I’m so proud and happy right now. What a day! The peaceful transition of power always fills me with wonder that such a thing can occur. And then to hear a President specifically mention the words "data" and "statistics" shortly after saying "We will restore science to its rightful place…" Well. This scientist may have choked up just a little.
I can hope that with this new Administration, much of what we have fought for these past few years will now only need our support, and not our defense. Of course, the forces against us all still exist; there’s just been a shift of power. Unfortunately, there will always be a need for those who support reality, those who will fight for critical thinking, and those who will make their voices heard when some try to impose their narrow view on others.
And so, as always, it’s time to look ahead and continue to fight the good fight.
January 20th, 2009 at 11:37 am
I have to say that I thought of you Phil, when he said “data”, and “statistics”. Even though I’m not an American, I know that this is good for all of us.
January 20th, 2009 at 11:39 am
Woo hoo!
January 20th, 2009 at 11:40 am
I had the same thoughts as Jamie. Score one for reality!
January 20th, 2009 at 11:41 am
My favorite part was the shout-out to “non-believers”!!!
January 20th, 2009 at 11:41 am
I loved that part of his speech. It seems that science will take its rightful place in the forefront of solving problems in this country.
January 20th, 2009 at 11:41 am
Angel, he is pretty inclusive, isn’t he?
January 20th, 2009 at 11:51 am
And so it begins…
Let’s hope that he (if anyone can be) is up leading us in fixing the total damage to our economy and reputation that the Bush regime left us all to deal with.
January 20th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Having a POTUS swear to uphold the Constitution and actually mean it is certainly novel.
January 20th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
Does anyone else find “non-believers” to usually be used in a pejorative manner? Like “they are not able to understand the wealth of happiness and wonder that us believers do, but we still think they should have rights”.
just sayin’.
I do not intend to knock BO’s sentiments here, quite the opposite. It just hit me as I read it that that phrase usually implies to my atheistic mind that they are slipping in an attack….
But on to brighter days….
January 20th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Wow Finally the Bush regime is over.
Obama speech is not bringing only Americans together,
but its bringing the whole (majority) planet to push in the same direction.
Men it is good, and I feel safer knowing that the leader of
the free world is brighter then me and as a vision for the future
and would not go to the local bar to share a beer with the avarge Joe.
Its smell likes JFK all over again and that is very very good.
Finally a real leader, intellectual and articulate with a good vision for reality.
Be proud America you made the right choice, it will be tuff in the first term. I hope that Americans will be patient there is no quick fix for all the world problems but finally you have the leader to make it happen.
As a Canadian I can’t wait for us to have a real leader heading our country in the same direction as President Obama.
Harper is no match for Obama.
Harper look very smart beside W Bush but Beside Obama it will be Canadian turn to be the laughing stock of North America.
January 20th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
“Non-believers” would, in other contexts, be a negative term, I think. Merely having atheists (and their flimsy cousins the agnostics) mentioned is a bit of a triumph in today’s cultural climate.
January 20th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
I got to experience the swearing in and the speech in the cafeteria at work, and it was pretty awesome to be in a room full of people all clapping when the swearing in was complete.
Chris Mooney over at Slate wrote an interesting piece about the role of science and how to spread interest to the average American Joe and warns scientists that this is not the time to get complacent.
“Scientists are ecstatic about these developments and about Obama’s recent promise to listen to them “even when it’s inconvenient—especially when it’s inconvenient.” But it would be the gravest of errors for researchers to simply return victorious to their labs and fall back on a time-honored stance of political detachment. If the war on science is over, we’re now entering the postwar phase of reconstruction—the scientific equivalent of nation-building.”
He doesn’t really offer many ideas, but does criticize the religion vs science debate as not being helpful to the cause and says that science blogs are really meant for the already enlisted.
http://www.slate.com/id/2208789/
January 20th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
True. I agree.
January 20th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Just curious Monkey, what word would you have preferred? to me, “atheist” has even more negative connotations. In context, it seemed like a natural fit, but then again he wasn’t talking to me so maybe I’m not getting it.
January 20th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
“Having a POTUS swear to uphold the Constitution and actually mean it is certainly novel.”
Yeah, maybe someday we’ll have one, but I don’t think this one is it. He’s already described his contempt for the Constitution and the fact that it get’s in the way of him doing what he wants.
January 20th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
I’m sure glad to see the back of Bush.
Obama did mention science and unbelievers and I thought that was fantastic. He’s also a politician and mentioned God several times and was also preceeded by some religious nut.
Y’all have a mountain of work to do, good luck!
January 20th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
One commentator, in talking about the “Christians, Jews… and non-believers” line, said that it seemed that it meant something more this time, even though Bush said exactly the same thing. However, I do not ever remember Bush including “non-believers” when he would recite this sort of list, even in contexts where atheists should have been included. I guess, like his father, he didn’t think we were citizens. Good riddance to him.
January 20th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
@Bill
Have a citation for that?
January 20th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Wayne: I would prefer any term that did not carry negative baggage. I am not suggesting that whay he said was wrong, just that it would have been a bigger gesture to say “rationalists” or “non-mythologists” to strike the point a little deeper. I realize this will not happen in Obama’s tenure. Again…just sayin’.
January 20th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Indeed, I think this was the first time ever that I heard an American politician mention atheists without a negative undertone. Obama mentioned them among other groups of people; not as that bunch of hateful Jesus-haters, but as another group of people.
As dre said, considering American politicians on the whole, that’s a triumph.
January 20th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
It wasn’t “all we have to fear is fear itself,” but I loved the tone. I hope and pray that he can bring about true change in the way government operates & benefits the American people.
January 20th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
http://www.sundriesshack.com/2008/10/27/obama-in-2001-the-constitution-has-a-fundamental-flaw-because-it-did-not-demand-the-redistribution-of-wealth-and-it-is-a-tragedy-that-the-courts-did-not-change-that/
January 20th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
OK, I’ll admit to being in a bit of a good mood to see Bush gone. There’s actual empirical data there for that feeling.
to me, “atheist” has even more negative connotations.
Over at PZ’s place I was proudly labeling myself Infidel and Blasphemer.
Or Inphemer or Blasphidel. Actually, those are awesome names for fallen angels if I ever get around to writing my technothriller sequel Dante’s “Divine Comedy”
As a practicing Agnostic, I once tried to use the power of Internet memes to subvert the term “Aggies” to our usage, but to no avail.
January 20th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
White House website was changed and updated at 12:01.
worldwideweb – whitehouse.gov
He really doesn’t mess around!
January 20th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
A homophobic deluded dude was praising an invisible demon for invisible things on prime time while I was listening to the installment of Obama. Maybe I was listening to the wrong inauguration.
January 20th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Call me cynical, but his delivery suggested that Vile Unbelieving Scum (TM), aka atheists, were a bit of an afterthought. But, hey, any thought is more than previously, so… it’s a step forward. Pagans still don’t count, though! (sfx: “It’s not really a religion anyway” sung to the tune of Blame Canada.)
As for the “right” wording to use… yeesh, you’re never going to please everyone. “Non-believer” seems as neutral as you’re likely to get, especially if you want — as The Big O seems to — florid poetic-sounding speeches. “Atheists” is a bit… blunt. Prosaic. And, Monkey, are you serious? “Rationalist” or “non-mythologist” is going to have negative connotations for all non-non-believers, so he’d still be crapping on one particular group. Surely the biggest gesture is to attempt to be completely neutral with his list. Not possible to actually *do*, of course, but I thought he made the *attempt*.
January 20th, 2009 at 1:27 pm
retrograde: a more perfect statement I will not read today.
January 20th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
I’ve been fairly vocal in my antipathy towards Obama but I must admit it was an inspiring speech, he said the right things to push my buttons. But – and it’s a big but – it’s just a speech. I’ll reserve judgment till I see him follow through on all that…
January 20th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
The line including nonbelievers was not an afterthought; it’s word for word out of his book, The Audacity of Hope”.
Generally, ‘nonbelievers’ is not meant to be positive; but at least he included folks (like me!) in some way that most American politicians would not. I prefer the way Tony Blair always said it; something like, “…Christians, Jews, Muslims, people of all religions, or people of no religion”.
After the 2004 election, btw, when NPR played a clip of Blair saying that, the NPR person said something like, you know, no American politician would ever say anything like that. But, it happened today- and the sky didn’t fall! Of course, he had it surrounded during the speech with lots of references to god….but it is a step forward.
January 20th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Great man, great speech, and hopefully a great president. Between the “restore science” statement and the “non-believers” shout-out, I was quite pleased personally and for the country. (And make no mistake, a politician willing to date even mentioning non-believers is, well, a miracle.)
January 20th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Re: Obama’s use of “non-believers”, today is not the first time he has used it. I seem to recall him using the term inclusively during his campaign.
January 20th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
such a wonderful, proud, historic day. and yes, the non-believers line was heartening.
January 20th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
@Dave
Fair enough. I guess by “afterthought” I meant not so much on-the-fly as something that’s not normally said, so didn’t flow off the tongue easily. “Oops, I was meant to keep going and say ‘non-believers’, too… better say it now, quickly!” But, as I said, I acknowledge my cynicism in reading so much into his phrasing. I readily accept that he may really have meant it. Shock! Horror!
On the flip side, I am reading a positive spin into his delivery of the word “non-believers” in that it didn’t sound negative, just a simple description. I guess we all read it how we want to!
And Tony Blair winz all todayz intertoob cookies for that phrasing.
January 20th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
The speech in terms of optimism and name checking science, stats, data, as well as the momentary pause before saying non-believers was wonderful, yet, let’s not forget that the idiot pastor with the sky fairy prayer left a bitter distaste for everything aftewards. Dude, if you want to make your sky fairy relevant to you, or use him for every gap in your understanding of the universe, it’s fine by me, but keep it to yourself. We can’t let up on these bastards, even with the increased hope and optimism. Anger and hope, optimism and skepticism, frustration and triumph go hand-in-hand as part of our human condition. To assume that now we have to be happy monkeys is naive and ignorant. It is now that we have to sharper our tools the greatest, it is in this context, of a new day, a new President that we must push even harder to expunge this country of illogical reasoning, and the authority bestowed upon those who’ve spent their useless lives on studying books of mythology, and praising a sky fairy (fairies) that is only useful to console those who see the universe as too harsh and uncaring. Please President Obama, do not allow any more of these idiots to droll endlessly on something that I know you don’t truly believe in. Let’s all face rationality, skepticism, and the embrace of science as emblems of our unity, not an imaginary set of edicts bestowed upon us by imaginary fairies with purportedly accurate books that do nothing but foment greater bloodshed and distrust.
January 20th, 2009 at 2:01 pm
I think “nonbelievers” sums it up quite nicely, including both ahteists and agnostics.
It’s negative connotation comes from people for whom the mere fact behind it is negatively connoted, no matter the word. That’s what we have to change. I’m okay with being called a non-believer. happier than not being adressed at all.
January 20th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
@Helioprogenus–
Are you serious? How do you know President Obama doesn’t believe in a “sky fairy?”
January 20th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Every time Obama does something like mention gays or atheists in a non-judgemental way, a right-winger has a migraine.
Every day that Obama is in power and the USA does not become a commie-muslim-sodomite nation that surrenders to Al-Quaida, a bus-load of right-wingers will all have strokes.
And every piece of legislation that Obama signs, and yet the sun still rises the next morning, will see another thousand right-wingers’ heads explode.
It is a good time to be alive.
It’s just a pity that scum like Bill O’Reilly and Ann Coulter will not be among those physically suffering because their prophecies of doom are shown to be so much hysterical nonsense. People BO and AC are just trolls, who will say whatever it takes to get a reaction (and a paycheck). They don’t actually believe the rubbish they sprout. Any old rubbish will do. I doubt they even know what they truly believe.
But at least their audiences will be dieing off!
January 20th, 2009 at 2:29 pm
To have him say that science will be restored to its rightful place and include us nonbelievers made my heart sing.
January 20th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
@Helioprogenus “It is now that we have to sharper our tools the greatest, it is in this context, of a new day, a new President that we must push even harder to expunge this country of illogical reasoning, and the authority bestowed upon those who’ve spent their useless lives on studying books of mythology, and praising a sky fairy (fairies) that is only useful to console those who see the universe as too harsh and uncaring.”
Expunge this country of illogical reasoning? Do tell us all how this expunging is to come about when your fearless leader, himself, believes in this sky fairy.
January 20th, 2009 at 2:35 pm
@Grump–
Strokes, exploding heads, physical suffering, audiences dieing (sic) off . . .
Now that’s the hope and change we’ve been looking for!
But then, it is “Grump,” not “Susie Sunshine” . . .
January 20th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Carey: “However, I do not ever remember Bush including “non-believers” when he would recite this sort of list, even in contexts where atheists should have been included. I guess, like his father, he didn’t think we were citizens. Good riddance to him.”
Is it that he never said it or that you just hate him so much you can’t imagine him saying it and instead must impart his father’s thoughts on him to satisfy your own hatred? Just wondering.
January 20th, 2009 at 2:44 pm
David D: “Are you serious? How do you know President Obama doesn’t believe in a “sky fairy?””
David, don’t be silly in questioning Helioprogenus. Part of being an insane liberal (as opposed to a regular person who just happens to have liberal leanings) is assuming whoever you like believes exactly as you do in every way. Traditional religion is replaced with secular religion and idol (like American Idol) worship in their minds.
January 20th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
@David and Tom Markin, just because a politician claims he believes in sky fairies and goes through the motions does not mean he truly does. He knows that this artifice of belief will bring him closer to religious sheeple, make them feel like OB’s an OG. Even if he does believe in a sky fairy, his earlier skeptical upbringing at the very least allows him to distance himself from the facade of the everyman populist. Obama is highly educated, proudly elitist, and has a no nonesense demeaner.
Ultimately, I’m making an opiniated but well thought out assumption here in terms of Obama’s true belief. Obviously I could be wrong, but looking at things objectively, and understanding political ambitions and populists motions, I’m rather sure he’s at least an agnostic.
January 20th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
@Robbie–
Oh my–I am chastened.
Helio, please forgive my insolence.
January 20th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
@David D-
Got it in one! Have yourself a drink on me.
I’m sure there will be many people who are too “big” to succumb to the allure of schadenfreude. People who will extend their hands to the other side, build bridges, heal wounds, work together, and even learn how to spell.
I’m just not one of them.
January 20th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
@Helio—
I am at a loss for words . . .
January 20th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
What’s also great is that you, Helioprogenus, think that lying to further your political career is something to be admired. I am in awe.
I guess if you say it’s “well thought out” we should all just accept that is it. That is just my well thought out reply.
January 20th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
@Helioprogenus “Ultimately, I’m making an opiniated but well thought out assumption here in terms of Obama’s true belief. Obviously I could be wrong, but looking at things objectively, and understanding political ambitions and populists motions, I’m rather sure he’s at least an agnostic.”
Forgive me if I rely on Obama’s documented comments on the subject rather than your “opinionated but well thought out assumptions”:
Obama’s interview with Pastor Rick Warren at Warren’s Saddleback Church, August 17, 2008:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0808/17/se.01.html
“WARREN: Everybody’s got a world view, a Buddhist, a Baptist, a secularist, an atheist, everybody’s got a world view. I wrote or invited people who get newsletter to write in their questions. We have about 200,000 questions that came in. And I only have 500 in this section. So no matter how you answer these world view questions, somebody’s not going to like it, because we’re all different kinds of world views in America. But as — people want to know what your world view is. So as we go through this, these mine fields, let’s just kind of tick them off, the mine fields of America. The first one is Christianity. Now, you’ve made no doubts about your faith in Jesus Christ. What does that mean to you? What does it mean to you to trust in Christ? And what does that mean to you on a daily basis? What does that really look like?
OBAMA: As a starting point, it means I believe in — that Jesus Christ died for my sins, and that I am redeemed through him. That is a source of strength and sustenance on a daily basis. Yes, I know that I don’t walk alone. And I know that if I can get myself out of the way, that I can maybe carry out in some small way what he intends. And it means that those sins that I have on a fairly regular basis, hopefully will be washed away.
But what it also means, I think, is a sense of obligation to embrace not just words, but through deeds, the expectations, I think, that god has for us. And that means thinking about the least of these. It means acting — well, acting justly, and loving mercy, and walking humbly with our god. And that — I think trying to apply those lessons on a daily basis, knowing that you’re going to fall a little bit short each day, and then being able to kind of take note and saying, well, that didn’t quite work out the way I think it should have, but maybe I can get a little bit better. It gives me the confidence to try things, including things like running for president, where you’re going to screw up once in a while.”
January 20th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Grump, I think Bill O’Reilly and (especially) Ann Coulter absolutely do believe themselves to be righteous, and that very belief drives their passion and their vitriol. In fact, self-righteousness is a defining characteristic of the political far right wing in America.
January 20th, 2009 at 3:09 pm
@Jim Shaver–
You don’t watch much MSM, do you?
Try MSNBC for some additional examples of self-righteousness. Seems to define both ends of our political spectrum.
January 20th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
It’s just a pity that scum like Bill O’Reilly and Ann Coulter will not be among those physically suffering
I have no use for BO or AC, but is this really necessary? It runs counter to everything Obama has said about putting aside the partisanship. Do you believe in what Obama says or not?
January 20th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Gump: I’m sure there will be many people who are too “big” to succumb to the allure of schadenfreude.
Here, let me fix that for you.
“I’m sure there will be many people far more mature than I, with more world experience and less ignorance, who wisely resist succumbing to the allure of schadenfreude.”
Seriously, your attitude is nothing of which to be proud. It’s *exactly* what Obama is speaking out against.
Jim Shaver: self-righteousness is a defining characteristic of the political far right wing in America.
You forgot “And since I agree with the left wing, I can ignore their brand of self-righteousness, and pretend it does not exist.”
Self-righteousness is, by definition, a defining characteristic of ALL ideologies.
January 20th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Tom Marking, you da man . . .
January 20th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
@ Robbie,
I’m just being a realist here. A politician by nature is deceitful. If all politicians truly said what they believed, then Israel would probably not have the cajones to invade Gaza the way they did. Ultimately, politicians know some things are career suicide, and must tow a fine line by compromising on many of their key personal beliefs. This, my friend, is politics.
The nature of politicis is compromise, and if you’re not willing to do that, then you might as well not be in politics. Obama’s a student of history and fully understands his role as a tactical politician. If he wasn’t, then he would not be standing here today as President.
It seems like next, you’ll be blaming a lion for being a carnivore. They’re carnivores because that’s their mode of survival. Politicians are liars for the very same reason. Don’t get disillusioned by it, but that’s just the way it is. The universe is a cold, unforgiving, and apathetic place. Some may feel some nihilism and dissilusionment from it, but others knowing that, grasp on to things that they can feel a part of. The human condition, the pentiant for bettering our future and insisting on something that will benefit humanity. Excelling even our greatest triumphs, and avoiding all defeats. Likewise, you can lose hope in our political system knowing that all politicians are manipulative liars, or come to think of it in different terms. Perhaps they’re all liars, but a few of them lie in order to position themselves to pass agendas that might benefit mankind through thought, vision, and clarity.
January 20th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
@ Tom Markin
You’re completely missing my point here. It doesn’t matter what Obama says on a populist stage, what matters is what he actually personally believes. Neither you, nor I could actually know that. Therefore we have to make an educated guess. You’re taking his speech at face value, but you neglect to account for his adroit political maneuvering. As I’ve just mentioned, you can’t blame a politician for being a liar because that is their nature.
Besides, if you read my first comment here, I was extremely annoyed at Warren, and mentioned that it left “a bitter distaste for everything (that happened in the inauguration) afterwards”. He was clearly pandering to a constituency that is unfortunately very strong in America. You cannot make any headway if you don’t consider their opinions either. Therefore, if you’re a populist, you have to maintain some type of link.
You can’t expect Obama to come on stage, and speak from his heart. He’ll probably mention that Marijuana should be legalized, Abortion should be a woman’s choice, gun resistration should be more comprehensive, we should stop sending our hard earned tax dollars to Israel so they could bomb civilians, tax the hell out of the corporations, etc. He’s going to comprimise on some things, manipulate his stance on others, and ultimately, play the politically shrewd politician. At the same time, we know that his stance on science, technology, and the environment is light years ahead of his predecessors and his opposition.
January 20th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
I seem to recall that President Obama has stated, if not in his book, then in interviews, that both his parents were non-believers.
January 20th, 2009 at 4:11 pm
@Helioprogenus “we know that his stance on science, technology, and the environment is light years ahead of his predecessors and his opposition.”
How do you know that Obama isn’t lying to you about those positions? You’ve just stated that politicians are liars by nature. It seems to me you are being very inconsistent in your approach. If you’re going to reject Obama’s statements as lies then you should reject ALL of his statements as lies, including the ones on science. There is no particular reason why he wouldn’t lie about his views on science if he’s going to lie about his religion.
January 20th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
@Helio–
Well, hmmm:
So, which one is it?
And since his “stance” on science/technology/environment is just his “words” on a populist stage, why should we believe that?
You laundry list of Obama’s heartfelt beliefs sounds more like a projection of your own desires.
January 20th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
@Helio–
Were you annoyed with Rev. Lowery’s benediction, too?
January 20th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Whether or not you admire President Obama, know this: the mechanism that put us in the housing mess, in Iraq, and let Katrina have its way with The Big Easy is still running.
On the CNN Web site, on the left, there are many links about how wonderful today is because of our new President.
On the right: the Dow. Down 332 points. Whee!
January 20th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Rev. Lowery–
“I’ve never said I support gay marriage. I support gay rights and I support civil unions . . . I have some difficulty with the term gay marriage . . .”
World wide web :boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/12/23/7638
January 20th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
The BA said: “The peaceful transition of power always fills me with wonder that such a thing can occur.”
I was watching a local re-broadcast of Good Morning America, where one of the talking faces said that the USA was the only country in which this had always happened peacefully. Well, he might like to read his world history a little bit. I’m pretty sure you’ll find every transition of power in Australia, New Zealand and Canada has been similarly peaceful. Certainly none of these countries has had a civil war on the scale of the USA.
As with others, I was pleased at the mention of “science” and “non-believers”. But I was also struck by the difference between the religious inclusiveness of Obama and the overt Christian-only-ness of the first pastor.
January 20th, 2009 at 4:36 pm
David D and Sandoval:
I didn’t say anything about the political left wing. I suggest that you assumed too much.
I’ll agree to that sentiment.
January 20th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
@Peter B–
What did you find that was so Christian-only in Warren’s speech that you didn’t find in Lowery’s speech?
January 20th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Could someone perhaps provide a link to a youtube video (or the title to search for) of the speech regarding “data” and “statistics”? Thanks.
January 20th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
I just found it, “Barack Obama inaugural speech after presidential oath” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xt_xVmDZm0E)
January 20th, 2009 at 4:53 pm
Robbie – My “hatred” for Bush? Why, because I said Good riddance? You have a low standard for what constitutes hate. And I was merely stating what I remember. But if it helps you feel superior by calling yourself a “regular person who just happens to have liberal leanings” rather than an “insane liberal”, by all means, feel superior to that particular strawman.
January 20th, 2009 at 4:57 pm
David D asked me: “What did you find that was so Christian-only in Warren’s speech that you didn’t find in Lowery’s speech?”
I don’t remember much about his benediction – it was after 4am here and I was getting a little wobbly.
But I take your point – the benediction can’t have been any less overtly Christian than the initial prayer.
January 20th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
The Inquisitor
There’s a transcript of the speech at http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/5272554/transcript-barack-obamas-inauguration-speech/
It includes this: “Homes have been lost; jobs shed; businesses shuttered. Our health care is too costly; our schools fail too many; and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries and threaten our planet.
“These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land – a nagging fear that America’s decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.”
January 20th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Well, as an outsider- I felt that the inauguration ceremony was very nice and Obamas speech was very good.
Non believers or not. Personally I would not have named them individually like he did as you can never name all of them (e.g. he did not name budhists or hindus) and then some might even be offended by the order in which they were named (some religious americans might be offended that he named muslims before jews.).
There is indeed a lot of religious content in the ceremony though. I know that this is a tradition, but it is quite noticeable.
January 20th, 2009 at 5:23 pm
The old axiom actions should speak louder then words so we will see he really stands soon.
January 20th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Another thing is what he believes but how he treats the beliefs of others.
January 20th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
@David D
Yes, I was annoyed with all the religious garbage. These bastards all believe in sky fairies and they try to use their belief to gain recognition so more people come to their ignorant facades of worship and waste their hard earned money hoping it somehow makes a difference in their lives.
As for why I believe Obama’s honest about science and technology is the legislation that he’s helped to create to push for global warming and curbing emissions. Further, he’s part of the generation that recognizes the world can’t continue in the manner it has. Perhaps he’s lying about that, but I haven’t seen him pass any legislation stripping people of their rights, or allowing religion to fester in public policy. We’ll see how he handles abortion and gay rights, but from someone who comes from an enlightened globalist perspective, his understanding of science and technology should be much more detailed than Bush’s. As I mentioned there’s no way we can know for sure what his stance is, but we’ll see how he handles the global issues. Should he allow religion to run rampant, then we can worry about his true convictions, but I’ll allow for some rhetoric, yet hope that he really does intend to push science and technology to the forefront.
January 20th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
@Helio–
Did you at least get to choose the flavor of Kool-Aid that you drank?
Seriously–he may not have been my candidate, but he is my president, and he deserves our respect and our pride in his accomplishments. I, too, have many hopes for his success, just as you do. There’s a lot on his plate, but I’m not sure that our country is in the place it is in right now because of our religion running rampant. Should he be successful, then I will continue to support him. If he turns out to be a demagogue, I hope that his Kool-Aid drinkers–I mean, supporters, call him on his failures.
January 20th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
@Carey and @Robbie
Carey: “However, I do not ever remember Bush including “non-believers” when he would recite this sort of list”
Robbie “Is it that he never said it or that you just hate him so much you can’t imagine him saying it”
Check out this list of Bush quotations related to religion. http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/bush.htm
“We will keep a commitment to pluralism [and] not discriminate for or against Methodist or Mormons or Muslims or good people with no faith at all.” July 22, 1999
That sounds kind of promising, although the other quotes on the page give the impression that he is so focused on religion in his own life, that he hardly ever gives a thought to how a non-believer could positively contribute to society.
And, of course, in March 2000 he said “I don’t see how we can allow public dollars to fund programs where spite and hate is the core of the message. Louis Farrakhan preaches hate.” Clearly he sees some Muslims as being worthy of discrimination anyway, his previous “commitment to pluralism” not-withstanding, which leaves me to wonder if he sees some “people of no faith” as equally unworthy.
And then there are these quotes:
“I don’t think that witchcraft is a religion. I wish the military would rethink this decision.”
June, 1999
“Religious freedom and tolerance is a protected right. I am committed to the First Amendment principles of religious freedom, tolerance, and diversity.
Whether Mormon, Methodist, Jewish, or Muslim, Americans should be able to participate in their constitutional free exercise of religion.
I do not think witchcraft is a religion, and I do not think it is in any way appropriate for the US military to promote it.”
October, 2000
These comments were made in response to questions about the harassment of Wiccans in the Army stationed at Fort Hood, Texas. They had a small group on base and a stone altar where they held their ceremonies. The altar had been vandalized and the stone even broken. Then Congressman Bob Barr led political attacks on them and even called for the practice of Wicca (aka Witchcraft) to be banned in the military. Bush spoke out against the Wiccans.
I was in a Wiccan coven at the time, and for more than a year after the 2000 election I carried a printout of those comments in my day planner as a reminder to me that the so-called President felt that I did not have the same religious freedom that everyone else had.
These days, although I do still call myself Wiccan, I’ve essentially reverted back to my childhood atheism. But I can’t say that has made me feel any safer under Bush. If you read all his quotes it’s clear that while Bush may “respect” some religions in some way, he is very clearly focused on his Christian beliefs and he wants government to be informed and guided by them. So regardless of whether or not he ever spoke out against atheism specifically, he is no friend of atheists, nor can he even be called neutral.
Now here are some more Bush quotes that I just found that do specifically mention atheists (though not using the word itself): http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/quote-b4.htm#BUSHGW
Those are all pretty good. Perhaps he truly doesn’t share his fathers opinion of atheists.
“You’re equally an American if you choose to worship an almighty and if you choose not to.”
“You can be a patriot if you don’t believe in the Almighty. You can honor your country and be as patriotic as your neighbor.”
Bravo, George Bush! (But I still think you’re a war criminal.)
All in all, though, I think it’s clear that he is not totally committed to religious freedom, as his comments on Wicca and Louis Farrakhan demonstrate, but neither is he a theocrat like some of the more extreme ministers seem to be.
January 20th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Too few choices bro. Eventually, you have to hunker down, realize that Ron Paul made sense for only about 5 minutes, and make a limited choice on a mainstream candidate. Obama was an easy choice, considering his educational background, and generally positive rhetoric. Plus, if you read his book, Dreams of my father, he’s about as honest as any aspiring politician can be. Never hides the fact that he smoked the “reefer” or tried some “blow” now and then. Nor does he color his past as though it was a 50’s sitcom. Considering that it was written in 92, with little Presidential ambitions on his part, I take what he writes there as more of who he is than who he portrayed during the election and now with those religious whackjobs. In any case, we voted him in, he represents us, and if he screws up, we’ll call him on it. I just got done calling him on bringing those fairy worshippers to his inaugural stage, so it’s not like we’re cutting him that much slack. The same criticism will go for policy, but as with any greeny, we have to give him some time to adjust and see what direction he leads us.
Back to Kool-Aid, don’t you know that too many choices cause anxiety and diseffection (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060005696/qid=1126095652/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-6338453-4423818?v=glance&s=books&n=507846). Better than Tang though, with just one comfortable flavor and no risk at something new.
January 20th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Hmm … I have a tendency to interpret things as Monkey suggests. “put science in it’s rightful place” is something I imagine would be said numerous times in any Intelligent Design community. We can only wait and see. I’m still not impressed by his choice of chief of NASA though – I think it will be a miracle if that guy does a decent job. For now I stick to the old maxim “nulla in verba”; I’m waiting for the good stuff ™ to start happening.
January 20th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
This is the second comment that’s “awaiting moderation” I wonder what I said. Maybe it was the phrase fairy worshippers and it was misinterpreted as a slight against gays instead of against the credulous, i.e religious. Ah language, you’re such a necessity, but sometimes, just sometimes, you need to lay off the grass.
January 20th, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Helioprogenus you’re one of the most religious people I’ve seen post here, but instead of believing in supernatural gods you believe whatever you like about whatever people you like.
Carey, you are right, after reading your original post, I was too harsh in my statements and wished to take them back before you even mentioned it. Unfortunately, I could not go back and change or delete my post. I will try and think just a tad longer before pressing “Submit Comment” from now on.
I do, however, stand by my statements about you jumping to conclusions about George W. Bush and assigning him values you think him to have because it fits in with whatever you think about him, even if you don’t hate him.
January 20th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
Your government is a secular government isn’t it? Interesting that a secular event was book-ended by a couple of preachers. It sounded like a revival meeting for a while. At least in other countries when there is some sort of religious crap input they try for a bit of ecumenism.
January 20th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Obama’s speech was statesman like and hit all the right buttons. Apparently Obama’s speech writer, Jon Favreau, is only 27 or 28.
January 20th, 2009 at 7:57 pm
Robbie,
I think you’re overstanding things. Yes, I do form beliefs, not always completely substantiated, about other people, but people are not science. I maintain a healthy degree of skepticism when it’s warranted, but as far as what neurochemical processes in the brains of what people leads them to think along certain lines, well, I’m no psychic. I can’t read Obama’s mind, but I can try to use my best judgement and interpret what he says on a host of things. We may not agree, and you may think I’m being contrarian, but I judge Obama based on actions, not words. His action of selecting that punk Warren was disconcerting, but before I tear him apart on it, I might give it some more time. I may be too hasty assuming that he’s pro-science and an agnostic, but I’ve supported my notions with a evidence. His voting and legistlative record, as well as his book, prior to his presidential ambitions. I’m trying to be as reasonable as possible, and I am not basing anything I say on faith. That, my friend, is what separates me and the religious. I won’t fight wars over Obama’s true thoughts on religion, nor will I tear your natural rights away based on those assumptions. I won’t denegrate discourse and logic, skepticism and wit, and especially free thought, but I will have opinions, and I will use sound judgement to the best of my abilities. I don’t claim to be a clairvoyant goof, but I will try to dig under the surface of what I see. In politics, you can’t take anything at face value. Yet, you have to make assumptions, and for that, you some educated evidence.
Therefore, I have nothing in common with the religious, and if you still choose to believe it, well, even in your error, it’s your right.
January 20th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
Well, much has already been said in the comments, but I’ll say that I’m in agreement with all who were _thankful_ for Obama’s hat-tips to science and non-belief. It’s definitely a good start.
January 21st, 2009 at 1:59 am
@Shane:
The secular state has always been threatened by religious interests. When the union was founded the specter of the church was already prominent and many people were wary of it. The religious interests do win on occasion; for example, the pledge of allegiance was promoted by religious interests and many years later the phrase “one nation under god” was added. Fortunately our freedoms are largely protected and we citizens cannot be coerced into reciting the pledge – this is a good thing ™ because rabid nationalism is certainly not in the interest of the nation. The people who refuse to recite the pledge are no less patriotic than people who mindlessly recite the pledge and no less patriotic than people who recite the pledge and believe every word they say. If we were all required to recite the pledge that would be an excellent example of what Eric Blair called “group think”.
Anyway, having a preacher at the inauguration ceremony has always been the practice in my lifetime, but as with the pledge of allegiance it is a monstrosity heaped upon us by religious interests and no one dare buck the status quo. It is a historical fact that the presidential inauguration did not always involve a preacher.
January 21st, 2009 at 6:33 am
So you like data & statistics, here’s a suggestion for some questions to pose to the new “Science Advisor” (formerly: Director of the Office of Science & Technology Policy [OSTP]) during his confirmation hearings:
1. You were long associated with population alarmist Paul Ehrlich, and joined him in predicting disasters that never came to pass. For example, you and Ehrlich wrote in 1969: “If . . . population control measures are not initiated immediately and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come.” In 1971, the two of you were adamant that “some form of ecocatastrophe, if not thermonuclear war, seems almost certain to overtake us before the end of the century.” In the 1980s, Ehrlich quoted your expectation that “carbon dioxide-induced famines could kill as many as a billion people before the year 2020.” What have you learned from the failure of these prophecies to come true?
2. You have advocated the “long-term desirability of zero population growth” for the United States. In 1973, you pronounced the US population of 210 million as “too many” and warned that “280 million in 2040 is likely to be much too many.” The US population today is 304 million. Are there too many Americans?
3. You opposed the Reagan administration’s military buildup in the 1980s for fear it might “increase the belligerency of the Soviet government.” You pooh-poohed any notion that “the strain of an accelerated arms race will do more damage to the Soviet economy than to our own.” But that is exactly what happened, and President Reagan’s defense buildup helped win the Cold War. Did that outcome alter your thinking?
4. You argued that “a massive campaign must be launched . . . to de-develop the United States” in order to conserve energy; you also recommended the “de-development” of modern industrialized nations in order to facilitate growth in underdeveloped countries. Yet elsewhere you observed: “Affordable energy in ample quantities is the lifeblood of the industrial societies and a prerequisite for the economic development of the others.” Which is it?
5. In Scientific American, you recently wrote: “The ongoing disruption of the Earth’s climate by man-made greenhouse gases is already well beyond dangerous and is careening toward completely unmanageable.” Given your record with forecasting calamity, shouldn’t policymakers view your alarm with a degree of skepticism?
6. In 2006, according to the London Times, you suggested that global sea levels could rise 13 feet by the end of this century. But the latest assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is that sea levels are likely to have risen only 13 inches by 2100. Can you explain the discrepancy?
7. “Variability has been the hallmark of climate over the millennia,” you wrote in 1977. “The one statement about future climate that can be made with complete assurance is that it will be variable.” If true, should we not be wary of ascribing too much importance to human influence on climate change?
8. You are withering in your contempt for researchers who are unconvinced that human activity is responsible for global warming, or that global warming is an onrushing disaster. You have written that such ideas are “dangerous,” that those who hold them “infest” the public discourse, and that paying any attention to their views is “a menace.” You contributed to a published assault on Bjorn Lomborg’s notable 2001 book “The Skeptical Environmentalist” – an attack the Economist described as “strong on contempt and sneering, but weak on substance.” In light of President-elect Obama’s insistence that “promoting science” means “protecting free and open inquiry,” will you work to soften your hostility toward scholars who disagree with you?
FROM: http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-climate (please consider the questions, not the source….if you can).
January 21st, 2009 at 8:14 am
@Helioprogenus “I may be too hasty assuming that he’s pro-science and an agnostic, but I’ve supported my notions with a evidence. His voting and legistlative record, as well as his book, prior to his presidential ambitions.”
As far as I can tell you haven’t provided any evidence for your assertion. Name one piece of legislation that Obama backed that supports the idea that he is an agnostic. Cite any passage in any Obama book that supports it as well. And you still haven’t answered David D’s question concerning your blatant contradiction where in one post you claim to know what Obama really believes and in another post you claim we can never know what Obama really believes. Feh.
January 21st, 2009 at 9:19 am
Bill:
“one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.”
Seems to me you’ve mis-interpreted that as a condemnation of the constitution. It appears to me he was lamenting the court oriented approach that ignored the effective method of community involvement in redistribution of wealth. I will note that when Switzerland was adopting their constitution, one of the examples they looked at was ours and they rejected it as a model for their own, since,it “allowed the implementation of a dictatorship under the guise of a national emergency,,,”
,,,so there are weaknesses in our constitution, ones on which the Bush/Cheney crew were quick to capitalize.
As a practicing agnostic(note the use of lower case. It ain’t dogma), I feel quite free in ignoring EVERYBODY, muslim, christian, jew, hindu, Buddhist, wiccan,atheist,etc,,,ie,any extreme view of the nature of reality. I will always pursue the evidence, regardless where it leads.
The question “is there a god(or dog)” without providing a universally acceptable definition of “whatcha mean by dat?” is merely an exercise in frustration and loud confrontation.
If you mean, “someone who gives a hoot about me,people or life in general” then I have to say, I’ve already met many such who would fit that description,,,but they were all human,,,or perhaps just a little bit more than human.
If you mean an invisible sky fairy, operating beyond the natural laws of this universe, then I would have to disagree.
Jesus was supposed to be able to heal the sick, raise the dead and turn water into wine,,,something anyone with antibiotics, trained in CPR and a wine making kit can do today,,,so I guess we’re all potentially Jesus incarnates,,,
Children sometimes fear the dark and we give them fairy tales to both warn and reassure. Why is it so difficult for non-believers to understand this “need” for reassurance in the general populace, or their anecdotal descriptions of religious/spiritual enlightenment?
I would like to note, that, as far as I can determine from the historical literature, every great Teacher of humanity was first and foremost an agnostic, then they had their “insight” and, after imparting that insight, regular folk implemented it as a dogma(religion).
I understand childhood fear (having once been a child) and I see no dichotomy in both telling them fairy tales (as long as you tell them “these are stories handed down to us as lessons”), as well as encouraging them in evidential reasoning.
At certain stages in our developmental progress we may need such “ephemeral” reassurance,,,but hopefully we can outgrow that and tolerate the chaos that is reality, while seeking and maintaining the occasional patterns(like life) that rise from such.
On the quantum level, at least, it appears,,,”In the beginning, was chaos,,,then there were patterns,,,”
Peace to all and to all a good night,,,(hey, I’m Santa,,,)
GAry 7
January 21st, 2009 at 9:21 am
I note the spam filters in most blogs will not allow homosapiens w/o the sapiens part of that statement. See how I get around them?
GAry 7
January 21st, 2009 at 9:51 am
This clearly doesn’t help my initial assertions. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090121/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_day_one
The reason I had those contradictions, is the same reason I had typos in my comments, where I’m rambling too fast, and didn’t bother to properly edit before I posted.
My point, that I was trying to make, which doesn’t really seem to matter anymore, was that we can’t truly know what he believes, but we can form beliefs and attempt at determining what his personal thoughts might be on the matter. Since he’s a politician, we’re not on level ground, and it takes some resolve on our part.
January 21st, 2009 at 10:25 am
When President Obama (I love writing that) mentioned non-believers and returning science to it’s rightful place I immediately thought of Phil.
How refreshing it was. I felt so included.
By the way, I felt quite pleased with the use of the term “non-believer”. I would readily identify myself as such. David Hunstman referred to Tony Blair’s phraseology of “people of no religion”, which I like too. That made me think of an acronym, PONR. Or how about person with no religion, PWNR?
January 21st, 2009 at 11:09 am
@MadScientist–
” …Anyway, having a preacher at the inauguration ceremony . . . is a monstrosity heaped upon us by religious interests. . .”
Monstrosity?
Monstrosity is what is going on in Darfur. Monstrosity is what life in North Korea looks like. Monstrosity is the dictatorship in Burma, or Iran ramping up their nuclear weapons technology.
Your choice or words is maybe a little off.
@PsyberDave–
Science’s rightful place . . . does that mean “non-politicized science?” ‘Cause if you read K’s post above, seems like science may be just as politicized as it has been. But maybe since it’s politicized in a way that you and others like, it’s okay?
January 21st, 2009 at 11:30 am
@David D,
I took it to mean that science would be regarded with respect and left to the scientists rather than ridiculed or diminished when findings are counter to policy and also not managed by a PR machine to suit the needs of a political administration. I think his statement was an acknowledgment that the last administration meddled with science and used it to political ends but that it would not happen with his administration. I hope I am not being too hopeful and not just hearing what I wanted to hear.
January 21st, 2009 at 1:49 pm
@MadScientist
Unfortunately, until the majority of Americans continue believing in sky fairies, we’re going to have to put up with opening prayers that will cloud the rest of the inaugural ceremonies. It’s funny, because if this were Saudi Arabia, the politicians out there would be doing the same thing, invoking the same sky fairy, albeit calling it by a different name, and then droning on and on about how their interests will be met because they’re so humble and magnanimous in its worship. You have to face the inevitable, that in a Democracy, it’s not about who’s logical and reasonable, but about the ever-shifting opinion of the majority. We’re all just carried along in the wave of Majority rule. The difference is that if enough of us raise our voices, we’ll be heard. The progress of civilization will continue, and as we slowly become more enlightened, just as Europe has, we’ll be less reliant on religious artifices that struggle to maintain the status quo, and will maintain a healthier world view. Hopefully, one based on reason, logic, and the objective truth of that around us. They’ll still try to manipulate the masses, and their rhetoric will continue unabated, but their influence will hopefully wane. As it does, the politicians who represent the religious view will become Pariahs, treated as they are in Denmark and Sweden. You know that annoying parrot you have back in the shed that won’t shut up until you place a blanket over the cage and ignore it till it’s dead? Yeah, that is hopefully the future of these religion-as-a-badge-of-honor touting politicians.
January 21st, 2009 at 2:11 pm
@Helio–
“If this were Saudi Arabia . . . ” ‘Cause our society is just like that!
I wasn’t aware that “politicians who represent the religious view” had become Pariahs in Denmark and Sweden. I am aware that many Western European societies are having difficulties in dealing with their Muslim minorities, including Sweden, which was the scene of recent riots in Malmo after the closure of a Muslim community center.
“You know that annoying parrot you have back in the shed that won’t shut up until you place a blanket over the cage and ignore it till it’s dead? Yeah, that is hopefully the future of these religion-as-a-badge-of-honor touting politicians.”
More of that Obama hope and change! Yes indeed . . .
January 21st, 2009 at 3:14 pm
Oh Golly, will The One allow real science to reveal the hoax and fraud of “Global warming”? The One has installed a Global Government Marxist as the head of the EPA, so it doesn’t look good for reality. How about you Phil? Will you actually promote the truth on this one? Give the “Hope” for “Change”, before this dude flushes the greatness of America for generations to come.
January 21st, 2009 at 3:32 pm
@David D:
Yes, monstrosity. Many people make the mistake of thinking “oh, but *this* little bit of religious thing is doing no harm” – the founders of the nation didn’t buy that and were quite fierce in preventing any religion from having a control over affairs of state. The creationists and numerous religious groups would just love to see a little more harmless religion creep into government, and a little more, and yet more … Not seeing religious influence of the government for the abomination that it is could only lead to widespread misery and suffering and the subjugation of citizens to the whims of whatever religion or religious coalition is in control. Perhaps the religious thing didn’t look so bad when it was adopted several decades ago; the USA was predominantly protestant and catholic then. Other religious groups like the jews and muslims are left out of the christian prayer session; do they feel left out, or are they creeped out by the sight? I don’t know, but there is an affirmation there that the USA is a christian nation and to that I say “hey, speak for yourself buddy”. It is not christianity that makes the nation great; christianity (nor any religion for that matter) is not one of the core beliefs enshrined in the constitution and adopted in faith by the states as they signed their contractual agreements to be part of the union. God has no place in our system of government and that is a value which we must preserve.
January 21st, 2009 at 3:38 pm
@ray:
I think you confuse numerous issues. When you talk about the “hoax and fraud” of “global warming”, just what are you referring to? There’s a lot of climate scaremongering going on etc, but not everything to do with the issue of global warming is a hoax or fraud. The globe is getting warmer – that much we know. How much of that is due to human activity is anyone’s guess. Predictions of future climate – yeah sure, pull the other one.
January 21st, 2009 at 3:51 pm
Is it true that in that bastion of secularism known as Sweden that the churches are tax-funded, and the whole population pays a church tax? How enlightened is that?
January 21st, 2009 at 4:55 pm
@MadScientist–
Well, for almost 250 years the separation of church and state has worked remarkably well in this country, apparently even better than in some of the more “secularized” societies in Europe. I would imagine that overall, our country is probably more secular now than in previous periods of our history. I do not know what you refer to when you mention the “religious thing” that was adopted several decades ago.
Are Jews and Muslims left out of “the Christian prayer session” (whatever that is)? I don’t know–I thought that there was a variety of faiths represented at Obama’s inaugural festivities. I wonder if Christians are left out of Muslim or Jewish prayer “sessions.” Whether you like it or not, the majority of Americans happen to think of themselves as Christian. And yet, even after all this time, there is no State religion, unlike the CofE in the UK.
Again, when I think of the word “monstrous” I think of the beheading of Daniel Pearl, or what life must be like in Mogadishu these days, among other things. If you feel that it is just as monstrous to have “sky fairy” representatives (so funny!) speak at our inauguration, then you have a most interesting and provincial view of the world.
January 21st, 2009 at 5:55 pm
@David D
No, our society isn’t just like that, but we cannot afford to slip in the religious direction. We’re past the Dark and Middle Ages. I realize that many people use religion as a warm security blanket. Ultimately, that’s what it is. It provides comfort and hope towards a universe that is apathetic and uncaring to their plight. Yet, it shackles the mind and trumps dissent. Although at a personal level it may provide some artificial comfort, it is used by the establishment as a social control measure.
Those of us who like to think freely, to live in a universe we know is astonishing, yet grounded in the physical world, we don’t want psychos with sky fairies as their masters dictating national policy. Why should abortion, gay rights, euthanasia, hostility towards contraceptives be in the hands of religious authority? That is what we’re fighting. If the sky fairy believers had their way, our way of life would change. Yes, it may not be Saudi Arabia, but it would be some type of near-theocracy dictated by some artifice of authority.
Why would we want the Pope, or some archbishop, dictate to us our rights as free beings bound by the common thread that is humanity? It is religion that is often used as a divider, and an artificial barrier towards cultural integration. Ultimately, the key to all this is extensive eduction. Looking at Northern Europe for example and their strength in Eduction is also translated with their lack of religious belief. It may sound arrogant, or “elitist” but religion is and will be populated by the artificial constructs of our minds. Thinking rationally, logically, and analytically is hard. Allowing critical thinking to become natural is also equally difficult. Yet, that is how we have the civilization which we do. This isn’t Thomas Jefferson’s America. We’re a post Darwinian world, where we know how complex life could have evolved from simpler organisms. We know that the physics of the modern day universe can apply to the very instant of formation, everything except just at the cusp of the Big Bang. Yet, some still try to inject a sky fairy into that gap. Why? Just because there’s a gap in our knowledge need not require a sky fairy. It requires diligent work that bases itself on the developing progression of scientific thought. We’re here building a mountain brick by brick to see the horizon, while some people are sitting around praying to a fairy to help lift them above the chaos. Well, if it makes you feel better, if that warm security blanket provides you with a chance to sleep at night, feel free, but why should we dictate national policy based on those who attempt to force feed us those blankets? Take the blanket, but don’t expect everyone to do the same. The Supreme Court today is attempting to redefine many of progressive laws that we’ve struggled so hard to pass. Unchecked, there’s no question how far we can fall into some brain dead mindset.
January 21st, 2009 at 6:53 pm
@Helio–
I certainly agree with you, and probably most Americans do too–we don’t want the Pope or an archbishop or an imam or a rabbi to dictate to us any sort of official national policy. Other than fringe groups who do not represent or speak for mainstream culture, no one wants psychos with sky fairies as their masters dictating national policy. The fact that we remain a secular society is proof of that.
Religion does not always shackle the mind or trump dissent. You should know better than to make such a statement. Sometimes discussion about abortion and euthanasia are based on the principles of ethics; ethical principles sometimes intersect with religious teachings. I agree with you that our society should not be governed by religious fanatics.
You seem to have a rosy view of “Northern Europe.” Although the Europeans certainly compare favorably (and better) than the US in some measures (health care for one), I suggest you review carefully European attitudes toward habeas corpus, preventive detention, summary deportation, and libel laws, and then in serious fashion compare them to their counterparts (or lack of) in the United States.
Do you remember the sinking of the ferry Estonia in 1994? Over 800 lives were lost, many of them Swedish. And what did the Swedish people do? They went straight to their churches. Nobody told them to. And the very next morning on the front of the main Swedish daily, there was an article by the archbishop putting the tragedy into a theological context and giving Swedish people a way of understanding what had happened.
Maybe your view of European secularism is not as accurate as you think.
“Unchecked, there’s no question how far we can fall into some brain dead mindset.” But the checks are in place, and the sky isn’t falling–whether it’s full of fairies or not.
January 21st, 2009 at 7:59 pm
When speaking of Europe, I don’t meant to apply a broad brush and maintain that they’re completely divested themselves of religion, which most certainly is not the case. When compared to the United States however, they’ve fared far better.
Further, of course something like a ferry disaster or 9-11 is going to make people look for some way to explain the utter randomness of the universe. It doesn’t change the fact that it’s a security blanket, and it’s fine, I’m not calling for an absolute eradication of churches, but a reduction of their influence in our daily life.
As far as ethics are concerned, yes, it’s true that our system of morality and ethics is not absolutely dictated by religious doctrine, but a great deal of our ethics is swayed by the role that religion plays. The counterargument to Euthanasia for example often requires a religious view where our life is more sacred than our dignity. It’s fine if Fido’s near death, but if Gramps feels like he doesn’t want to deal with terminal cancer, then a stink is raised, often the first to jump in line is religion. Further, all those benedictions, and prayers that are so heavily involved in politics do influence our national consciousness. Why do you think so many politicians look for the blessing of the religious authorities? Their large constituencies become instrumental in the influence they have over the rest of the country.
The checks you think are in place can simply be resolved through executive order, just as our freedoms were done with the Patriot Act. If you’re branded a terrorist, well, no trial for you, even as an American citizen? How’s that for checks? You feel just as strongly about the secular role the government plays? I wouldn’t get too cocky there.
January 21st, 2009 at 8:14 pm
“. . .if Gramps feels like he doesn’t want to deal with terminal cancer, then a stink is raised, often the first to jump in line is religion.”
I disagree. As a medical professional, I know that end-of-life issues are dealt with by hospital ethics boards with the involvement of the legal department. I am not aware in my experience where a religious authority was consulted. Often Gramp’s decision is made with his family and the doctor, and no official action has to be taken. The Schiavo case was controversial, and religion was unfortunately injected by some people into the case; however, there were controversial ethical issues involved that were finally sorted out.
“The checks you think are in place can simply be resolved through executive order, just as our freedoms were done with the Patriot Act.”
You need to do your homework. The Patriot Act was an act of Congress, not an Executive order. The Act was passed by wide margins in both houses of Congress and was supported by members of both the Republican and Democratic parties. Portions of it have been challenged successfully in the courts. Not the greatest piece of legislation, but the checks are still there.
Hey–how did Obama vote on that FISA bill again?
January 21st, 2009 at 10:08 pm
BTW, during the inaugural address, applause can be heard immediately after Obama mentions restoring science to its rightful place.
May 18th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
[...] Looking ahead [...]