Posts Tagged ‘Invocation’

When Will Obama Go to an Atheist Meetup?

Wednesday, April 8th, 2009

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.

February Friday Fun

Friday, February 27th, 2009

What kinda stupid stuff has the government been doing lately? Let’s find out on February Friday Fun.

First, we start off with the imbecilic local government in Clearwater, Florida, who first fined a store owner for having upon his store wall an image of a fish of the type that he sold in the store (violating a code against store owners having on display a depiction of something the store sells — uhm, that makes sense), and then was fined yet again for him covering it up with a naked picture of his wife! No, just kidding. Actually, he was fined again for covering it up with the U.S. Constitution. According to the St. Petersburg Times, the ACLU is suing the city of Clearwater, alleging that it has violated the shopkeeper’s First Amendment rights. Pshaw. What First Amendment?

What First Amendment?

Next, Vjack asserts that a qualified apology (a non-apology apology) isn’t really an apology, especially with respect to the kind of public apology that seems expected from those responsible for what is being claimed to be a racist cartoon. Although Vjack has his points (when doesn’t he?), the most interesting part of his article is the comments, which lean toward suggesting that an apology isn’t necessary at all. Particularly in cases where either the meaning is misunderstood, or if the would-be apologizer meant to do whatever it was that caused offense. I agree with Vjack that people should take responsibility for their actions, but I also don’t think that people should apologize for something non-existent caused by a misunderstanding, when there was no intent to do harm. But I mean that as a general principle — no “default” knee-jerk apologies; that doesn’t mean there aren’t cases where it’s in everyone’s best interest for someone to make a real, formal apology. Unfortunately, though, in this world, an apology, even when there’s no actual harm or intent to harm, is often perceived as pleading guilty, and it’s possible that the idea behind not giving a “real” apology is really just a way of saying, “Look, this isn’t what you think it is, and if I apologize for it, you’ll think you were justified in thinking it was what you think it is.” Apologies shouldn’t be evidentiary (except maybe while being interrogated by police), but they are.

This burns. Jesse at Rant & Reason brings to light the fact that a sole Colorado legislator voted against a bill that would require HIV tests for pregnant women (to ensure the health of the foetus/baby), specifically because HIV “stems from sexual promiscuity” and that he didn’t want to “remove the negative consequences that take place from poor behavior and unacceptable behavior.” What a crock! Read the article if you want to be further disgusted by the inhumanity of some of the idiots we elect to represent our interests.

As I re-Tweeted on Twitter the other day, Christopher Hitchens was on Lou Dobbs (no, not like that!), and I’ll let PZ Myers at Pharyngula give the rundown, because I’ve had a shitty week. The issue is the UN’s proposed resolution banning blasphemy. (It’d make it a crime in the U.S. to criticize religion (specifically Islam). WTF!). Fuck Islam. Fuck Mohammed, Muhammed, Muhammad, Mohinder, whomever. Where was that First Amendment again? Oh, that’s right, we don’t have one. Fifty-fucking-seven nations supporting this!?!? If it passes, the U.S. should leave the UN. “Universal human rights exist whether religion recognizes them or not,” says Hitchens. Woot.

Oh, hey, remember when I said that there’s no First Amendment? I meant that we civilians, we “people” don’t have First Amendment rights. Apparently, though, government entities do. WTF? According to The Legal Satyricon, the U.S. Supreme Court has unanimously held “that a city’s government has a right to decide which donated monuments to display on municipal property.”

Americans United for Separation of Church and State suggests dropping prayers and invocations at political rallies. “The only thing worse than having these prayers in the first place is to have them vetted, because it entangles the White House in core theological matters.”

And that’s it for this first and last edition of February Friday Fun, which is just some name I made up just now, because “Daily Dose” was just too alliterative for me.

To Sue or Not to Sue… The President

Monday, December 29th, 2008

Camps are forming among the irreligious, based on Michael Newdow’s most recent attempt to break up the government-religious relationship — he’s suing President-elect Obama. Well, not directly, but effectively, through his lawsuit against the use of the term “So help me God” and inaugural prayer. Newdow and others claim that Obama and related officials should leave behind all semblance of religion when ascending the platform that will officially designate Obama as the next President of the United States.

Friendly Atheist is one prominent member of the camp that supports such a notion. He states:

There’s no reason Barack Obama should be swearing an oath to God when he takes office. (If he chooses to do so personally, that’s his decision, but it shouldn’t be part of the official ceremony.) There’s also no reason we should have prayers — in this case, Christian ones — at the inauguration.

Although Friendly Atheist believes that the lawsuit stands about the same chance as Newdow’s failed 2004 lawsuit of the same calibre, he thinks that the upside to such litigiousness is that it brings attention to the secular versus religious issue with regard to government.

On the other side of the aisle is Atheist Ethicist, arguing that because this is an issue of freedom of speech, it should not be fought with violence, but, instead, with speech. Violence, he says, because the court enforces its decisions with the force of the government (i.e., police), in the form of intimidation and sometimes actual force. The proper way to act in retaliation of the decision to meld the pulpit and the presidency is to condemn and criticize, but not prohibit the speech of others, particularly the president’s. Essentially, if we act through the courts to stifle the president’s ability to say a prayer or swear to God, then we make a mockery of our own arguments to protect our own right to not pray or swear to God.

Both arguments have valid points. It’s a good idea to bring to America’s attention that we haven’t always been a “Christian” nation, and that, as Friendly Atheist notes, our allusions to the biblical God were all fabricated and implemented fairly late in U.S. history. And it’s also proper for us to enforce the notion that government is supposed to be separate from religion, at least with regard to endorsement. On the other hand, it’s potentially risky to establish a precedent that we wouldn’t want applied to ourselves or to others, regardless of their belief.

I’ll add something to this. Obama won’t be passing any laws during the inauguration. The First Amendment protects us from Congress passing law respecting an establishment of religion. It’s got nothing to say about the president being sworn in by the Chief Justice, or about an invocation, or if the president-elect wants to wear a turban or a cross or a clown suit.

So, which argument is stronger? The one supporting the lawsuit or the one opposing it? Is there a limit to which rational people should go in pursuit of separation of church and state, and is this the limit?

-Procrustes

State of Protest

The Trend of Obama Doubt

Thursday, December 18th, 2008

Is he merely catering to the small minority of Christian fundamentalist fanatics whom he threatens to depose by his mere accession to the presidential seat? Is he secretly homophobic? Is this subtle humor to show us what life would have been like under a McCain/Palin administration? Did all the hundreds of other potential choices have something scheduled on January 20th? Or was Obama just not thinking straight when he decided to invite the notorious fundamentalist homophobe Rick Warren to offer an inaugural prayer next month?

Yes, this is what everyone is jabbering about right now. Oh my God, you picked Rick Warren!?!?! Out of all the people! Well, I was jabbering, among a few others, about Obama’s pro-Christian, to the point of making me nervous about him, attitude way back in July, when I wrote “Thank God Obama Worships the “Right” God.” I mentioned that in light of rumors that Obama was Muslim, because he had attended a Muslim school for a short time as a child, Obama’s “Factcheck” web page, devoted to quelling such rumors, spent an inordinate amount of space not only just simply denying Obama’s Muslimhood, but also wildly exaggerating Obama’s Christianity. I was worried that what appeared to be wild exaggeration was actually a sign that Obama was a closet fundamentalist, or at least has a strong preference for the Christian religion and beliefs. My examination of the statements he’s made to that effect in the past, coupled with his selection of Rick Warren, have solidified my doubts about his demeanor with regard to Christian partisanship.

Regarding Warren, vjack at Atheist Revolution sums the pastor up nicely:

-Warren supported the ban on gay marriage in California.
-Warren opposes reproductive rights.
-Warren is clearly outside mainstream America and has been compared, fairly I believe, to James Dobson. Hell, he’s compared himself to Dobson!1

Now, we probably shouldn’t jump on the guilt by association bandwagon (as Obama’s opponents were wont to do during the election), but there are significantly safer, more neutral, and more politically correct (forgive me) selections for an inaugural companion. And this news of the Warren selection is right on the heels of other questionable behavior by Obama — notably, his cabinet choices. Having a cabinet and set of advisors that even Cheney agrees with should send up little red flags all over America.

Someone should ask Obama about what part of “change” we must have misunderstood. Is this country about to be run by the old administration in sheep’s clothing? Instead, how about… A bit of change away from the status quo of treating Christians and most other mainstream religions with preference; a change away from the Bush Doctrine; a change away from civil rights destruction (including the Patriot Act and its relatives); a change away from arbitrary discrimination in the guise of morality, promoted and perpetuated by religious groups; a change from the useless war on drugs (that ends up leaving the U.S. with the highest ratio of inmates in the entire world); a change from sexual discrimination in every form; a change away from criminalization of that which does not hurt, but is criminalized solely because of puritan influence; a change from pointless wars or wars fought for oil, or dominance, or whatever; a change from homophobia and the perpetuation of tradition that used to sit comfortably next to slavery and treating women as chattel. This isn’t change for the sake of change. It’s a change to improve our lives, get us out from under the foot of oppression, and help make this entire world more livable and, gods forbid, lovable.

Where’s that change, Obama? I don’t see it. I see, again, falling in line.

-Procrustes (pissed)

Who else has something to say about this issue?

Christopher Hitchens, at Slate, says we can do much better than Warren. If we must have an officiating priest.

Rob Boston at the AU Blog says that although Warren poses as a moderate, he’s really just another Falwell wannabee.

Vjack, as mentioned above, has a few things to say, including the wise advice to not sweep this one under the rug. He’s also indirectly supplied me with a few of these links to other articles, as well as bringing to my attention the contact information for Obama’s team.

The Atheist Experience is calling this Obama’s first big screwup.

Pam Spaulding, at Pam’s House Blend, suggests that although it’s a good idea to let the Obama camp know how we feel about this issue, it’s unlikely to be reversed.

Dave Silverman, at American Atheists, reminds Obama that he’s supposed to be a Democrat. (however, I say, look at the behavior of the rest of the self-proclaimed Democrats in Congress)

Bligbi nails the point in that by choosing Warren, Obama is making the pastor his representative. And, better yet, calls Obama out on his claim to be a fierce advocate of the LGBT community.

CNN has an interview of Rick Warren by Kiran Chetry.

Greta Christina (recently featured at BoingBoing) worries that Obama just wants everyone to like him, and in his attempt to eschew intolerance, he will become too tolerant.

Daily Kos acknowledges that there may be a silver lining in all this — that Obama will now be forced to continue to affirm his stance of equality with regard to LGBT rights.

Olbermann on Warren:



Rachel Maddow:



More to follow soon, as the theatrics roll.

StOP

  1. http://www.atheistrev.com/2008/12/obamas-inaugural-blunder-rick-warren.html [<]

DEWEY BEATS TRUMAN! (or Obama beats McCain?)

Tuesday, November 4th, 2008

It almost seems untrue.

But will it matter? What a legacy to inherit.

Fortunately, no matter what happens now, Obama will set a precedent that may very well change the tide of a traditionally racist and sexist nation. (You think I’m joking about racism and sexism, check out my prior posts, and maybe some U.S. history).

Regardless, Obama ran an outstanding race. Congratulations.

(Except for the request to God to bless America and whatnot. You were fine up to “Thank you.” You know, when you thank the gays for voting for you, but then follow your speech up with an invocation to the very same god that you indirectly, and others directly use to condemn personal sexual choice, you become a hypocrite. You’re better than McCain in a lot of ways, and way better than Palin, but by believing what you do, openly and publicly, you have condemned all the non-believers to hell. Every time you invoke the name of your Christian God, you do so, and every time you do, I am reminded of how we’re considered non-citizens, ill-respected, and ignored. You’re welcome for your votes, but, fuck you for your religious beliefs, Obama. Of course, you couldn’t have won without them, so fuck all the rest of you religious nuts, too. Good night, and remember that you’re all fucking worm food.)1

-Procrustes

  1. Okay, fine. Perhaps I’m being too extreme or hyperbolic here. Perhaps his “invocation” of God is no more genuine than an average church-goer’s “Bless You” to a random sneezer. Perhaps it’s less. Perhaps it’s all just a big game. As my friend Onesimus says, quite rightly, what’s more important is that he brings the troops home. As long as he does that, says Ony, who cares if Obama worships pink trees? Well, that’s a tough one. If you have an effective leader who is delusional, but in a way that’s not detrimental to others who don’t share that delusion, is that leader desirable? I guess so. If that’s the case, and I think it probably is (since I fucking loved Obama’s speech up to the God point), then I welcome Obama in open arms (I did anyway, I was just being obtuse up there), but I think he should eventually nix the church tax exemption. Then I’d even go so far as to like him. (Yes, I did get teary-eyed near the end of Obama’s speech. Sue me.) [<]