Obama Speaks Like an Atheist

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.

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.

logic vs. reason? <-- a typo I'm sure.

----------

Daniel, he's not speaking like an atheist here. He's a Christian. He's speaking like MANY Christians ... saying what MANY Christians believe. I'm not going to get sucked back into the argument about what percentage of Christians agree with the contents of this speech. My only point is that Christians CAN agree with the contents of this speech. The fact that Christians and atheists can believe the same thing doesn't mean that the Christian is thinking like an atheist (any more than a girl who can throw a baseball well throws "like a guy").

Additionally, he is NOT attacking religion. He never ONCE in this speech attacked religion. I know that it wasn't you who put the title on the YouTube link, but it's entirely inaccurate in any case.

Carl, the only religious people who would not find this to be an attack on religion are those who are religious in such an abstract and "liberal" way, that they would hardly be identified as religious at all by the majority of self-proclaimed religious people.

To the mainstream, the fact that he's casually, and with amusement no less, showing the flaws of the Bible is enough to earn him the worst names possible--and all they would need as proof would be this video.

I feel I need to remind you of who we are talking about, as you seem to think there's some silent majority of hyper-educated, super-logical religious people out there.

- Of those who go to church nearly weekly or monthly, 70% either don’t believe in evolution or have no opinion either way | Gallup, 2009

70%, Carl. That's the base we're discussing here--people who despite having the Internet and the Discovery channel, still don't believe in evolution.

I say again, it is my opinion that your view of the religious masses is deeply flawed. The majority is not some group of loosely spiritual rationalists who doubt the Bible and agree with people who show its flaws.

"Carl, the only religious people who would not find this to be an attack on religion are those who are religious in such an abstract and "liberal" way, that they would hardly be identified as religious at all by the majority of self-proclaimed religious people."

I disagree. If ONLY there was a religious person reading this who could give us a viewpoint of a religious person. It wouldn't prove anything, but it's silly to have atheists and agnostics arguing about whether religion is being attacked here. I see no attack. You and simon do though I don't understand why .. I don't see anything in the speech that's an attack on anything except (in the weakest possible definition of "attack") the idea that US law ought to be guided by religious beliefs without regard for reason and argument. To my knowledge, that idea is NOT a part of the tenets of any mainstream religion in the US (though it may well be believed by some religious people in the US).

Daniel, I know that you see the passages he quoted as "flaws in the Bible." I am quite certain that Obama does not see them as flaws. I am also quite certain that many (probably most .. perhaps all) of the religious people YOU'RE talking about ALSO don't see them as flaws (since they don't believe the Bible contains any flaws).

Obama was not pointing out "flaws." As I already wrote, he was pointing out the fact that different groups of religious people (even within the same major faith) have different interpretations of their faith and that it is IMPOSSIBLE for all of these different interpretations to be codified into US law.

My argument here has nothing whatsoever to do with what percentage of religious people have one belief or another. I'm explaining what Obama was doing in that speech and pointing out why what he was doing was NOT attacking religion. That's my only point here.

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 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.

"He's saying that our discission on the topic is more important than God's word." He's making that statement in a particular context. He is NOT making that statement about anyone's personal life. He's making that statement in the context of the creation of our laws. And, I agree that it's impressive. However, it is NOT attacking religion.

Additionally, I'm sure that he would not consider his biblical quotation as pointing out absurdities. He was pointing out that believers of different faiths (and even believers within a single faith - if Christianity can be considered a single faith) have different religious laws. He was pointing out that we cannot codify all of those laws because they sometimes contradict each other.

For example, Jews who keep kosher have rules about what they can and cannot eat. This is part of their religious beliefs. But even within Conservative Judaism, not all believers follow precisely the same set of Jewish laws: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_Judaism
There are similar differences among the different branches of Christianity.

Obama wasn't attacking ANYONE. He was pointing out the FACT that it is impossible to codify all religious laws and was pointing out the absurdity of our pluralistic government trying to choose WHICH set to codify. He was saying that we SHOULD not attempt to codify such things .. or at least not simply because a religion believes that it should be law. In our government, we must form laws based on reason and argument. This is not a new idea. I agree that it's nice to have a president who thinks this way. This is a part of his pragmatic approach to government which isn't going to make everyone happy, but which can move us forward.

I find it interesting that we seem to have come to a place that calmly expressing a viewpoint (and even one based on facts) can be interpreted as an attack.

PS: Daniel, I think that your rewording of your post is perfect.

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.

"Obama was not arguing with strongly. He was not criticizing severely."

I would disagree on account of the nature of Evangelist leader's replies alone.

You must understand that he is not attacking you religion, he is attacking fundamentalist religion, and several fundamentalist groups, and these groups clearly did feel severely criticized.

You may indeed find the language to not be very strong, according to your sensibilities, but please consider that this is how several fundamentalist groups took the comments:

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).

The fundamentalist consider this marginalization to be outrageous. Indeed, if he said this 500 to 2,000 years ago, he would have been killed by most existing governments, be they islamic, christian, or egyptian or even greek.

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 will be my last post on this topic because we're clearly on different wavelengths.

Saying "Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation, at least, not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation and a nation of non-believers" is not attacking anything. It is a statement of fact. (I do not accept that a simple statement of demonstrably true fact is an attack.)

I don't think that he attacked biblical literalism, even though he pointed out some of the same passages that those who attack biblical literalism attack. He made no comments against those who choose to believe anything. He even states that "to base one’s own life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime." He has no criticism for how people choose to live their own lives. He is addressing what we must do as a nation when we create policy.

IF you can show me something in the written tenets of a mainstream religion that our nation's policies must be guided by religious beliefs without regard for reason and argument, then I'll concede that he attacked the tenets of that religion.

That's the ONLY thing that he "attacked" (and again I feel compelled to say that this is under the weakest possible use of the word "attack"). In any case, I don't believe that it is a part of the tenets of any mainstream religion (as opposed say to the individual beliefs of some people). If I'm wrong about this, just show me the evidence.

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. ::

There is a difference between someone "attacking" and someone making a
statement that someone else will be offended by.