?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Lakeshore
An author of no particular popularity

Jay Lake
Date: 2008-02-11 12:35
Subject: [politics] Obama on religion in politics
Security: Public
Location:Nuevo Rancho Lake
Mood:thoughtful
Music:lunch break mambo
Tags:links, politics, religion
tongodeon quoting Obama on religion and politics — My main man says it much better than I have, capturing everything I think is wrong with faith-based politics and spinning it to a positive — something I haven't yet been able to do. Go read this, no matter what your political or religious stance. It's worth your two minutes.
Post A Comment | 15 Comments | | Flag | Link






Jeremy Tolbert
User: the_flea_king
Date: 2008-02-11 21:10 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
I find it hilarious that there is a grey in that user icon of yours.
Reply | Thread | Link



User: ex_chrisbil
Date: 2008-02-11 21:22 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
That's a really good speech from Obama. Especially considering the time he was in, I think Kennedy (Robert) had the benefit of a certain moral upbringing (which isn't impossible to get from any parents, but that he got due to his religion) and balanced it well in the same way that Obama describes, whereby he only brought it into play when it became a concept that could be stretched across the population, no matter what race, colour or religion they were. If Obama can do the same, go him. Also, that is the sort of bold but intelligent speech that I do not see Hillary Clinton making, which is pretty much why I favour him so much.

I'm sure he'll be glad of my vote in the state of London. *g*
Reply | Thread | Link



blakehutchins
User: blakehutchins
Date: 2008-02-11 21:57 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Helluva speech. Thanks for the link.
Reply | Thread | Link



Elf M. Sternberg
User: elfs
Date: 2008-02-11 22:19 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
I think the speech is far weaker than most of your correspondents. Obama says, "We need Christians, we need Jews, we need Muslims on Capitol Hill ... to inject morality into our political debate." But Capitol Hill is made up of nothing but believers. What is he insinuating here? That Capitol Hill's self-describing Christians and Jews are, in fact, power-mad raving secularists? How does he propose to tell the liars from the "renewed" a-priori?

I mean, it's a little odd of Obama to say that "it wasn't atheists who were the most effective champions of civil liberties, it was the persecuted minorities." My mind wibbles at the juxtaposition: atheists have never been anything but a minority, and in several of the colonies early blasphemy was a capital crime!
Reply | Thread | Link



(no subject) - (Anonymous)
User: dirkcjelli
Date: 2008-02-11 22:36 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Much earlier in the speech, he talks about his father being a (Muslim) atheist and his mother being a [nondenominational, anti-organized-religion type].

He's just a UU, anyway... likes the coffee and such, and the language of faith.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



Karen, aka Ana Lake, ska Aine inghean Cathal
User: summers_place
Date: 2008-02-12 00:41 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
UCC =/= UU. Obama is a member of the United Church of Christ, not the Unitarian Universalist Association.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



User: dirkcjelli
Date: 2008-02-12 03:19 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
I wasn't being literal.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



Jay Lake
User: jaylake
Date: 2008-02-11 22:50 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Progress in the right direction doesn't qualify as progress?
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



(no subject) - (Anonymous)
Jay Lake
User: jaylake
Date: 2008-02-11 23:55 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
I don't disagree with your fundamental assessment, but making up lost ground beats the living tar out of losing more ground.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



User: dirkcjelli
Date: 2008-02-11 22:35 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
The important part is this bit:

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'm reasonably certain that there will be plenty of atheists in his administration, just as there were plenty of atheists around Doctor King... they just won't be "Karl Rove" atheists.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



España Sheriff
User: cmdrsuzdal
Date: 2008-02-11 22:51 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Um, I could be wrong but within the context of that paragraph I took the "it wasn't atheists and civil libertarians" to mean that those who perceive the separation of church and state in the US to be a atheist/secular plot (and they are many who do) are seriously lacking in historical knowledge.

Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



User: dirkcjelli
Date: 2008-02-11 23:17 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
He was half-right... Baptists (!atheists) thanked Jefferson (probably an atheist) et al. for the 1st ammdmnt.

You're correct that he was suggesting the current opponents of the first amendment were once among its strongest defenders.
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



Karen, aka Ana Lake, ska Aine inghean Cathal
User: summers_place
Date: 2008-02-12 00:37 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
I think your parser may be on the wrong setting, Elfs. The way I read this, Obama isn't saying that we need Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. on Capitol Hill in order to inject morality into political debate. Rather, he seems to be saying that we need the ones already there to get busy and actually inject ACTUAL morality into the debate rather than whatever it is they've been busy doing.

Also, on the "it wasn't atheists" bit, Obama's point seems to be that it was the persecuted [religious] minorities who most effectively championed the First Amendmant. There likely weren't too many atheists openly fighting that battle, after all. Had he overtly inserted "religious" into that sentence rather than leaving it to be implied, it would probably be clearer. But to me it's plain that this is what he most likely meant.

Edited at 2008-02-12 12:46 am (UTC)
Reply | Parent | Thread | Link



lordofallfools
User: lordofallfools
Date: 2008-02-12 13:10 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
Obama channeling Vaclav Havel?

Heck, yes.
Reply | Thread | Link



User: ellameena
Date: 2008-02-12 13:51 (UTC)
Subject: (no subject)
This is a very good speech, Jay. Obama has a nice way of making strong points while allowing the other side to save face. I have high hopes for him being a conciliator and ending this ridiculous culture war.
Reply | Thread | Link



browse
my journal
links
January 2014
2012 appearances