President Obama has not attended an atheist meetup, drinking skepchickally, skeptics in the pub, or other nonbeliever event since he took office, despite his inaugural address pledge to acknowledge nonbelievers, and his continued insistence on “reaching across the aisle” to acknowledge and respect those with different beliefs.
“We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and non-believers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth; and because we have tasted the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united, we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must play its role in ushering in a new era of peace,” Obama stated in his inaugural address.
Within his first few months in office, Obama has already reached that hand of respect out to all corners of the earth, from offers to speak with leaders of Muslim nations to actually visiting heavily Islamic countries , bringing offerings of peace, and an explicit assurance that the United States is not at war with Islam.
Domestically, Obama has reinvigorated the controversial faith-based initiative, favoring religious discrimination in organizations that receive federal funding, and stocking his advisory panel with a heavy majority of theists.
Despite this overt and frequent outreach to religious organizations domestic and foreign, Obama has made no effort to connect with the non-believers he pledged to treat with the same respect and attention as believers. His reference to non-believers seems, in hindsight, to have been nothing other than a hat-tip to the often left-leaning fifteen percent of the nation, most of whom helped him get elected.
Obama has also pledged to seek a new church for himself and his family, subjecting his minor daughters to indoctrination in dogma almost universally rejected by the scientists of the world, with details disagreed upon by nearly every other religious denomination or sect. He has yet to choose one, indicating that he must take into consideration the interference he would cause with church attendance of fellow church members. Why has he not taken into consideration the idea that by choosing to be an active practitioner of an ancient superstitious ritual, he interferes with the ability of both non-believers and those who believe in different superstitions to be treated with respect and equality in a nation founded with an explicit separation of church and state?
President Obama, pick yourself a church along with your wife. Let your children play in the White House playground, or have them tutored by someone who respects reality and can encourage them to be skeptical instead of dogmatic. And then make a surprise visit to a Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, or Sam Harris lecture/debate, or an atheist meetup. You might get some shit from the fundamentalists, but didn’t you say something about reaching out to everyone, despite their beliefs? You reached out to one of the most hated homophobes, Rick Warren, for your invocation. What’s stopping you from reaching out to people who don’t happen to share your monotheistic point of view?
—
This article is a rebuttal to the Fox News Blog comment “BILL SAMMON: When Will Obama Go to Church?” by Bill Sammon, Managing Editor, Washington Bureau, FOX News Channel, which, out of all the things that someone could find fault about Obama over, chooses to attack Obama’s lack of church attendance since his swearing-in.
Tags: advisor, America, ancient, atheist, belief, bureau, Catholic, children, Christ, church, CNN, Dawkins, dogma, faith, family, fundamental, Hindu, human, humanity, Invocation, islam, Islamic, journalism, Muslim, Obama, president, Religion, Rick Warren, skeptic, theist, United States, war, Washington
I don't disagree with you. I think that in reference to religion he is trying to have his cake and eat it, too. He is a politician. Given his education and intellect, I suspect he holds for himself only a vague concept of a deity, and likely Michelle thinks the same thing. Since he is a politician and is trying to hold so many factions together, he is playing it down the middle and trying not to offend anyone. Regardless, you have a valid point in that he hasn't attempted to reach out to the skeptical/rational citizenry.
The question becomes, who does he meet with? Who does he invite to the White House? Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens would be a start. The problem is that unlike religious groups, is there really a representative group for non-believers? (insert inevitable cat-herding comment here) Obama needs to get rid of the Office of Faith Based Initiatives (or whatever it is called), but he has so many people to piss off that deleting that office from the federal budget doesn't offer any real returns except negative ones.
Until non-believers have officially recognized representation with some clout (congressional representation is critical), then we won't be in the light of the president's eyes. Recent research says that non-believers, non-committals and/or non-responders make up 20% of the US population. That is larger than Jews, Blacks and Hispanics, yet we have no official representation.
Hell, a good start might be trying to get the laws against atheists holding office off the books in the states.
Shall we write an amendment for it?
There's only so much this one man can do in less than 100 days.
Yes, but in the first few hours, he already had multiple religious invocations. In the first few weeks, he fortified faith initiatives. Waiting for some indication that religion and government shouldn't mix, but not seeing it. Not really expecting to see it.
there already is an amendment for it. It's called the first amendment.
The mention of "non-believers" seemed like an afterthought to me. And note his use of language- non-believers, not atheists. We're not actually a distinct group, we just happen to not be one of them.
I don't know, to me it seems more of a "them vs. us" sort of thing, rather then an inclusion into a group of labels and being treated like equals.
Afterthought or "CYA," indeed. I think his use of "non-believers" rather than "atheists" was a critical decision to try to include as many non-religious as possible while not excluding people who like to refer to themselves as agnostic or ignostic. "Atheist," as is noted ubiquitously, seems like a harsh term, and would probably still be grating on the ears of the majority of the nation if Obama had used it.
For now, until he does something that significantly rejects religious policy, Obama's hat-tip was vacant of relevant substance other than nominally recognizing that, hey, there are as many non-believers here as some very influential religious groups, and, hey, some of them must have voted for Obama.
And thanks for commenting!