the primary, and it all becomes clear. McCain's a big fish in a little pond.
- ceraphin, on 02/10/2008, -1/+4I'm in awe at how hilary has crumbled from my hopes
- sickanimations, on 02/10/2008, -1/+11I agree - the founding fathers (especially Thomas Jefferson) expected people with this attitude to lead the USA .
- Oogler, on 02/10/2008, -7/+2I'm not sure I agree that it is fair to paint Hillary's past as "cloudy". I certainly hope that you don't mean to intone that being accused of something is the same as being guilty of something. Did you get to the part in this speech about 'fair mindedness'
And, not for nothing but, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton share most of the same values so I'd be cautious in how you throw your support around.- wakananda, on 02/10/2008, -0/+4Hillary Clinton is a mush-talking, flip-flopping globalist warhawk. Ask the people of Mena, Arkansas about the character and values of the Clintons.
- Monkeywithacold, on 02/10/2008, -0/+4Everything I have read and heard makes it sound like Obama would have a much harder time winning an general election. He has never had to run against a Republican (For the Senate, the republican he ran against withdrew because of an affair or something, so he ran against some guy nobody knew). McCain isn't that conservative for a republican, so he could get some democratic votes. Obama, as much as certain people groups love him, a lot of middle to upper class white people (like my parents) don't like him.
(Funny story)
I was talking with some friends parents (super conservative) and they said they worry about Obama because of his ties with Islam. As though he would turn this country into an Islam country, to which I replied, "If thats your biggest worry going into this election, please don't vote"
- Servebot, on 02/10/2008, -1/+25im still in awe of how mcain even has a shot at winning this...
- GoneGreen, on 02/10/2008, -20/+44I wish Obama had a fan club! I would carry the membership card everywhere I went ^^
- unearth, on 02/10/2008, -2/+57Yeah, I just dropped what I was doing for the next 40 minutes to listen to him. Imagine trying to do the same for Hillary or McCain.
- grakker, on 02/10/2008, -4/+8I've done the same. Both for Clinton and McCain. Hell, even Huckabee. They all have, occasionally, things I want to listen to. But after listening to Paul and Kucinich, they all are frail, scarred, little shadows. I can't understand why anyone would get fired up about McCain or Obama. I will vote for Obama in the general, but I'm far from being some fanboy. If you are a fanboy, I don't know where you are coming from. There are other, previously mentioned, candidates who TRULY inspired the support. Yet, no, we are left once again with vapid statements. It makes me sick.
- adrenaline33, on 02/10/2008, -4/+11People get fired up about Obama and not Paul because he is charismatic and a good speaker. It's not necessarily a policy issue. Paul didn't have one good showing at a debate and you have to understand that the average person that doesn't care about politics can be won over by a candidate's personality.
- unearth, on 02/10/2008, -0/+4I was making the point that Obama is an excellent orator.
McCain? Not so much. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWDbCHHQPLY
Hillary? I would probably try to gouge my ears out after about 5 minutes.
- grakker, on 02/10/2008, -4/+8I've done the same. Both for Clinton and McCain. Hell, even Huckabee. They all have, occasionally, things I want to listen to. But after listening to Paul and Kucinich, they all are frail, scarred, little shadows. I can't understand why anyone would get fired up about McCain or Obama. I will vote for Obama in the general, but I'm far from being some fanboy. If you are a fanboy, I don't know where you are coming from. There are other, previously mentioned, candidates who TRULY inspired the support. Yet, no, we are left once again with vapid statements. It makes me sick.
- Falldog, on 02/10/2008, -1/+15There is one, initiation is on November 8th. ;)
- doyoulikeworms, on 02/10/2008, -8/+4And the membership card is Real ID? No thanks.
- Jordan117, on 02/10/2008, -1/+9You're in luck:
http://store.barackobama.com/
And all proceeds go to a VERY good cause... :) - zeiben, on 02/10/2008, -8/+4"I wish Obama had a fan club!"
Dude, we're typing in it... - saltinekracka20, on 02/10/2008, -4/+4That's one of the gayest things I've ever heard.
- DephexTwin, on 02/10/2008, -0/+3You're on the Internet and THAT'S one of the gayest things?
- TheKarmaPolice, on 02/10/2008, -0/+5um, it's called the obama campaign. donate money. go to rallies. get active.
THAT'S a fanclub.
- unearth, on 02/10/2008, -2/+57Yeah, I just dropped what I was doing for the next 40 minutes to listen to him. Imagine trying to do the same for Hillary or McCain.
- Ireland, on 02/10/2008, -17/+205This man is possibly the best politician I've ever seen. And for the all the "right" reasons.
- SuperWinner, on 02/10/2008, -3/+30Guy is a genius politician, might be a game changer if he wins.
- dustinhansen, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2WILL be a game changer, I promise you. Coming from a long-time Chicago volunteer.
- PixelMagic, on 02/10/2008, -20/+7You forgot Ron Paul.
- JeffD, on 02/10/2008, -2/+5lulz?
- rebotfc, on 02/10/2008, -0/+4Ron Who?
- RockinRoel, on 02/10/2008, -3/+1You know… the name Obama might look like Osama, but RON Paul sounds a lot like L. RON Hubbard!
Way to put 2 digg trends up against eachother! :-) - sammythemc, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1Well YOU forgot POLAND.
Leaving policy out of it, Obama is a much better politician, in terms of garnering support, than Paul could ever hope to be.
- compu73rg33k, on 02/10/2008, -1/+2Except that he's voted for over $300 billion of funding for the war in Iraq. What the ***** is up with that?
- Otium9, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1when? what bill? Not saying i don't believe you but that sounds pretty damning.
- onestrawplz, on 02/10/2008, -0/+3he didn't want to send the soldiers to iraq (he never voted for the war) but if they're there they need some supplies. the money is going towards buying necessities for the soldiers.
- BigBallistix, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1He might also be sincerely committed to a worthwhile cause that bush cited only to abuse it: that Iraq is a mess and that they can't just pull out now and leave it like that. Peace is practically impossible in that region, but maybe he can heal some of the pain caused by Bush. There's also too much committed to Iran, so I doubt he could stop the attack on them if he wanted to.
- dustinhansen, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1They need supplies. There's no point in voting against it unless the whole party can get on board... so far, the Dems haven't done their job in this respect. As president, Obama WILL end this war quickly and efficiently.
- SuperWinner, on 02/10/2008, -3/+30Guy is a genius politician, might be a game changer if he wins.
- augenblick2007, on 02/10/2008, -4/+29This speech is on his book as well. The Audacity of Hope.
- RRJackson, on 02/10/2008, -11/+2Yes, his script is available as an alternative to Dianetics for all of you people who like that Cult of Personality stuff...
- augenblick2007, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2Well as an atheist I don't think I can belong (or get accepted) to a cult anywhere anytime soon. I pointed this out since I am reading about his views as much and best as I can to form an idea about him. So far my conclusion is to support him as long as he can talk the talk and walk the walk.
Tks.
- augenblick2007, on 02/11/2008, -0/+2Well as an atheist I don't think I can belong (or get accepted) to a cult anywhere anytime soon. I pointed this out since I am reading about his views as much and best as I can to form an idea about him. So far my conclusion is to support him as long as he can talk the talk and walk the walk.
- BestJaxx, on 02/10/2008, -1/+2So he is pro-atheism? I couldn't listen to the whole thing and just came to the comments to see what his opinion was. Thanks
- haterofps3, on 02/10/2008, -1/+4I think he doesn't care one way or the other, as long as you are a moral and ethical person I don't think he cares what religion you are or are not.. Which I feel is a truly great thing!
- DephexTwin, on 02/10/2008, -1/+2He says that even non-believers are valid, and those in office should not use "faith" to justify policy; even if it is in line with one's faith, it should stand up to logical scrutiny.
- Vektuz, on 02/10/2008, -1/+1He is pro-"good, ethical people" regardless of religion.
He is anti-"using faith as a bludgeon" to control the masses, like the republicans and evangelicals tend to do. He doesn't see that as ethical or helpful to the greater good of all
- RRJackson, on 02/10/2008, -11/+2Yes, his script is available as an alternative to Dianetics for all of you people who like that Cult of Personality stuff...
- bitspace, on 02/10/2008, -19/+408This guy is simply amazing. I am atheist, and have found myself becoming less and less tolerant of religion in the past 10 years or so. This speech just reminded me of why I ought to be more tolerant of the faith of others.
- GoneGreen, on 02/10/2008, -4/+76Atheist as well and it did the same for me,,,
- beankitty, on 02/10/2008, -5/+18x3
- grakker, on 02/10/2008, -7/+2*-1
- ChefAnubis, on 02/10/2008, -1/+6count me in too
- iainc, on 02/10/2008, -0/+5Ditto.
- beankitty, on 02/10/2008, -5/+18x3
- tchynerd, on 02/10/2008, -1/+30Good to hear for the both of you. Yay for tolerance!
- donttaseme, on 02/10/2008, -2/+2took them long enough
- DephexTwin, on 02/10/2008, -0/+3Trophies for everyone!
- dn11, on 02/10/2008, -2/+23i would call myself a decided agnostic, comfortable with atheism, but not able to declare from a philosophical standpoint that such questions can or need to be answered, but it wasn't until i saw Obama giving speeches in Christian churches that I became a firm supporter of him - his approach of tolerance and desire to find common ground his is best quality.
- agaudet, on 02/10/2008, -12/+27its hard to be tolerant when people keep telling you that your going to burn in hell because they believe it exists
- fhornplayer, on 02/10/2008, -1/+3Not all Christians are like that.
- BeyondDGrave, on 02/10/2008, -16/+16I am an Atheist and I can't be tolerant to such ignorance...I am not seeking confrontation, but I cannot support the passing of blissful ignorance to the future generations.
- Enasni1212, on 02/10/2008, -7/+12What's wrong with blissful ignorance, so long as it hurts no one? If someone believes in life after death (and this concept is, to me, the heart of religion--the manner in which people fend off their fear of death), and that helps them go through life in a moral manner, why should it matter? If someone does NOT believe in life after death, and they go through life in a moral matter anyway, why should it matter?
Saying, "I can't be tolerant," of something that has NO EFFECT on your life or the lives of others is precisely the problem on both sides of the argument. If Atheists and Theists could just agree to disagree--agree to be tolerant of one another's views--then there wouldn't be a problem.
I agree that you should not tolerate people that spout hateful rhetoric, but if someone wants to peacefully and personally believe in something that may or may not be true, then why "can't" you let them?
And note that I did not bring my personal religious belief or lack thereof into this argument, because I think it has no bearing. The point is reconciliation, and if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.- Fartag, on 02/10/2008, -6/+4"What's wrong with blissful ignorance, so long as it hurts no one?"
Suppose someone believes everything will be just fantastic in the next life and that this one is guaranteed to have great hardship because it's all just a test of faith anyway. Suddenly the motivation to improve it for themselves and everyone else is just a mere shade of what it otherwise would be. Maybe the goal of getting to the "singularity point" or otherwise saving themselves and billions of others with technology instead of relying on fictional characters to do it becomes critical. _That's_ what's wrong with blissful ignorance, it's not harmless at all even in apparent isolation.
- Fartag, on 02/10/2008, -6/+4"What's wrong with blissful ignorance, so long as it hurts no one?"
- texasflip, on 02/10/2008, -0/+4I think Obama is spot-on in this speech. It's has less to do with religion and everything to do with morality. Morality is the aim of both religious and secular citizens alike. If we can focus on a common goal, then I believe the tolerance will follow. Some people believe in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny, but if they're living morally and being an asset to the community and world then I'll be hard-pressed to make their beliefs a point of contention.
- joebonk, on 02/10/2008, -9/+4I agree, its a crime against humanity to let religion proliferate. and then people say it doesnt matter if some people are ignorant as long as they dont bother others with their magic. what about their children? children dont deserve to be brainwashed. and then what about voting? people that are too dumb to dismiss a 2000 year old zombie jew fairy tale are not going to pick the best candidate.
- sjmorton, on 02/10/2008, -2/+8What would you propose? Banning organized religion? Confiscating bibles? Making it a crime for parents to pass on their belief systems to their children if they don't agree with yours? As an atheist/agnostic I believe that most of what passes for religion is a fairy tale made up by the church but I don't feel that I have the right to tell people what they should believe (or not believe) or how to raise their children. If some people need faith as a means of giving their life a sense of purpose then so be it.
- SouthsideIrish, on 02/10/2008, -5/+3Yes, that is what they will do. Their religion is atheism and they want everyone to practice it. Say goodbye to freedom.
- apetrie, on 02/10/2008, -2/+1Ignoramus
- sjmorton, on 02/11/2008, -2/+3Please, not that tired old strawman. Atheism has no prayerbooks, no clergymen, and no tax-free buildings in which to gather each Sunday and compare clothing. Atheists don't give a rat's ass what you believe in as long as you don't shove it down their throats.
- iainc, on 02/10/2008, -0/+3It's not too much of a stretch to find the ideologies that consider religion to be the opiate of the masses. Half of the retards trolling the Obama threads seem to rejoice in saying how Marxist-this and Commie-that his policies are. Many of them are atheists who completely miss the irony embedded in the drivel that they post.
I'm an agnostic and I would sooner support a moral man, religious or not, who respects the beliefs of others in a pluralistic society. Society has changed; it's time for a more evolved and enlightened form of leadership. Obama clearly represents this new path.
- SouthsideIrish, on 02/10/2008, -5/+3Yes, that is what they will do. Their religion is atheism and they want everyone to practice it. Say goodbye to freedom.
- blackjack75, on 02/10/2008, -3/+5Religion can be removed progressively without pain and without hurting anyone in the long run... see nordic countries. All it costs is a good education system.
- samssf, on 02/10/2008, -2/+3I also dislike how irrational religion is, but you have to realize that some people wouldn't be able to live happily or productively without it. Some people are just not ready to live with the idea that there is nothing supernatural that they can turn to when they fail, and no life after death where they'll reunite with loved ones. Some people are also not ready to be able to be 100% responsible for controlling themselves and living up to morals and values which are made by society and integrated by oneself. That said, the people who feel the need for religion and faith should be free to do so. Let's just hope that over a period of time, people will slowly adopt the benefits of religion directly into their own expectations, and that religion will fade from lack of need or desire.
- MODernMxcn, on 02/10/2008, -1/+4I agree with you, the tolerance level needs to be a little higher, but that should definitely apply to the religious too, so people like us can come out to the public without being looked down on, just because we have no belief in faith at all.
- bitspace, on 02/10/2008, -3/+2I am of the opinion that religion will eventually be evolved out of the human race. While watching this speech it struck me that I've been impatient: "Evolve out NOW, dammit!" Evolution doesn't happen overnight.
- cronian, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1If you believe religious myths need to be confronted, I suggest you first start with the Santa and Tooth Fairy. Not all myths are totally religious.
- Enasni1212, on 02/10/2008, -7/+12What's wrong with blissful ignorance, so long as it hurts no one? If someone believes in life after death (and this concept is, to me, the heart of religion--the manner in which people fend off their fear of death), and that helps them go through life in a moral manner, why should it matter? If someone does NOT believe in life after death, and they go through life in a moral matter anyway, why should it matter?
- acroyear2, on 02/10/2008, -8/+15I am an atheist greatly fascinated by spirituality. it's a realm of thought many non-believers don't give themselves the opportunity of experiencing. it's not as stupid as you might think - whether or not it's real.
- BLASTOCYST, on 02/10/2008, -0/+11I totally agree. Good to see such insight here on digg.
- Coffeedemon, on 02/10/2008, -1/+6Agree as well. All aspects of our interaction - cultural and spiritual inform us of our differences AND our similarities and must be understood if we're going to come to terms with living together in a society of billions of individuals... regardless of their "reality" - the reality is people base their lives on these things and they need to be understood.
- deanlowe, on 02/10/2008, -15/+7What's with all this tolerance BS?
How about some ***** acceptance? - doctor49152, on 02/10/2008, -2/+15I have no problems with religion, I do have problems with some of the religious.
It's great that you have your faith. I wish I had something to comfort me when bad things happen and give credit when something good happens, but It bothers me when some self appointed 'faith healer' starts laying judgment and blame on someone just because they are different or have different views. So I totally agree with what Obama said in this speech. He's a man with a good strong moral center and I really like that. I really hope he wins.
I'm a Canadian and I think America could really use the hope and change that he's talking about. You really are a great country and you need to be set free of the oppression of Government, Corporations and the Church and take the power back for 'you, the people'
I don't hate America, I just hate SOME Americans.
I'm looking at you Bush and Cheney!- DarkyHelmety, on 02/10/2008, -0/+6Hear, hear!
From a fellow canadian - kenij, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1You said it.
There are some people that basically forget completely about what the bible teaches them while they are trying to convert people. Those are the really annoying people.
On the other hand, there are also the serious Christians. One of the best debates I ever had was with one. He almost convinced me to be one. This was because, instead of just yelling at me I was going to burn in hell, he debated seriously with me. Instead of freaking out if I made a point, he'd discuss it with me, telling me what he believed, and why.
That is how I believe Christians OUGHT to act. Most of the churches nowadays just play a numbers game. Who can get the most people coming to their church? So they have rock bands playing during the whole service, which is ridiculous. Nobody pays any attention to what the pastor is actually saying. (Okay, that might be a good thing, depending on what he's actually saying) But you get what I mean. Religion nowadays is not ANYTHING like it used to be/ought to be.
Nearly all the early presidents were Christians, and they were some of the best America's had. They were examples of how religious people actually were supposed to act. Unfortunately, they don't act like that anymore, and that's why religion is looked down on by so many people. It's not so much the actual religion as the people themselves not actually following what they claim they do.
Ugh, I'm tired. Hopefully that was clear enough to understand. - inajiffy, on 02/11/2008, -0/+0If you want to be part of the solution, put an end to your own hatred.
- DarkyHelmety, on 02/10/2008, -0/+6Hear, hear!
- samssf, on 02/10/2008, -1/+6I had the same experience. If Obama becomes president, it will be a great day for America.
- iainc, on 02/10/2008, -1/+2... and the world. And the Human Race. I get goosebumps just thinking about the possibilities.
- thursdayevryday, on 02/10/2008, -1/+1Same with me. Until Obama made this speech I would cringe at the mention of religion nontheless its inclusion with politics and usually dismissed any politition that used religion as a justification for his policies. With this speech I believe Barack Obama could finally bring together the ideas and values of the religious and atheist parts of America.
- funkywood, on 02/11/2008, -1/+1I love how he started out by looking at people's need for religion and the deeper truths that it covers. Us atheists need to recognise that and encourage people to meet those needs in ways that don't hurt others, be they religious or not. Things like the need for a sense of purpose and community values (not the family values that always get cited. These are built in and lead to selfish protection of children at the expense of others) that atheism has interest in providing. We all want those things, we should try providing those things before trying to tell people that they don't need religion.
- nonfamous, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1I'm an atheist, and there are many religious politicians I would never vote for. But I'll vote for Obama because I think that, were our positions reversed, he'd vote for me. That counts.
- GoneGreen, on 02/10/2008, -4/+76Atheist as well and it did the same for me,,,
- crowbar77, on 02/10/2008, -18/+192This guy can save America.
- aussieNickuss, on 02/10/2008, -10/+8This guy can save the world!
- blackjack75, on 02/10/2008, -0/+3He doesn't look like a cheerleader to me.
- crimson117, on 02/10/2008, -0/+2First he needs to save the cheerleader.
- GregR, on 02/10/2008, -3/+5That's a great sentiment and a good place to start but IF he gets elected he has a lot hard work ahead undoing all the bad decisions of the past 8+ years and there'll be some unpopular decisions he's going to have to make to get things back on track. I hope he gets a chance to do that and that people remember what he started with when/if he takes office.
- GhostyBoy, on 02/10/2008, -0/+17Only America's people can save America.
- BeyondDGrave, on 02/10/2008, -6/+2Apparently many other candidates can as well.
http://knowbeforeyouvote.com/ - rekleiner, on 02/10/2008, -2/+9pfff stupid comment. EVERYONE NEEDS TO SAVE THE WORLD!!! Stop thinking some one can do it. we can all do it.
That said. Simply a beautiful speech. - widgetmaker, on 02/10/2008, -1/+1As a UK citizen not American a truly hope you guys elect this guy he is far better than the rest by a long long way.
- aussieNickuss, on 02/10/2008, -10/+8This guy can save the world!
- macjaeh, on 02/10/2008, -10/+123Just beautiful. I love Barack. Finally a politician with a sense of tolerance for all people. Obama/Human Rights '08
- D3koy, on 02/10/2008, -16/+7At what point does your love for Obama get creepy? You replaced your image with his face as your Digg logo...
- macjaeh, on 02/10/2008, -3/+10Once it's a picture I took of him after stalking him for days.
- petrodollar, on 02/10/2008, -1/+7Dude, your Digg logo is a ***** children's toy.
- atron3030, on 02/10/2008, -0/+2haha.
- deanlowe, on 02/10/2008, -8/+2tolerance? ***** tolerance.
People don't want to be tolerated, they want to be accepted as they are.- Endemoniada, on 02/11/2008, -0/+1And your inane yelling acc
- D3koy, on 02/10/2008, -16/+7At what point does your love for Obama get creepy? You replaced your image with his face as your Digg logo...