On February 5, President Obama held the traditional (at least since the Great Depression) National Prayer Breakfast in DC to clarify issues about his take on the faith-based initiative, and to laud the benefits of faith. Despite the fact that President Obama created the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships made up of both secular and religious components, and despite his suggestion that the separation of church and state is a good thing that needs to be perpetuated, the Prayer Breakfast set an unsurprising, although perhaps subtle, non-rational tone.
For instance,
He said even though a diverse group of faith leaders and lawmakers read different religious texts and follow different traditions, one law unites them all — “the Golden Rule” — the call to love one another; to understand one another; to treat with dignity and respect those with whom we share a brief moment on this Earth.”1
Implying simultaneously that faith is acceptable as a source of guidance, but is not the foundation of morality, which brings into question the purpose of focusing on faith as a benefit rather than merely focusing on benefit. (In other words, why not laud, in general, those people who help others, rather than trying to establish that there’s something inherently good about faith itself?)
More disturbing, and fringing on an attack against non-believers, a guest speaker at the Prayer, former Prime Minister Tony Blair, stated that “The extreme believers and aggressive nonbelievers come together in an unholy alliance.” Funny, I don’t recall, by the nature of my aggressive nonbelief joining up with suicide bombers and bible-thumping clinic bombers. Non-belief is non-belief. It’s the lack of something, whereas belief is the addition of something, and extreme belief is the extreme addition of something. How can one have an extreme absence of something? It’s like trying to multiply by zero.
But, am I even remotely satisfied that Obama has taken Bush’s outlandish and non-working faith-based extremism and molded it, through compromise, into something that somehow includes non-believers with an overall goal of improving the lives of others? No. I can’t say that I am satisfied at all. I think every moment that Obama takes to focus on faith itself as a benefit is a moment that he tramples upon his own assertion that there exists and should be maintained a separation of church and state. Obama even recognizes that not all faith-based actions are beneficial, and excludes the extremists and the self-righteous, but he still can’t bring himself to the logical conclusion that if instead of focusing on “faith” as a factor, we focused on actual benefit as a factor, we could accomplish the same goals without risking establishment and without isolating those who would bring benefit to others without unsupported belief in the supernatural. Is this just another political maneuver to keep the religious groups from rioting, or is this Obama continuing to show his religious favoritism?
Regardless, President Obama isolates religion from scriptural fact when he says that “No matter what we choose to believe, let us remember that there is no religion whose central tenet is hate…. There is no God who condones taking the life of an innocent human being. This much we know.” He might actually be correct with regard to religion, but he’s certainly way off the mark with regard to God, depending on which god is the subject, and depending on one’s definition of “innocent.” Did Obama skip his bible lesson where the God of the Old Testament laid waste to millions of people, or does Obama consider them all to have been guilty in the eyes of the Lord, and thus not innocent? Either answer indicates that Obama is either fabricating a reality that doesn’t match what the good books say, or he truly believes that God’s word is the higher law. If the former, should we worry about his ability to read and comprehend? If the latter, is he not advocating the combination of church and state while alleging that he supports separation? Remember, he thinks having faith in such a deity is a good thing.
By the way, there will be an Unholy Alliance meeting at the Elk’s Lodge on Main Street this Sunday. Coffee, donuts, and pitchforks will be served.
Carnival of the Godless entry at The Greenbelt
Tags: belief, bible, bomb, Bush, church, deity, establishment, faith, foundation, god, Holy, human, Law, Logic, Lord, Love, minister, moral, Morality, Obama, political, prayer, president, rational, Religion, secular, suicide, Sunday, testament, war, Washington
I think Obama is not speaking to any scripturally correct (particularly the old testament) interpretation of religious teachings, but the seemingly popular McChristianity that seems more prevalent today. This is the sanitized, de-genocided, de-stoning, de-OMG-that-is-bad-god-doesn't-do-that version of Christianity that I see paraded around. It is sort of an amalgam of Christian views filtered through a sanitized modern moral view. You really can't blame him, he is speaking to the masse that love a "feel-good" message.
I think Obama is not speaking to any scripturally correct (particularly the old testament) interpretation of religious teachings, but the seemingly popular McChristianity that seems more prevalent today. This is the sanitized, de-genocided, de-stoning, de-OMG-that-is-bad-god-doesn't-do-that version of Christianity that I see paraded around. It is sort of an amalgam of Christian views filtered through a sanitized modern moral view. You really can't blame him, he is speaking to the masses that love a "feel-good" message.
Except that he made a clear distinction between religion and God, stating ultimately with some impossible certainty that there is *no* god who condones the taking of an innocent life. He's imposing his own idea of god onto all others, with a blind eye to logic and reality.
It is so annoying that anyone deems such prayer breakfasts necessary. Just more religious pandering.