Photo: Scott Olson / Getty Images
According to Barack Obama, religious faith must be used to "tackle moral problems" but not "divide the nation." Since when have "moral problems" not divided the nation? Do the words "slavery" and "segregation" ring any bells? Then again, Obama also tries to suggest that religion only divides people when it is "hijacked." It's implausible that he's so ignorant as to truly believe such things, which means he's telling people what they want to hear, however disconnected to reality, for the sake of votes.
"Doing the Lord's work is a thread that runs through our politics since the very beginning," Obama said in a speech to United Church of Christ's Iowa conference.
Source: Sioux City Journal
Doing "the Lord's work" is a thread that runs through Christian churches; in secular politics, however, politicians are expected to do the work of the people. What an individual politician thinks their god wants is ultimately irrelevant — or at least should be. It's true that many politicians in the past have resorted to justifying their positions on scriptures or claims about their god demands. The fact that others have done it in the past, though, is not a good reason for continuing the practice today.
If a politician cannot use evidence and reason to justify their positions and must resort to private religious revelation, they should give up politics and enter the ministry. A liberal Democrat who advances a political agenda on the basis of claiming to be doing "the Lord's work" is no better than a conservative Republican doing the same thing.
"And it puts the lie to the notion that separation of church and state in America means somehow that faith should have no role in public life," Obama said.
Continuing with the theme of channeling the ghost of Jerry Falwell, Barack Obama here is misleading people by playing on multiple definitions of the word "public." There is "public life" in the sense of what people can easily see in public (as opposed to kept hidden in private) and then there is "public life" in the sense of the government. The separation of church and state does not prevent people from expressing or practicing their faith in public, but it does prevent the integration of their personal religious faith into the government.
If Barack Obama in any ways means to say that his personal religion should be integrated into the government of all citizens — including those who reject his religion — then he is in effect denying that church and state should be separated. Ultimately, it means that he wants his church integrated with the state — after all, there is no "religion" in the abstract and disconnected from any particular theology and traditions. There can only be specific theology, specific beliefs, and specific traditions — all of which exclude other theologies, beliefs, and traditions.
"...somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together and started being used to drive us apart. It got hijacked," Obama said, drawing applause from the delegates. "Part of it is because the so-called leaders of the Christian right are all too eager to exploit what divides us. ...I don't know what Bible they're reading. But it didn't jibe with my version," Obama said.
Faith started to drive people apart? Religion has always divided people — there has never been a religion which has not excluded some people and insisted that some beliefs or practices were better than others. Barack Obama is, in fact, engaging in exactly the same sort of division which he decries. When he says that others who disagree with his personal theology are not reading the same "version" of the Bible as he, then he's little different from the leaders of the Christian Right who have expressed much the same attitude: Christians who adopt the wrong political positions aren't following genuine Christianity in the first place.
Barack Obama is turning out to be the perfect politician: he decries certain tactics while using precisely those tactics in order to make himself appear superior to the people whom he emulates.
He said all Americans of faith should focus on solving major issues that he argues have moral dimensions. "My faith teaches me that I can sit in church and pray all I want, but I won't be fulfilling God's will unless I go out and do the lord's work," Obama said.
Excuse me, but if someone is running for President of the United States, shouldn't they be seeking to do work on behalf of and in the interests of the citizens of this nation rather than the alleged interests of their alleged god? If the desires of their god are so important, why not enter the ministry?
Anyone who puts the wishes of their god — or to be more specific their interpretation of what they think their god is telling them it wants — ahead of the interests/needs of the people is saying that their god is sovereign rather than the people. This, in turn, is contrary to the basic principles of a democratic republic.
Anyone who says to the people “my god is sovereign, you are not,” is quite simply not fit for elected public office. They are a theocrat, not a democrat, and there is no room for theocrats in the government of a liberal democracy. I frankly don't care what Barack Obama thinks his god's will is and don't want him abusing the power of elected office to impose his ideas about his god's will on the rest of the population.
We do, at least, have an excellent question which can be put to Barack Oabama so long as he insists on parading around while swaddled in religious rhetoric: “who do you believe exercises political sovereignty over our nation: your god or the people?”
"The Iraq war is not just a security problem. It is a moral problem," Obama said. "These are the challenges that test our conscience as Americans, a people of faith."
Just in case readers were wondering, we now have an idea of what Barack Obama meant by "moral problems." It would appear that everything involves "moral problems" — which is probably correct. Most to all political issues involve moral issues at some level, but what this means is that when Barack Obama insists on applying his personal religious beliefs "only" to tackle moral issues, he's being disingenuous because he means to use his religious faith on pretty much every political matter that comes up.
Anyone who adopts such an arrogant attitude and deceitful statements in an effort to inject their private religious beliefs into government not only doesn't deserve my vote, but is in fact unfit for public office. I object just as strongly to someone basing public anti-poverty laws on the basis of private religious revelation as I do to someone basic public anti-abortion laws on the basis of private religious revelation. Using religious scripture and revelation as a basis for public policy is anti-democratic because it’s a means for shutting off public debate.
When a politician like Barack Obama says “we should do this because it’s what god wants,” they are trying to force responders to argue “no, my god wants something else.” That’s an easy argument to lose and, moreover, is the wrong argument to have. People who correctly answer “so what — we should do what’s in the best interest of the community and what’s consistent with our principles of liberty” are easy to paint as anti-god/anti-religion which, in the current climate, automatically causes their position to be discounted no matter what it is.
Basing public policy on private religious revelation is best way politicians have found to avoid answering hard questions about or making hard arguments in defense of their proposals. The people deserve better — they deserve politicians who can make reasoned, public arguments on behalf of their positions. Unfortunately, that may require a people who can understand reasoned arguments.
Religion – where all roads appear to lead to a secure server. Beware of false prophets looking to make tax-free profits. God’s Party is bipartisan and has fostered a culture of corruption. Heckuva job, Religionists! If there is a God like they say, I’m sure he really appreciates that.
Read Obama’s Call to Renewal Speech:
http://www.barackobama.com/2006/06/28/call_to_renewal_keynote_address.php
He is not close at all to the Christian right.
In fact, part of his argument for using religious talk on the left is because if you don’t, then the Christian right will have a monopoly on the religious.
Read this article by an athiest for Obama:
http://humaniststudies.org/enews/?id=280&article=1
Also see:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/group/AtheistsforObama
http://wisdomofcommunities.com/2007/06/04/atheists-prefer-barack-obama/
I didn’t say that his political policies were close to the Christian Right, but his approach and methodology are disturbingly similar. His speech (it’s rather arrogant to assume I’m not aware of it) actually reinforces that conclusion.
That’s an incredibly nihilistic view on life: if we don’t misuse religion and politics by intermingling the two inappropriately, then the other side will do it and they’re even worse!
How about a positive and secular view of life: leave religion to churches and do the people’s business in civil government.
I’ll note that you don’t actually rebut or dispute any of my arguments above.
Thanks for the article Mr.Cline. Quite informative.
I know the argument for sucking up to the religious in this country but it would be refreshing if someone would just answer once in a while with “Why is that eve important?”. I’m sure that’ll get me flamed but I somehow don’t care.
Thanks again for the great article Mr.Cline.
Well said Austin, well said. Your arguments here are very accurate and I’m glad to see them articulated so well. Atheistforobama did not rebut or dispute your arguments for this very reason. I was once a supporter of Obama and I’ve seen all the resource provided by ATO and none of the information provided in them negates the facts you have listed here. Obama is using his religion more and more as the election draws near and he is be urged to do so by the wing of the Democratic party that supports him. Four those of us who wish to see less religion in politics, not more, it is a very alarming trend.
I have great admiration for the country USA for its people like Austin that makes me feel so welcome in this world.I live in a country supposely secular but telling the world its religious because of its participation in a religious grouping.I hate when the power that be always use religion to justifies its policies. My country of birth even decree a national principle and the very first of it is………Belief in god. It makes me sick,i have to pretend to believe in god just to be a citizen then.If only my country can have people like Austin to make things right but am afraid I can only just dream on>
Fundamentalist Nazi religion lends itself to childish metaphors, symbols, and language. It is perfect for advertising campaigns. They have an advantage because there is no kind of a G-d in their version of religion, which is really based on Bibliolatry, profit and power.
I think Mehta is basically right about Obama’s language, but I certainly wish, of course, that we had a candidate as popular as Obama who was forthrightly secular. But I may not see that in my lifetime. What bothers me more about Obama is that he doesn’t seem to comprehend (any more than the other Democratic candidates, except Kucinich) how much damage Bush has done to the country and how hard it will be to repair it. Or perhaps he does, but he doesn’t want to alienate too many potential voters. After all, he’s a politician; his florid religious language may also be an attempt to attract some more votes. After all, he knows as well as the rest of us that the majority of Americans are at least sentimentally religious, and they like to feel comfortable with the candidates they vote for. They want to “have a beer” with them, or perhaps go to church with them.
This guy’s on our side retards. On you tube you can hear him at some religious university tell how the reason religion is important is because people who believe won’t let it go. I know an atheist when I hear one, and Obama is not some born again a*****e.
seth: I really can’t understand what you’re trying to say. It sound like maybe you’re trying to defend Obama, but you don’t offer any support for such a defense.
Barak Obama,is like a breath of fresh, clear air! Finally, a political leader who can articulate the importance or religious diversity in America and a leader who is not intimidated to express the truth that seperation of Church and State is necessary to protect the religious freedom of “All” Americans. Thank You Barack.
This is the type of person I want to see in the White House!With his positive values maybe this country will start moving again!
Finally! What a breath of fresh air this article is! You articulate what I’ve been thinking about Obama for a long time, in very eloquent terms. bravo!
I agree with you about the use of religion in politics. It’s a dangerous, slippery slope. isn’t it enough to want to help people because, well, it’s what we as humans should do, rather than because your particular God (or version of the Bible) tells you to?
I understand the point Cline is trying to make, but his hyperbolic assessments (“channeling the ghost of Jerry Falwell”, calling Obama a “theocrat”, etc.) distort, or at best misrepresent, Obama’s message.
I, too, would like to see our political dialogue exclude any mention of god. But we live in a country of incredibly superstitious and gullible people. The religious right is trying to destroy Obama politically using fear and slander.
Accusations of Obama being a Muslim fundamentalist, having been schooled in a Madrassa by Wahabbists, having been sworn in on a Qur’an have surfaced. Cline is not acknowledging that for survival in American politics, Obama somehow needs to overtly assuage these accusations to reassure our under-educated public.
This essay is based primarily on a speech given to the United Church of Christ’s Iowa conference this past year – an event where Obama was sharing his personal religious convictions to members of his greater congregation. To accuse Obama of employing the same self-righteousness embodied by the religious right from this one address to a (liberal) theological gathering seems conveniently selective. My contention with this article is that Cline is twisting Obama’s words to develop a thesis for the indictment of all religious thought. Cline exaggerates the spirit of the simple phrase “doing the lord’s work” as tantamount to imposition of theocratic rule.
Cline desire to eliminate religion from our political dialogue is admirable. To point the finger at Barack Obama, however, seems partisan, if not petty. As an atheist, I am a proponent of evolution. In my mind, what Obama is offering is a step in the right direction.
If you’re going to “contend” it, you should try supporting it, too.
Feel free to support that, too.
Feel free to explain why.
“…Barack Obama has declared that his religion does indeed have an important place in politics — but apparently only on his terms and in the way he wants.”
The text you are using from the United Church of Christ’s Iowa conference or subsequent speeches given by Mr. Obama doesn’t really support your hyper-judgmental rhetoric. Obama’s call to action is to create a positive open dialogue. I understand your beef with religion – but as I don’t know your political beliefs, I can only assume you don’t fall into Obama’s camp.
You desire an exclusionary dialogue – the very thing you are accusing Obama. Only, your argument is explicit and articulated by yourself – while Obama’s position has been created by your own supposition and invention. As I stated earlier, it is due to your hyperbolic approach that I take umbrage.
“If Barack Obama in any ways means to say that his personal religion should be integrated into the government of all citizens — including those who reject his religion — then he is in effect denying that church and state should be separated. Ultimately, it means that he wants his church integrated with the state — after all, there is no “religion” in the abstract and disconnected from any particular theology and traditions.”
He is not saying this. You are implying it.
“Barack Obama is, in fact, engaging in exactly the same sort of division which he decries. When he says that others who disagree with his personal theology are not reading the same “version” of the Bible as he, then he’s little different from the leaders of the Christian Right who have expressed much the same attitude: Christians who adopt the wrong political positions aren’t following genuine Christianity in the first place.”
You seem to be a fundamentalist. Here you are using a rhetorical device taken out of context as a literal statement and indictment.
“Excuse me, but if someone is running for President of the United States, shouldn’t they be seeking to do work on behalf of and in the interests of the citizens of this nation rather than the alleged interests of their alleged god?”
Here again, the overstatement and tone are atrocious. Look at Obama’s career and tell me where you don’t see enough secular thought, involvement and passion in helping people.
Feel free to support your claim rather than just repeat it after being asked to support it.
An interesting accusation, especially since you just admitted that you don’t know my political beliefs. Well, feel free to support this accusation if you can.
You did notice the “if” in the statement, right?
Please support that accusation.
Please support this claim.
Please support this claim.
I find it interesting that, when asked to support your claims and accusations, all you can do is just repeat them over and over again. You don’t seem to understand the important differences between repeating a claim in slightly different form and offering substantive, specific support for a claim.
To achieve the latter, you would actually have to provide an argument demonstrating that I am taking something out of context and that it doesn’t mean what I suggest it means. You would have to provide examples of where I express a desire, implicit or explicit, for “exclusionary dialogue.” You would have to quote Obama’s words and provide a substantive, serious argument demonstrating that those words don’t mean what I suggest they mean.
I don’t think you can do it. You disagree with my conclusions, obviously, and I assume that you think you have good reasons for doing so. When specifically challenged to articulate substantive reasons for why you think I’m wrong, though, you choke — all you can do is repeat yourself.
If you want to be taken seriously, you’re going to have to take the same quotes I did and show not only that they can be interpreted differently, but that they can only be reasonably interpreted the way you do and thus it is unreasonably for me to read them they way I have. All of them — not just one or two, because my case is a cumulative one based upon multiple statements of his. If you can’t do this, then you should have the intellectual decency to admit that you cant and allow that you may be mistaken here after all.
Thanks for the lesson in rhetoric. It is most enlightening. You may want to brush up on your inductive and deductive reasoning.
Your text is an example of rhetorical dishonesty. You call for “intellectual decency” yet when faced with your OWN ill supported and ill reasoned statements your only defense is to REPEATEDLY ask for substantiation. Having read other articles of yours, I see this is your common defense when challenged.
It is not your conclusion I disagree with – it is your premise. Your use of hyperbole and overstatement defeat any valid point you are trying to establish (am I repeating myself?). Structurally, you are building your indictment of Obama on the “if” you so smugly point out.
If you are interested in a dialogue, spare me the community college lecture and honestly address any points that may seem remotely germane to you. On the other hand, if you wish to promote yourself as the master of rhetorical style, let’s just let the dialogue end here. I have no desire to engage in a tiresome anti-intellectual game of “I know you are but what am I”.
This basically looks like a restatement of your original claims which you have refused to support.
Yes, I repeatedly ask you to support your claims about my statements because you repeatedly refuse to support your claims. What do you find so difficult about supporting your claims?
Yes, when people make assertions or allegations I ask them to support those assertions or allegations; when they refuse, I repeat the request. Why do you think that asking people to support their assertions or allegations is so unusual that it bears remarking upon?
There appear to be lots of things in the article that you disagree with; thus far, you haven’t provided any substantive reasons for doing so though.
Unless your assertions and allegations can be supported, none of them are germane.
Neither do I, nor do I have any interest in the anti-intellectual game of asking someone to support their claims only to get responses which amount to little more than extended excuses for not doing the decent thing.
Here’s an important lesson which I really shouldn’t have to spell out for you: if you are unwilling to unable to support your claims or allegations, then just don’t make them. Even if your assertions are correct, you will actually harm support for them when you refuse or fail to support them. Better to just keep quiet and wait until you know more than to speak too soon and make things worse.
WHATS SCARY IS THAT IM ALMOST HAVING A FEELING THAT OBAMA WANTS HIS CHURCH TO LEAD THE COUNTRY,IF THAT HAPPENS I DONT THINK AMERICA IS NO LONGER GONA BA CALLED TO DESERVE THE PHRASE A ‘FREE COUNTRY’.CAUSE AS WE LL KNOW IF YOU ARE A FANATIC IN YOURE RELIGION ,ANYONE I MEAN,TENDS TO BE MORE ENTHUSIASTIC THAN A PERSON WHO IS INLOVE WITH SOMEBODY.SO IF HE SEATS,HIS PREACHERS ARE THE ONE SITTING THEN,AND INSTEAD OF THE CONSTITUTION BEING USED AS THE LAW,ITS THEYRE MINISTERS FAITH THAT WILL REIGN.HES HIDING BEHIND HIS BEING BLACK,BUT I THINK HIS A RACIST,BEING PRO BLACK AND HATING OTHER COLORS MAKES YOU A RACIST RIGHT?
Can you provide evidence that he hates other colors?
HERE WE GO, THE EARTH BELONGS TO THE LORD. YOU DON’T OWN ONE INCH OF IT. HE IS IN CONTROL OF ALL EVENTS. EVEN THE AIR YOU BREATH, MORON. BUT HE GAVE YOU FREE WILL TO THINK WHAT EVER YOU WANT AND SAY IT. SO REGARDLES WHAT YOU THINK OR SAY, THERE IS ONE WILL, HIS WILL AND AT THE END IS THE ONLY THING STANDING. HE PUTS GOEVERNMENTS AND TAKE OUT GOVERNMENTS. THAT’S WHY OBAMA IS TH CHOSEN ONE THIS TIME, REGARDLES OF HOW PEOPLE VOTE. REMEMBER BUSH AND GORE, DUMMY. POLITICS IS AN EXERCISE OF MEN, BUT GOD HAS THE LAST WORD IN POLITICS. GET SOME REAL WISDOM SO YOU DON’T END UP IN HELL.
YOUR THINKING IS NOT CORRECT. GET THE MIND OF CHRIST. HE WILL GIVE IT TO YOU FREE. SO YOU ARE NOT USED BY THE DEVIL AND BEHAVE LIKE A MORON.
Prove it.
And you know this… how? Are you hearing voices?
Prove it.
I love these religious nuts. They are unknowingly the best adverts for the truth of atheism. Their stupidity and vileness shines out so clearly, who on earth would want to be like them? How about that fat TV evangelist that McCain is trying to avoid? What a piece of sh**. You wouldn’t want to buy a car off him, let alone a belief system! How could anyone take him seriously? The fat ****.
Pedro
You contend that your god has chosen Obama to lead this country. What happens if he loses the election?
CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL!!1!
HERE WE GO, THE EARTH BELONGS TO THE LORD. YOU DON’T OWN ONE INCH OF IT. HE IS IN CONTROL OF ALL EVENTS. EVEN THE AIR YOU BREATH, MORON. BUT HE GAVE YOU FREE WILL TO THINK WHAT EVER YOU WANT AND SAY IT. SO REGARDLES WHAT YOU THINK OR SAY, THERE IS ONE WILL, HIS WILL AND AT THE END IS THE ONLY THING STANDING. HE PUTS GOEVERNMENTS AND TAKE OUT GOVERNMENTS. THAT’S WHY OBAMA IS TH CHOSEN ONE THIS TIME, REGARDLES OF HOW PEOPLE VOTE. REMEMBER BUSH AND GORE, DUMMY. POLITICS IS AN EXERCISE OF MEN, BUT GOD HAS THE LAST WORD IN POLITICS. GET SOME REAL WISDOM SO YOU DON’T END UP IN HELL.
Oh lovely irony, too bad it’s wasted on the pathetically ignorant. Actually I think it sounds better pronounced moaaarons. But you know what? That was definitely the laugh of the day.
Anytime I begin to feel better about the state of the world, I know I can always visit the comments section of Austin’s articles for a dose of reality.
Reading Pedro’s post, I do not know whether to laugh in amazement or weep for the children.
Jeremy…Some good news from Redstateland. The percentage of infantile minds such as George’s is shrinking here. I believe that in my lifetime we will see an nonreligious president. Ambivalence now seems to be the norm when confronted with the “youaura-goen-ta-hella” crowd. Take heart. Rationalism is gaining ground. Fundamentalism will soon be as recondite as racism is to most today.