Obama Speaks Like an Atheist

“He never ONCE in this speech attacked religion.”

Nonsense! Did you miss the part where he quoted biblical scripture and pointed out the absurdities?

In addition, he is saying something quite powerful: He is saying that the moral arguments made against abortion are wholly invalid when it comes to determining law, and reason and argument must instead be used.

What does this mean? He's placing secular reasoning above the reasoning above the word of several gods, including the gods of many Christian denominations. He's saying that our discission on the topic is more important than God's word. Impressive.

Calmly expressing a viewpoint can certainly be an attack. I'm not really sure why you think the modifier of 'calm' has any bearing at all. Is calmly stabbing someone less of an attack than doing it with haste?

The discrepancy, it seems, is that we have different qualifications for attacking religion. Let us try some examples:

“I think the Swedish people should be exterminated” is an attack on the Swedish people. This is nearly universally agreed upon.

“I think Jane's idea for this project is irrelevant and should not be considered” is an attack on Jane's idea. It's not an attack on Jane, though Jane may feel this way, but it is an attack on Jane's idea.

“I think that Evangelicals, fundamentalists and catholics who want to shape American policy with their religious beliefs are wrong to do so, in fact the religious beliefs are irrelevant here and what is relevant is our reason” is an attack on the religion of the groups involved. He is marginalizing the religions and telling them that they are not relevant when they are believed to be relevant.

It is not an attack on the believers, but it is an attack on the religion they follow, as it greatly diminishes the religions' supposed authority from being the focal point of what policy should be made on, to being entirely irrelevant to policy.



If you think that the first two examples are attack and the third one is not, please say why.

If you think that none of these examples are attacks, then we simply have different definitions of what 'attack' means here and there is no real disagreement.

“Calmly expressing a viewpoint can be an attack.” True. No argument from me.

Here's what dictionary.com has to say about attack (I left off a couple of definitions that are clearly unrelated to the current discussion):

attack:

1. to set upon in a forceful, violent, hostile, or aggressive way, with or without a weapon; begin fighting with: He attacked him with his bare hands.
2. to begin hostilities against; start an offensive against: to attack the enemy.
3. to blame or abuse violently or bitterly.
4. to direct unfavorable criticism against; criticize severely; argue with strongly: He attacked his opponent's statement.
5. to try to destroy, esp. with verbal abuse: to attack the mayor's reputation

Definitions 1 and 2 are about action, not words, so they don't fit. Definition 3 requires a violent or bitter attack, so it doesn't fit. Definition 5 requires an intent to destroy, so it doesn't fit. So, it comes down to whether definition 4 fits. Where you and I apparently differ is whether the modifiers at the end are a necessary part of the definition. Obama was not arguing with strongly. He was not criticizing severely. I'm not even convinced that he directed unfavorable criticism against anything. He's Christian himself, and I see nothing in his statement that qualifies as unfavorable criticism.

As for your examples: 1 is an attack (definition 4 or 5).
2 is closer to the example we're talking about here. If we use the word attack in such an instance, then let me clarify the analogy. As you say, it is NOT an attack on Jane (though as you say she may feel that way). It is an attack on Jane's idea. In the analogy, what Obama said is not an attack on religious people (though they may feel that way) NOR is it an attack on religion (though some may perceive it to be). By analogy with your Jane example, Obama's statement was an attack on the idea that US law ought to be guided by religious beliefs without regard for reason and argument. I would accept that he attacked this idea (using the weakest possible definition of the word “attack”). This is absolutely not the same as attacking religion or religious individuals.

Suppose someone says:

Fact: It is impossible to codify all religious beliefs into US law.

Justification: There exist mutually contradictory religious beliefs.

Fact: The Constitution forbids the establishment of a religion.

Justification: First Amendment

Opinion: I think that choosing one religion and systematically codifying all of its laws into US law could be construed as establishing the supremacy of that religion and would therefore be unconstitutional.

——-

I do not believe that such a statement is an attack.

——-

Similarly, I would not call the action of merely making a statement disagreeing with someone's views an attack on those views.

——-

By the way, not that it ought to matter, but I believe that the excerpts in this video were taken from a speech that Obama gave last year during the campaign .. not after he became president. I mention this because I would be willing to entertain the idea that an opinion expressed by someone in a position of power may face a different standard than one expressed by someone NOT in that position of power.

He can't possibly be attacking MY religion since I'm not religious. In any case, let me remind me of what you said in your own example: “It's not an attack on Jane, though Jane may feel this way, but it is an attack on Jane's idea.”

Now you say: “This is how several fundamentalist groups took the comments” I don't doubt that some groups took his words this way. But, just as your example was not an attack on Jane “though Jane may feel this way”, Obama's words were not an attack on religious people or on religion though they may have felt that way. I'm using YOUR logic here.

—-

“Religion is a nice opinion, but the Word of God shouldn't actually have any bearing on moral law or 'common reality' (Obama's phrase).”

WOW … that's not what he said at all. Of course he believes that the Word of God has a bearing on moral law. To assert otherwise is absurd (so if any religious groups are asserting that, they're being absurd). When he referred to “common reality” and “common laws”, his point was that we can't [LITERALLY can't ... it's impossible] codify all religious laws because different faiths have some religious laws that contradict those of other faiths, BUT where there are common laws (laws with which all faiths agree) we CAN codify those. His quote: “The best we can do is act in accordance with those things that we all see and that we all hear be it common laws or basic reason.”

—–

I've just watched the video again and read the transcript: http://www.iheu.org/node/3339

Though it would not surprise me if some religious folks were offended by this, it is absolutely clear to me that Obama was NOT attacking anyone or any religion or religion in general. Furthermore, this is from a speech he gave last summer (well before the election). If this speech had been so offensive to people, then it would have been a bigger issue in the fall election campaign. I recall accusations that Obama was anti-Religion, but those weren't based on THIS speech. They were based on his “cling” statement that was taken out of context by some. That THIS speech was NOT held up during the campaign as being evidence that Obama was anti-religion indicates to me that few people took it this way.

It is NOT an anti-religion speech.

“But, just as your example was not an attack on Jane “though Jane may feel this way”, Obama's words were not an attack on religious people or on religion though they may have felt that way. I'm using YOUR logic here.”

I am being consistent with my examples: The evangelists themselves are not being attacked (though they may feel that way), but their religion is being attacked.

He has directly attacked the notion of this being a 'Christian Nation.' He has attacked biblical literalism, illustrating some of the silliness. He has attacked the idea of using one's own religion to make law.

Is he attacking religion in general? I have to concede that he's not. But if your religion is set apart from others largely by the characteristics above, then he's certainly attacking those people's religions, or at the very least their religious tenants.

This really reduces to the subjective nature of being “attacked”. What
you and I see as open and rational discourse, may be considered to be
offensive or adversarial to others.

The argument I'm making is very simple here: what you see as rational,
open conversation on the topic of religion is likely to be
interpreted as being an attack by a significant majority of those
who identify themselves as religious.

That's all.

Not whether it's REALLY an attack, or whatever–as there's no such
thing as “really” when it comes to someone being offended. ::

Daniel, I want to explain why I was making such a big deal about what probably seemed like a really picky semantic issue.

I think that when you use inflammatory language it introduces a bias into the material and pushes people (consciously or not) into bringing their emotions to bear on an issue. Unless it is your intention to introduce that bias or emotional baggage (think of the “We Report, You Decide” crowd), it is better to do everything you can to avoid such biasing language.

If evangelical atheist like Christopher Hitchens where to use tactics like Obama is employing here they would probably find better efficacy in their attempts to bring an end to much of the nonsense brought about by many in the community believers.