Obama Lama Ding Dong

I seen such mixed things from Obama on religion. On everything else he seems decent, hasn't really amazed me but of the possible folks he seems the best. Kuncich is great but he can't win, Hillary might be able to win but that seems to be her only goal, Edwards is just sorta there, then theres Obabma.

As for the religious issues I hear about him cuddling up to the christians every where but then I hear him say things like this.

"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."

Maybe I'm just an optimist but it seems possible that he is just being so pro-christian so that people will stop calling him a muslim. I need to see a lot more action out of all the dems before any of them earns my vote.

You know, a while ago for class I read Animal Farm, it's probably one of the few books I actually liked in English class (although 1984 bored me into a sleepy stupor). I can't tell you exactly why I liked it, perhaps it was because it appealed to my gravitation toward Furry, perhaps it was because it was the first book I read that confirmed my ideas that even a country that is founded with the best of intentions will inevitably fall. Perhaps the most striking part of the book was at the very end, when the animals burst into a meeting between the pigs and human farmers, and can no longer tell the difference between the two.

It's like that lately. I look at the dems and I look at the reps, and for all the life of me I can't tell the difference between the two. I don't want Hillery to win, Obama I'm more iffy about, but I'd definitely prefer someone who will patch up the wall between church and state rather than trying to reach through the holes. Edwards' heart's in the right place but he doesn't really have it all together (in a way he reminds me of a white mage, he's got the skills the country really needs, but he's not strong). On the other side there's a bunch of bozos sitting up and begging for the religious vote. Bloomberg... I'd like to see a third party, and not just because I'm an independant, I genuinely think that politics works better when there are more than two sides.

Nice piece on Obama by Austin Cline over at About.com.

"Taking the lead in trying to get liberals, progressives, and Democrats to imitate the Christian Right, Barack Obama has declared that his religion does indeed have an important place in politics — but apparently only on his terms and in the way he wants. As has become common with the so-called "Religious Left," religion used the way he wants is good; religion used differently is not."

Hank-

If not Obama, then who is your choice and why?

Last year, I was living in Vermont and volunteered on the Bernie Sanders campaign. Great guy, but he is not running for prez. The year before, first I wanted Wesley Clark, then Dean and finally I ended up helping the Kerry campaign a little. I was a reluctant Kerry supporter, but anything was better than President Cheney. This cycle, my choices seem to be between Hillary and Barack.

Edwards no. Seems like an well-intentioned airhead. I kinda like Kucinich, but don't think he has the charm, leadership skills or fundraising ability to even come close. Bloomberg maybe? Not that excited about voting for a billionaire even though I am sick of both parties and the guy seems alright. I would love to see Gore jump in, but this possibility seems to be less and less likely. One can hope.

I will probably end up holding my nose and pulling the lever for Hillary if I have to, but Obama is my first choice, given the current field. I really don't want to vote for Hillary, but I may have no better options.

Most of my thoughts on Obama are reflected below by DOF's post.

I would also like to add a few things. I think the Dem field is pandering to the religious crowds because of what Karl Rove accomplished in 2000 and 2004. He made Dems look anti-religious. Of course this has never been true enough to satisfy me, but never the less it worked. Obama, Clinton, Edwards and the rest are all pandering to the religious crowd. It sucks, but they are trying to win an election. Maybe one day we will be able to vote for an atheist? But that day is a long way off.

As far as I know, Representative Pete Stark (D California) is the only publicly admitted atheist in Congress. I think there are more, but they keep it on the down low. I think our movement is small, but growing.

If there is a silver lining to the past six years of the Worst President in History, it is that the Republican party is dying. For the first time ever, Dems are kicking the GOP's ass in fundraising. The majority of Americans don't want ID taught in schools, don't want Roe overturned, don't want abstinance only education and do crave compitent leadership.

The Hartford Courant had a major spread on Sunday regarding Obama's attempts to put "faith" front-and-center in his campaign. It made me want to vomit. Remember Obama's big speech at the '04 convention? Pretty rousing number, I have to admit. I liked it right up to the line where he says "We worship an awesome God in the Blue States..." Uh, no, Sparky. "We" don't do any such thing.

It reminded me of a letter I wrote to the Courant in '00 -- after Lieberman's notorious speech where he said "We as a nation must re-dedicate ourselves to God and God's purpose." -- the point of which was that the line between acceptable and unacceptable invocations of religion in politics is the line between "I" and "We". If a politician wants to discuss their religion in the first person, they can go right ahead (probably still lose my vote, but whatever). The second person needs to be off-limits. As soon as they start talking about God belief in the context of "we the people", they've crossed the line into exclusionary, oppressive speech.

Sam Harris says it very clearly: The moderately religious create an environment in which the extremists can flourish.

But the same can be said for materialists, Hank: The extremists flourish as a reaction to a materialistic world-view. I read this book by Forest Church called The American Creed: A Biography of the Declaration of Independence and he traced the rise of fundamentalism to a reaction to the lack of morals in the business environment during the days of the robber barons in the late 19th century, not to religious moderates.

I would think that the environment for extremists, although it couldnt be traced to atheists--there's just not that many of you--could be traced precisely to a materialist, morality-less world view where the rich and powerful can do whatever they want in amassing more wealth while the majority remains poor. The rich and powerful could be of any religious or irreligious persuasion. I think Harris's reasoning is spotty. It isnt the moderately religious' fault.

Now I know very little of Obama, but it could be that he's not pushing for Christianity per se, but is pushing for a return to the morals of the American Founding Fathers (not all of whom were Christian): e pluribus unum. He just happens to be using the language of Christianity because that's what he knows.

I'm not a single-issue voter. But I'm not willing to let up the pressure and SETTLE this early.

(This is in reply to decrepit's comment below. For some reason, it wouldn't let me reply down there.)

...when I've seen them argue in favor of the type of 'Unitary Executive'/Imperial Presidency put into effect over the last 6 years: imagine Hilary Clinton with the same level of unaccountable power. Because this is exactly what every good Christian out there should fear: some future president using the same power of religion, but in a different religion (say Santeria, given the growing Hispanic political force in this country) - a religion they're not comfortable with, aligned with the powers of government.

This is the lesson that created this country's tradition of secular government. The European settlers who came here knew full well what religious war meant - they'd seen it play out in Europe over the preceeding couple of centuries. But now we're forgetting that even minor disagreements over ritual can lead to Inquisitions, pogroms, and war.

Jim Downey

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.

Obama on condoms - While chastity may be the ideal (what else do you expect a pol to say?) it may not always be the reality and we have to be realistic. Or abortion: Obama on abortion - woman's health and private decisions between woman and doctor come first. Or on evolution: Evolution is more grounded in my experience than angels"

There's more. When you get Obama talking about what's important to him, it's doing something about poverty, it's getting out of Iraq, it's urging black kids to study harder in school and not wait for society to deliver the goods all wrapped up in a bow. He supports stem-cell research. He isn't right on everything but he's got a pretty good lineup.

OK, he's a theist. We're members of a small minority, and if we want to, we can seek out a candidate who has the same non-belief that we have, and maybe he'll let us drink the leftover champagne with him when he makes his concession speech on election night.

I'm a single-issue voter, and that issue is humanity. Atheism will probably win out in the end anyway as science progresses. In the meantime, our country is so badly wounded that we need a healer, someone who will get people to say; "What have we been doing to ourselves?"

For that matter, we need a Democrat, and if you look at the last 8 elections, it's always been the guy with more charisma. That, he has in droves.

If you're a single issue voter, and that issue is atheism, get ready for losing a long series of elections to charismatic fascist warmongers.

"Somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together and faith started being used to drive us apart.”

Barack has it completely backwards, and puts the proverbial cart before the metaphorical horse...only until pretty much the late 19th and 20th thru 21st centuries has Enlightenment secular thinking shamed the great religions into more tolerant, humanistic, ecumenical attitudes. Faith historically brought the faithful together against a distinct out-group THEM, and continues to do so. "Let's all just be tolerant, respect each other as human beings, and treat one another as we ourselves would like to be treated" is a basic human concept does not require religious precepts to learn; just being human in the world of your fellow humanity generally leads you there quite naturally...unless you're a chemically imbalanced sociopath, what have you.

Jeg says:
"...he traced the rise of fundamentalism to a reaction to the lack of morals in the business environment during the days of the robber barons in the late 19th century, not to religious moderates."

Haven't read the book in question, but that hardly describes religious extremists TODAY.
Most view unbridled capitalism in glowingly positive terms, with prosperity a gift from God (never mind the exploitation of those brown people over there, etc--damn pesky materialists, always pointing out inconvenient things like that).

John D. Rockefeller himself once declared unabashedly that his money "came from God".

I recently finished Letter to a Christian Nation and End of Faith; Harris's point is very subtle, and to do it justice you really need to go read how he elaborates his argument. Most people that are objecting to his claim haven't seem to have done so--they just dismiss out of hand without engaging the nuances of his argument.

But I am really REALLY enjoying the hell out of the audiobook version of God Is Not Great, read by Christopher Hitchens himself, with that distinctive, learned British accent of his. I have my own points of disagreement with Harris & Hitchens both, and I daresay I enjoyed Letter to a Christian Nation more than End of Faith, but the Hitchens book is top notch, and he is quite eloquent. I highly recommend it for any atheist/agnostic humanist looking for a good read.

I have mixed feelings about Obama, but I certainly like him better than Hillary.