Obama's views on religion

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
You need to go up one level. If Obama said the HE couldn't support a particular position, the I would be fine with that. In fact in one place he does, and so far so good. Then he goe on to tell the millions of religions that they cannot have any influence in politics because they cannot meet the EVERYONE standard. They have to meet HIS standard of reasonability not before he would represent their views, but they have to to be represented at all. What piece of legislation will Obama endorse which passes the everyone test? Who is he to tell a group that believes late term abortion is murder they cannot have a voice because they don't pass his reasonableness standard? For that matter, what Rep should take the attitude that pro abortion people shouldn't have access to their Constitutional rights?

Let's say that Obama and the Dems want to pass legislation that would render anti gay marriage laws null and void. Will they not introduce such legislation because EVERYONE isn't on board? That won't stop them for a moment. They will define themselves as "everyone" for their purposes if that's needed. If Obama says "I" or "my party" or whatever group will resist religious influences, then good! That's not what he said. He told someone else that they may not participate unless they pass his standards. That's the rub. He is telling them that they cannot. They have no choice. Well they damn well do. So do the gays, the blacks and the religious, the athiestic, the KKK for that matter.

My problem isn't what Obama says he stands for and believes in. It's his statement of what others need do to meet his criteria before they may have a voice. Even now, I don't say that Obama can't say what he's saying, but I won't endorce the philosophy.

You raise a good point. I suppose if Obama had said 'these people SHOULD'... then I would agree with him. Instead, he says that 'democracy demands' these things.

Personally, I feel that if I am going to argue for a law, it should have some universalizability (made up words FTW), which to me means that it should be based on principles accessible to everyone, such as logic. To me, this is what the study of ethics is all about. By attempting to arrive at things that are 'right' and 'wrong' based solely on reason and not involving specific religious dogmas or doctrines, the results are applicable to everyone, regardless of whether they subscribe to your personal belief system. Your point is that not everyone chooses to set their moral standards in accord with this litmus test and who am I to tell them otherwise? I agree that these others should be able to lobby for change as they see fit, whether or not their opinion meets my standards. so, while I personally believe that responsible legislation (in some idealized sense, at least) should hold to this standard, I don't think that it should be some mandatory criterion for proposed legislation.

Exactly. Morality is a PERSONAL thing and should not be legislated.

OK. Now do you believe that those who don't share that opinion cannot be allowed to participate in a democracy?

 

[imported_Shivetya]

gee, a politician saying in public that was rehearsed how many times to make himself look fair and balanced, what will the suckers fall for next?

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Good view of things.

no full of BS.

a POLLitician

I agree with Shivetya above...


How do you tell when a pollitician is lying?

.




.


their mouth is open.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
"We have no choice"

That's where he loses me. Obama has no more right to demand that one's persons moral sensibilities pass his litmus test than Bush has. In a Democracy people you don't like have input. For many religious its humanistic seculariism, for the non religious, it can be Dobson and his supporters. Well there are both in this society, and each side has the right to be represented with it's concerns. THEY DO NOT NEED TO MEET YOUR STANDARDS. Or mine for that matter. We all have a vote and a voice, and that alone says we have a choice. That's Democracy. Not "exclude them because we don't think they are moral/smart enough".

No, I do NOT have to pass Obama's or Bush's litmus test to have a concern and expect representation for my views. If they are unpopular, the legislative process can shoot it down. Don't dare tell me that if I believe something is wrong I can't even ask for it to be addressed.

The bolded sentence above is exactly what Obama is talking about. He's saying you are free to have your concerns, and expect representation for your views. He's also saying that the legislative process needs to evaluate EVERYONE'S beliefs, not just those of the christian majority, and that any laws passed need to make sense for EVERYONE, not just the group of people whose religion dictates that it makes sense.

You need to go up one level. If Obama said the HE couldn't support a particular position, the I would be fine with that. In fact in one place he does, and so far so good. Then he goe on to tell the millions of religions that they cannot have any influence in politics because they cannot meet the EVERYONE standard. They have to meet HIS standard of reasonability not before he would represent their views, but they have to to be represented at all. What piece of legislation will Obama endorse which passes the everyone test? Who is he to tell a group that believes late term abortion is murder they cannot have a voice because they don't pass his reasonableness standard? For that matter, what Rep should take the attitude that pro abortion people shouldn't have access to their Constitutional rights?

Let's say that Obama and the Dems want to pass legislation that would render anti gay marriage laws null and void. Will they not introduce such legislation because EVERYONE isn't on board? That won't stop them for a moment. They will define themselves as "everyone" for their purposes if that's needed. If Obama says "I" or "my party" or whatever group will resist religious influences, then good! That's not what he said. He told someone else that they may not participate unless they pass his standards. That's the rub. He is telling them that they cannot. They have no choice. Well they damn well do. So do the gays, the blacks and the religious, the athiestic, the KKK for that matter.

My problem isn't what Obama says he stands for and believes in. It's his statement of what others need do to meet his criteria before they may have a voice. Even now, I don't say that Obama can't say what he's saying, but I won't endorce the philosophy.

I don't know what you're smoking, but you're entirely misreading what Obama is saying. He never says religious groups shouldn't have a voice. He NEVER says religions shouldn't attempt to get get their views expressed in the law. He NEVER says religious groups must pass HIS standard.

His comment on "we have no choice" was referring to the fact that in order for a religious view to make it into broader law, the religious group must convince the broader population (not just Obama) that the proposal meets a need beyond the narrow religious needs of the group.

In his example, a person wishing to get anti-abortion legislation passed

[has] to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Note that implicit in that example is a religious group participating in the democratic process, trying to get a matter of faith expressed in broader law. If Obama were opposed to religions pushing their agendas, he would hardly have used this example.

What he is clearly saying is that it's totally insufficient for a group to say, "I believe this, therefore we are going to make this a law." Instead (Obama says), the Democratic process FORCES the group to build a consensus among the rest of us. THAT's what "we have no choice" means.

 

[wb182]

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: bamacre
Well said, yes. But IMO, religion has nothing to do with what I see as our nation's biggest problems.

I'm sorry, but abortion, gay marriage, and A: creationism/evolution all need to be taken back to the end of the line.

B: Our education system needs work, bigtime. Same for healthcare. And on the same stage, foreign policy and fixing the mess in Iraq.

We need to end the "war on terror," and launch a "war on Al Qaeda."

We need to also end our "war on drugs," and find better ways of fixing our cities' crack and meth problems.

I agree with your statements whole-heartedly. As an example of the mess I have bolded these 2 statements to point out why political issues unfortunately become serious issues:
It is the inclusion of bolded statement A into bolded institution B, that further adds to the deteriation of bolded institution B. This "debate" needs to be accurately depicted for what it is--one extremist side bullying themselves into an argument that exists only for one viewpoint.

My comment about education has nothing to do with creationism/evolution. It was in refernce to the overall poor quality of teachers, lack of funds for supplies, and a lack of parental oversight.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
"We have no choice"

That's where he loses me. Obama has no more right to demand that one's persons moral sensibilities pass his litmus test than Bush has. In a Democracy people you don't like have input. For many religious its humanistic seculariism, for the non religious, it can be Dobson and his supporters. Well there are both in this society, and each side has the right to be represented with it's concerns. THEY DO NOT NEED TO MEET YOUR STANDARDS. Or mine for that matter. We all have a vote and a voice, and that alone says we have a choice. That's Democracy. Not "exclude them because we don't think they are moral/smart enough".

No, I do NOT have to pass Obama's or Bush's litmus test to have a concern and expect representation for my views. If they are unpopular, the legislative process can shoot it down. Don't dare tell me that if I believe something is wrong I can't even ask for it to be addressed.

The bolded sentence above is exactly what Obama is talking about. He's saying you are free to have your concerns, and expect representation for your views. He's also saying that the legislative process needs to evaluate EVERYONE'S beliefs, not just those of the christian majority, and that any laws passed need to make sense for EVERYONE, not just the group of people whose religion dictates that it makes sense.

You need to go up one level. If Obama said the HE couldn't support a particular position, the I would be fine with that. In fact in one place he does, and so far so good. Then he goe on to tell the millions of religions that they cannot have any influence in politics because they cannot meet the EVERYONE standard. They have to meet HIS standard of reasonability not before he would represent their views, but they have to to be represented at all. What piece of legislation will Obama endorse which passes the everyone test? Who is he to tell a group that believes late term abortion is murder they cannot have a voice because they don't pass his reasonableness standard? For that matter, what Rep should take the attitude that pro abortion people shouldn't have access to their Constitutional rights?

Let's say that Obama and the Dems want to pass legislation that would render anti gay marriage laws null and void. Will they not introduce such legislation because EVERYONE isn't on board? That won't stop them for a moment. They will define themselves as "everyone" for their purposes if that's needed. If Obama says "I" or "my party" or whatever group will resist religious influences, then good! That's not what he said. He told someone else that they may not participate unless they pass his standards. That's the rub. He is telling them that they cannot. They have no choice. Well they damn well do. So do the gays, the blacks and the religious, the athiestic, the KKK for that matter.

My problem isn't what Obama says he stands for and believes in. It's his statement of what others need do to meet his criteria before they may have a voice. Even now, I don't say that Obama can't say what he's saying, but I won't endorce the philosophy.

I don't know what you're smoking, but you're entirely misreading what Obama is saying. He never says religious groups shouldn't have a voice. He NEVER says religions shouldn't attempt to get get their views expressed in the law. He NEVER says religious groups must pass HIS standard.

His comment on "we have no choice" was referring to the fact that in order for a religious view to make it into broader law, the religious group must convince the broader population (not just Obama) that the proposal meets a need beyond the narrow religious needs of the group.

In his example, a person wishing to get anti-abortion legislation passed

[has] to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Note that implicit in that example is a religious group participating in the democratic process, trying to get a matter of faith expressed in broader law. If Obama were opposed to religions pushing their agendas, he would hardly have used this example.

What he is clearly saying is that it's totally insufficient for a group to say, "I believe this, therefore we are going to make this a law." Instead (Obama says), the Democratic process FORCES the group to build a consensus among the rest of us. THAT's what "we have no choice" means.

So he's not making a point, but is being pedantic on how representation works? That makes me feel much better.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
You need to go up one level. If Obama said the HE couldn't support a particular position, the I would be fine with that. In fact in one place he does, and so far so good. Then he goe on to tell the millions of religions that they cannot have any influence in politics because they cannot meet the EVERYONE standard. They have to meet HIS standard of reasonability not before he would represent their views, but they have to to be represented at all. What piece of legislation will Obama endorse which passes the everyone test? Who is he to tell a group that believes late term abortion is murder they cannot have a voice because they don't pass his reasonableness standard? For that matter, what Rep should take the attitude that pro abortion people shouldn't have access to their Constitutional rights?

Let's say that Obama and the Dems want to pass legislation that would render anti gay marriage laws null and void. Will they not introduce such legislation because EVERYONE isn't on board? That won't stop them for a moment. They will define themselves as "everyone" for their purposes if that's needed. If Obama says "I" or "my party" or whatever group will resist religious influences, then good! That's not what he said. He told someone else that they may not participate unless they pass his standards. That's the rub. He is telling them that they cannot. They have no choice. Well they damn well do. So do the gays, the blacks and the religious, the athiestic, the KKK for that matter.

My problem isn't what Obama says he stands for and believes in. It's his statement of what others need do to meet his criteria before they may have a voice. Even now, I don't say that Obama can't say what he's saying, but I won't endorce the philosophy.

You raise a good point. I suppose if Obama had said 'these people SHOULD'... then I would agree with him. Instead, he says that 'democracy demands' these things.

Personally, I feel that if I am going to argue for a law, it should have some universalizability (made up words FTW), which to me means that it should be based on principles accessible to everyone, such as logic. To me, this is what the study of ethics is all about. By attempting to arrive at things that are 'right' and 'wrong' based solely on reason and not involving specific religious dogmas or doctrines, the results are applicable to everyone, regardless of whether they subscribe to your personal belief system. Your point is that not everyone chooses to set their moral standards in accord with this litmus test and who am I to tell them otherwise? I agree that these others should be able to lobby for change as they see fit, whether or not their opinion meets my standards. so, while I personally believe that responsible legislation (in some idealized sense, at least) should hold to this standard, I don't think that it should be some mandatory criterion for proposed legislation.

Exactly. Morality is a PERSONAL thing and should not be legislated.

OK. Now do you believe that those who don't share that opinion cannot be allowed to participate in a democracy?

People who do not share that opinion should be allowed to participate, in an open minded fashion, just like everyone else..

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: brandonb
While Obama has a nice point, there is one thing people always seem to forget.

This country is a democracy. Which means, the people elected represent the people putting them in office. If we have 90% Christian population, I'd expect the person in power to represent the Christian population and pass laws/legislation to support it. Granted we have seperation of church and state, but that just means that the state can't force a religion on you, or come out and say "We are a christian nation". In case Jews or Muslims come here in mass, they get represented and laws/legislation changes to support their views.

Isn't that Democracy?
As far as I'm concerned, politics has nothing to do with representation anymore.

"......for the REPUBLIC, for which it stands, one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for all"

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
So he's not making a point, but is being pedantic on how representation works? That makes me feel much better.

How is he not making a point? His point is clearly that religions can't just expect to force laws down the throats of the rest of us on the basis of arguments like, "that's what the Bible says." They must follow the same rules of democracy as everyone else and SHOW the rest of us why the laws they advocate make sense.

That's hardly pedantic . . .

1. ostentatious in one's learning.
2. overly concerned with minute details or formalisms, esp. in teaching.

. . . especially since most people seem NOT to understand that in a democracy matters of "morality" are subject to the same type of public debate as everything else.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: brandonb
While Obama has a nice point, there is one thing people always seem to forget.

This country is a democracy. Which means, the people elected represent the people putting them in office. If we have 90% Christian population, I'd expect the person in power to represent the Christian population and pass laws/legislation to support it. Granted we have seperation of church and state, but that just means that the state can't force a religion on you, or come out and say "We are a christian nation". In case Jews or Muslims come here in mass, they get represented and laws/legislation changes to support their views.

Isn't that Democracy?
As far as I'm concerned, politics has nothing to do with representation anymore.

Something that I think you're forgetting is that your 90% Christian population has no consensus on almost anything. Obama makes that point in the article.

If America consisted of only the 90%, there would be almost no difference in the politics of this country.

 

[Moonbeam]

I think Obama believes in the Good and that the less dogmatic and more reasonable we are in approaching that Good the better off we will all be. I think he calls to a higher person hiding in all of us. Of course if you make that claim those most in the grip of self hate, like Shivetya, will be jolly on the spot to crucify you.

The problem with insanity is that it is untouched by reason.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Martin
I imagine that should he ever get as far as candidacy, the religious right will go absolutely insane over reasonable views like this.

The only insanity is the paranoia of some regarding the allegedly all-powerful religious right, a group whose reputation far exceeds its actual power. Is divorce both legal and socially acceptable? Is alcohol sold in all 50 states? Is dancing legal? Porn in most places? Americans make quite a show about religiousity, but it's a functionally agnostic/atheistic nation once you get past the initial facade.

 

[Fern]

And even if we did have only Christians within our borders, who?s Christianity would we teach in the schools? James Dobson?s, or Al Sharpton?s? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Levitacus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith?

He's either cluseless or pandering.

If you're a Christian it means you accept the New Testiment (unlike the Jewish). The Point of Jesus and the New Testiment is to render the old (Testiment) laws mute or irrelevant. They've been superceded. Levitacus and Deuteronomy are Old Testiment, thus it's ignorant or disingenous to "invent" such a dilema as he does above.

Fern

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: sandorski
Good view of things.

no full of BS.

a POLLitician

I agree with Shivetya above...


How do you tell when a pollitician is lying?

.




.


their mouth is open.

Yup yup.. a politician for the New World Order. Just another puppet here folks, nothing more. We need a candidate outside of Republicans and Democrats. Of course this would never happen. What I see in that speech is hyperbole to manipulate the sheep. Looks like it is working!

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: sandorski
Good view of things.

no full of BS.

a POLLitician

I agree with Shivetya above...


How do you tell when a pollitician is lying?

.




.


their mouth is open.

Yup yup.. a politician for the New World Order. Just another puppet here folks, nothing more. We need a candidate outside of Republicans and Democrats. Of course this would never happen. What I see in that speech is hyperbole to manipulate the sheep. Looks like it is working!

So you were manipulated then.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: Fern

And even if we did have only Christians within our borders, who?s Christianity would we teach in the schools? James Dobson?s, or Al Sharpton?s? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Levitacus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith?

He's either cluseless or pandering.

If you're a Christian it means you accept the New Testiment (unlike the Jewish). The Point of Jesus and the New Testiment is to render the old (Testiment) laws mute or irrelevant. They've been superceded. Levitacus and Deuteronomy are Old Testiment, thus it's ignorant or disingenous to "invent" such a dilema as he does above.

Fern

Exactly the hyperbole I am referring to. It is either ignorance or lies for the purpose of manipulation. i am guessing it is the latter.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: sandorski
Good view of things.

no full of BS.

a POLLitician

I agree with Shivetya above...


How do you tell when a pollitician is lying?

.




.


their mouth is open.

Yup yup.. a politician for the New World Order. Just another puppet here folks, nothing more. We need a candidate outside of Republicans and Democrats. Of course this would never happen. What I see in that speech is hyperbole to manipulate the sheep. Looks like it is working!

So you were manipulated then.

No mr. sheep, that would be you! I don't fall for his slick talk. I used to like him.. until I read this. If he had just said that religions won't be influencing his decision making process when it comes to running the country, that would have been fine. But he had to resort to manipulation.

 

[ebaycj]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I think Obama believes in the Good and that the less dogmatic and more reasonable we are in approaching that Good the better off we will all be. I think he calls to a higher person hiding in all of us.

Yep, very well stated.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
So he's not making a point, but is being pedantic on how representation works? That makes me feel much better.

How is he not making a point? His point is clearly that religions can't just expect to force laws down the throats of the rest of us on the basis of arguments like, "that's what the Bible says." They must follow the same rules of democracy as everyone else and SHOW the rest of us why the laws they advocate make sense.

That's hardly pedantic . . .

1. ostentatious in one's learning.
2. overly concerned with minute details or formalisms, esp. in teaching.

. . . especially since most people seem NOT to understand that in a democracy matters of "morality" are subject to the same type of public debate as everything else.

You then say

"If America consisted of only the 90%, there would be almost no difference in the politics of this country".

Indeed.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: ebaycj

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I think Obama believes in the Good and that the less dogmatic and more reasonable we are in approaching that Good the better off we will all be. I think he calls to a higher person hiding in all of us.

Yep, very well stated.

That may be what he's saying, but in many years of hearing politicians and seeing their actions I tend to believe that the Good he believes in will be the one he will try to have others adopt, and not just by argument. There is a reason for Gandalf not wanting the Ring.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: bamacre
Well said, yes. But IMO, religion has nothing to do with what I see as our nation's biggest problems.

I'm sorry, but abortion, gay marriage, and A: creationism/evolution all need to be taken back to the end of the line.

B: Our education system needs work, bigtime. Same for healthcare. And on the same stage, foreign policy and fixing the mess in Iraq.

We need to end the "war on terror," and launch a "war on Al Qaeda."

We need to also end our "war on drugs," and find better ways of fixing our cities' crack and meth problems.

I agree with your statements whole-heartedly. As an example of the mess I have bolded these 2 statements to point out why political issues unfortunately become serious issues:
It is the inclusion of bolded statement A into bolded institution B, that further adds to the deteriation of bolded institution B. This "debate" needs to be accurately depicted for what it is--one extremist side bullying themselves into an argument that exists only for one viewpoint.

My comment about education has nothing to do with creationism/evolution. It was in refernce to the overall poor quality of teachers, lack of funds for supplies, and a lack of parental oversight.

I know what you were reffering to. What I meant was that certain school districts forcing non-scientific topics into science classrooms further discredits already-suffering educational institutions. So, while the evolution/creationism "debate" should remain nothing more than a silly political issue, it does have very real implications when forced into school systems that have far more serious issues to deal with, such as those that you mentioned.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Fern

And even if we did have only Christians within our borders, who?s Christianity would we teach in the schools? James Dobson?s, or Al Sharpton?s? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Levitacus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith?

He's either cluseless or pandering.

If you're a Christian it means you accept the New Testiment (unlike the Jewish). The Point of Jesus and the New Testiment is to render the old (Testiment) laws mute or irrelevant. They've been superceded. Levitacus and Deuteronomy are Old Testiment, thus it's ignorant or disingenous to "invent" such a dilema as he does above.

Fern

No, b/c if you're Christian and believe in the Holy Trinity, then those laws set forth by God in the Old Testament are also those set forth by Jesus. Being the Father and the Son (with a little Spirit on the side), the word of God, at any point, is also the word of Jesus. He is God in the flesh, and is also the Son of God (I'm thinking a West Virginia lineage? 😛).

 

[MAW1082]

I'm very impressed with that

 

[glutenberg]

Originally posted by: Shivetya
gee, a politician saying in public that was rehearsed how many times to make himself look fair and balanced, what will the suckers fall for next?

Umm, better than a President who rehearses, decides he's too smart for planned speeches, and decides to go ad-lib and make himself look like a bumbling fool.