Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
Left-Wing Dominionism
In his call to renewal, Barack Obama sets a progressive vision of Christianity, talking about poverty and the Bible and how important religion is. Of course, he couldn't resist badmouthing atheists and denigrating secularism.
Not every mention of God in public is a breach to the wall of separation - context matters. It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase "under God." I didn't. Having voluntary student prayer groups use school property to meet should not be a threat, any more than its use by the High School Republicans should threaten Democrats. And one can envision certain faith-based programs - targeting ex-offenders or substance abusers - that offer a uniquely powerful way of solving problems.
Somewhat ironically and spookily, the novel I wrote about religious fundamentalism has a character named David Reynolds, a young, black Democratic Senator from Illinois who's a very theocratic left-wing Christian. The main difference between Obama and Reynolds seems to be that Obama is paying lip service to separation of church and state, lauding it even as he denigrates any serious attempt to enforce it.
Forty-five years ago, American politicians often said they supported civil rights and opposed racism but still took care to derail any serious attempt to make the South give blacks the vote. Today, they laud separation of church and state in principle and then bash secular activism using the flimsiest of excuses.
Bookmark/Search this post with:
A different view
I don't quite have the same reaction. Overall, I read a positive message about finding a balance where religious people don't have to be ashamed to be religious and express their beliefs in religious terms. At the same time, he wants non-religious people to be comfortable with their status and not on edge, feeling oppressed and excluded merely for not believing. I think there's an important observation that many people are religious, and we can't dismiss and ignore that and hope to reach them.
I don't agree with him that religious organizations are the best means of combatting poverty. And I don't agree with his conclusion that religion is what people need in their lives to make them whole.
I wouldn't characterize his comments as "badmouthing atheists" or "denigrating secularism". He seems to be advocating the position that religious people should be able to express that religiousness without mandating it as policy. That's not denigrating secularism, it's accepting that people have personal feelings and beliefs that are important to them and shouldn't be forced into silence.
I think he is correct that context matters. Voluntary student religious groups should be able to meet on school grounds and use resources equivalent with any other voluntary student groups, whether that's the chess club, LGBT, a poetry club, or a philosophy discussion group.
I do, though, disagree about the context of the faith-based programs, and also the Pledge.
I didn't fully come to atheism till college. As such, I didn't at the time directly experience and therefore understand the exclusionism those idle and common expectations present. I was in the Boy Scouts, and it didn't bother me till later about the prayers. Same with "under God". It didn't register, because I was a believer at the time.
I get annoyned hearing religious terminology all around, embedded in cliche's and common phrases. But I also wonder how much of my annoyance comes not from the words or their use, but by my sensitivity to more aggressive anti-atheism and exclusionism that color my perceptions.
When I was a little kid, I
When I was a little kid, I learned about the First Amendment quite early. The Pledge struck me as fundamentally wrong, but if I didn't say it, I'd get socially persecuted like this one teacher in a novel we read in one class, who wouldn't say it for different reasons.
Obama is a politician
and a charismatic one at that. Imho, you give him too much credit. He is pandering: nothing more, nothing less.
Of course he's pandering
The reason I feel a need to explain that he is is that significant chunks of the liberal blogosphere swoon over him, seeing him as an example of a successful principled politician.
Is your novel available?
Is your novel available? (i.e. is it possible to get a copy?)
I haven't even sent it to a publisher
I intend to do so in August, once I'm settled in New York.
Anyway, thanks for asking.
Is it possible to get an
Is it possible to get an advance copy for review?
I'm not a publisher or agent or anything, I just like writing book reviews for my blog. I've found that a lot of bloggers have written very interesting novels. ;-)
If you're not interested and would rather wait for reviews after you've got it published, I won't be offended. Otherwise I think you have my email address with this comment.
Not yet
I don't mind sending it to people before it's out, but I'd rather wait till at least an initial letter gets a positive reply, even if the novel has not yet been accepted.
Why say the pledge at all?
When I was in grade school, one of kids was ostracized because he wouldn't say the pledge. He also wouldn't take part in either the Christmas or Chanukah activities. The rest of us thought he was strange.
Looking back, I realize that he was a Jehovah's Witness. And while he wasn't forced to participate in any activities, his lack of participation was glaring and it set him apart from the rest of us. It might not have been a big deal if it happened in high school, but it made 3rd grade very difficult for him.
Maybe politicians like Obama should climb take some time from criticizing secularists, and give a little thought to those people who suffer because of the politicians' eagerness to prove their religious credentials.
Precisely!
Maybe Obama should really get over his bogus* "oppression complex" before the reality of financial segregation blows up back to turn of the 19th century levels, as Bu$hCo seems to be endorsing.
* I only define it because of the prevalence of that word's usage as something that is unwanted generally. eg, in place of "that's awful". To be bogus generally is to be awful, but specifically because it's not real.
a personally evolving organism
On the other hand.
When I questioned god in junior high this silly little 'under God' line in the pledge laid bare the problems in the boy scouts (since i could never advance because i would not recite it), and led me to question the United States. I can say it bothered the hell out of me.
But leave it to those with presidential ambitions to perpetuate the same straw man that their opponents will beat them with later, "But what I am suggesting is this - secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square."
"So to say that men and women should not inject their "personal morality" into public policy debates is a practical absurdity."
Arrggghhh!!!!!!!!
But in the end i don't think his point is Dominionist. He makes a rather compelling argument that faith can't be the way to convince other people, and that's why the separation of church and state is such an important part of a pluralistic society.
----------------------------------------
"If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything."- Mark Twain.
He doesn't say he's a Dominionist
But then again, few people self-identify as racists; indeed, few people did in the 1960s. To hear David Duke tell it, he's not a racist at all - he's just worried over the excesses of black racism. At the end, Obama's a fundamentalist precisely because he opposes the fight for equality for atheists, brushing it off on flimsy grounds.
Brainwashed
I find this sentence to be especially telling, "It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase "under God." Followed by, "I didn't."
How the hell would you know Obama? You didn't object because you're already christian. What a tool.
He was raised Muslim
But Islam is the religion that least objects to the Pledge next to Christianity, since the only thing it wouldn't endorse is translating Allah's name into English so that it's called God. In that light what he says sounds about as serious as an Irishman or a Jew rattling off about how he doesn't feel oppressed by segregation and hence black people shouldn't, either.