…and this is a 
The Obama failing
Category: Godlessness
Posted on: February 10, 2008 10:43 AM, by PZ Myers
Apparently, Barack Obama did well in the recent primaries, increasing the chances that he'll be the Democratic candidate for president. Right away, we're seeing an old video of an Obama speech (transcript here) being refloated. This is the same speech that prompted me to say I would never vote for Obama. It really is a ghastly exercise in self-delusion and post hoc justification of religious bigotry; I'd say he was pandering to his audience, except that I think he really believes the nonsense he was spouting.
Just reading it again pisses me off, it's so full of stupidity. Look at this:
And by the way, we need Christians on Capitol Hill, Jews on Capitol Hill and Muslims on Capitol Hill talking about the estate tax. When you've got an estate tax debate that proposes a trillion dollars being taken out of social programs to go to a handful of folks who don't need and weren't even asking for it, you know that we need an injection of morality in our political debate.
Good grief. We need Christians, Jews, and Muslims to "inject morality" into Capitol Hill? Capitol Hill is full of nothing but believers, and it's the loudest and most fervent of those believers who passed the regressive taxes we have now. To make it even worse, he turns around a few sentences later and says this:
So the question is, how do we build on these still-tentative partnerships between religious and secular people of good will? It's going to take more work, a lot more work than we've done so far. The tensions and the suspicions on each side of the religious divide will have to be squarely addressed. And each side will need to accept some ground rules for collaboration.
You want to build bridges to the secular part of the nation? Then don't assume the godless are the amoral, unethical, venal part of society that you need to discipline with a ruling majority of religious saints in government.
There's much more in that speech that grates. For instance, he praises Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech for it's religious content, which he claims was necessary. NO. Read it again. King was a minister, and of course his religious tradition informed his speech, and the cadence of the speech is straight from good ol' sermonizing, but the religious references are nothing but little fillips on a call for social justice, for equality and freedom. If you read that speech and come away thinking it's a paean to religiosity, you're missing the point. Atheists and other secularists are moved and inspired by that speech; the religious content is background, not purpose.
So let's be clear here: I despise Obama's faith. I think it has the potential to be a major hindrance to any accomplishments of an Obama administration, and I worry that it would further promote the desecularization of our government. If Obama is elected, I will not be a cheerleader, but a constant critic.
That said, though, in the recent caucus, I made myself a liar and voted for Obama. If he's the Democratic candidate, I'll vote for him in November. (I hope I don't regret it.) I would remind him, though, that the last liberal Christian candidate who made his faith a matter of public discussion was Jimmy Carter, a wonderful human being who was also a one-term president. Piety is no substitute for accomplishment.
I do not aspire to the complete disenfranchisement of all religious people, and I always have to hold my nose and press that lever for some Christian — as an atheist in America, I have never had the opportunity to vote for any candidate in any election who was willing to admit to disbelief. (Think about that—as a group, we lack representation in our government, but it's the other side that is always claiming discrimination.) So there's nothing new in having to swallow my pride and vote for a compromise candidate who represents my views so poorly.
In this election, I'm confronted with a moderate Republican in Democratic clothing (Clinton) who I don't see advancing secular government in a progressive direction; a weak progressive (Obama) who is tainted with religious delusions, but I'm hoping will focus on more practical issues, and the religiosity will not be prominent in his administration; and a mob of flaming lunatics on the Republican side who promise nothing but catastrophe.
I'm reluctantly voting for Obama, but as I said last time, someday I want to vote for a freethought president. I have a dream! Of course, I seem to still be waiting for a chance to vote for a freethought city councilman, so it may be a while.
Politics
Comments
voting for a freethinker?
you're two centuries too late.
adams, jefferson, and madison would be pilloried today.
washington would be highly suspect.
once upon a time, the u.s. was a republic.
not coincidentally, that's back when its major leaders and thinkers were freethinkers.
Posted by: kid bitzer | February 10, 2008 10:48 AM
I have that same dream, but in the meantime I'll probably be voting for Obama too.
Posted by: The Science Pundit | February 10, 2008 10:50 AM
I've become pretty annoyed at all of my super-progressive friends who are head-over-heels in love with Obama. Yeah, yeah, he makes you feel good. Have you LOOKED at his positions, though? Not that freaking progressive. Meh.
Posted by: jeffk | February 10, 2008 10:59 AM
I feel for you PZ, one reason I am thinking of voting Liberal Democrat here in the UK is their Leader Nick Clegg's acknowledgement that he is atheist. After Blair's faith based policies and the son of the manse we have as PM at the moment I think we need a good dose of rationalism too. Maybe we can halt the socially divisive increase in faith based schooling this government has overseen. It is this, just as much as Iraq, that has turned me off voting labour despite being a natural labour supporter by inclination.
Posted by: Peter Ashby | February 10, 2008 11:00 AM
I personally don't think that Obama's enunciations about religion will come in the way of policy matters. Also, he has many other virtues and I think it's a little unfair to focus only on this aspect of his opinions. On the other hand, there's also really no one better right now. Let's see.
Posted by: Ashutosh | February 10, 2008 11:01 AM
I think you're blowing one speech a bit out of proportion, PZ. Just because he specifically said Christians, Jews, and Muslims, doesn't mean he's leaving out everyone else out. It appeals to the general public to name some major religions, and say that they should be involved. Obama is a politician, and sadly, at this time no politician is going to get elected if he runs around saying how great atheists are. And while it's unfortunate they may have to put up that facade, we can at least know that they will work for our rights once in office. I think Obama is our best shot at having a secular balance in our presidency. If anything, having atheist and agnostic parents should give him some perspective, at least.
Just to show you some of Obama's views, which haven't been taken grossly out of context, here's a letter he sent in response to our club's inquiry:
"Thank you for your letter regarding the protection of civil liberties for non-believers. In his speech on the relationship between faith and politics in American society, Barack spoke to some of the issues raised in your letter.
Here's some of what Senator Obama said:
Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason...
Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy-making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing.
We hope this helps provide some perspective on Barack's views about religion. Please find the rest of his speech for your consideration."
PZ, you're an intelligent guy, and I respect your views (and agree with many of them), but sometimes I think you're just too quick to jump the gun and get offended by everything.
Posted by: Jennifurret | February 10, 2008 11:08 AM
I'm curious how supporting universal health care (a stronger plan than Obama's), abortion rights, civil unions, a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, and the Kyoto protocols makes Sen. Clinton "a moderate Republican in Democratic clothing." You must be thinking about extinct Republicans like Jacob Javits or Nelson Rockefeller. No such animal exists today.
Posted by: Zeno | February 10, 2008 11:12 AM
Jenni (#6), could you just confirm whether the paragraph that begins "Now this is going to be difficult..." was Obama's or not? Thanks.
Posted by: MH | February 10, 2008 11:15 AM
Pah. This is just a variation of Obama's main weakness: he creates division where there isn't any in order to be able to unite two sides.
The tensions and the suspicions on each side of the religious divide will have to be squarely addressed.
This is bullshit. As an atheist I have absolutely no problem joining with Anglicans on women's rights, or on Catholics when it comes to anti-poverty programs, or most mainstream religious folks when it comes to keeping creationism out of science class.
We do have our differences, but these are authentic differences, respectable as differences. They are not some misunderstandings that Obama can wave his magic wand over and helter-presto create Unity. The "religious" position will always against women's reproductive rights. There is no misunderstanding there. I don't have any "suspiscions" of them, nor do they, largely, have any suspiscions of me. We just frackin disagree. In Obama-land, this is an impossibility.
I am voting for Obama; but we'll see how his good ship lollipop fares once he runs into the rocks of Republican opposition. I'm hoping that his kumbaya rhetoric can create the equivalent of a progressive Ronald Reagan. RR wasn't that conservative, but he was so goddamned popular he gave conservatism credibility it didn't deserve, leading the conservative brand to be so powerful as to sustain the Worst President Ever for an extra term. Maybe Obama, even though he's not really that progressive, can set the table so that progressive thought is considered on par with communism.
Posted by: inkadu | February 10, 2008 11:23 AM
* er, rather, so that progressive thought is not considered on par with communism.
Posted by: inkadu | February 10, 2008 11:26 AM
On the Washington Post's "On Faith" site, one panelist quoted the following statement by Obama at http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/susan_brooks_thistlethwaite/2008/02/its_the_religion_stupid.html :
"Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. Democracy requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all...Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality."
I suspect that H. Clinton would be somewhat less likely than Obama to actually bend to the temptation to push for faith-based policies. But Obama, as a former professor of constitutional law, seems to understand and respect the importance of church-state separation and protecting the rights of non-believers. I'm willing to overlook the nonsensical piffle that Obama frequently spouts (apparently with considerable sincerity) for the purpose of getting elected.
Posted by: Jeff D | February 10, 2008 11:32 AM
You could vote for a freethinker in America (well, you'd probably have to persuade one to run for office in the first place - or at least to admit it), but it would just be throwing your vote away. Sad, but true.
However, one of the many things I like about Barack Obama is that he strongly supports the separation of church and state, and that he SPECIFICALLY includes non-belief, as well as belief in other religions. That's really important. He's not one of those 'liberal' politicians who are only tolerant of other religions. Obama almost invariably - and SPECIFICALLY - mentions non-belief as deserving the same respect.
These days, that's about all we can expect, especially from a candidate who battles right-wing rumors about being a secret Muslim. And it is critically important! Not to mention that he can get voters enthused even in my red state. Yesterday, here in Nebraska, Obama supporters turned out in droves. And we had long, long lines of people registering as Democrats - some registering for the first time, others switching from Republican. The enthusiasm was incredible!
Posted by: WCG | February 10, 2008 11:34 AM
The question is though, does he believe in evolution? As far as I know, Hillary is the only candidate who has stated that she does.
Posted by: jeff | February 10, 2008 11:35 AM
When has there ever been a perfect candidate? Generally we're not going to find someone who agrees 100%. I agree, Obama's faith isn't getting him any points with me, but his willingness to listen to diverse ideas and be inclusive is.
I also have to agree with Jennifurret, and thank her for adding that information from Obama's team.
PZ, this post smacks a little of quote mining.
Posted by: dorid | February 10, 2008 11:37 AM
Indeed, Obama's too divisive to be President.
Posted by: Epistaxis | February 10, 2008 11:38 AM
Hey Bama, O Bama
Bama, Bama, O
Bama,
Hey Bama, O Bama
Hey kB,kB, won't you work for me
simply politicings gotten you this far.
It is Sunday morning, the choices are medieval religious TV, scoop the snow from yesterdays' blizzard, or post an entry on pharyngula. Seriously, since Huckabee may well be the rethuglican VP candidate, either Democratic candidate would be better. That being said, I would prefer not to have to vote for Senitor Clinton as the idea of having the White House in the hands of two families for what could be more than a quarter century is absurd.
Posted by: mothra | February 10, 2008 11:39 AM
"Because I do not believe religious people have a monopoly on morality I would rather have someone who is grounded on morality and ethics and is also secular, affirm their morality, ethics and values without pretending they are something they are not."
Good enough for me..
Posted by: Alric | February 10, 2008 11:39 AM
civil unions
Yay! Second class citizenship for us queers! Marriage is so special that we have to create a separate legal arrangement which looks almost exactly the same in order to keep the queers out. I love being segregated into a different social institution.
Posted by: MAJeff | February 10, 2008 11:40 AM
Resign yourself to the fact that the Democratic Party does not welcome atheists, agnostics, and freethinkers into its inner circle. Not that there aren't any in the inner circle, but they are not allowed to speak in public about their non belief. The Democratic Party likes our votes, but they don't want our opinion and they certainly don't want us anywhere near the media.
I supported Edwards in my caucus and wish he was still in the race. He's just as religious as Obama or Clinton, but he is more interested in fighting corporate power and poverty than religious wars. Plus, his campaign didn't abandon Marcotte and McEwan when Bill Donohue went after them. Actions speak louder than words.
Posted by: Todd | February 10, 2008 11:40 AM
Almost on topic. The Huckster won two more states, Louisiana and Kansas. Why do weird things always happen in Kansas?
Huckabee has to be one of the scariest demagogues to seek the presidency for a while. Stiff competition for the bottom of the barrel and he is winning that contest.
As far as I can tell, a vote for Huckabee is a vote for a new Dark Ages and the destruction of US civilization.
The good news, only about 15% of the electorate seem to want to go in that direction. The bad news, 15% of the electorate want to go in that direction
Posted by: raven | February 10, 2008 11:41 AM
It disturbs me greatly that Barack is probably looking to continue Bush's tradition of ceding more and more power to 'faith-based groups'. We've already got prisons in TX which are being taken over by Christian ministries. You see the light and get time off your sentence for showing moral behavior. Enough.
I'm also disturbed that this speech was received so well on Digg and Reddit overnight. Numerous atheists were commenting how Barack's speech was a model of tolerance.
Haven't we fallen for this one before? A charismatic guy promises to reach across the party line and practice compassionate religious values. It then transpires that the only compromise the religious are interested in are the right for atheist kids to die alongside their more moral religious brothers in foreign wars.
I'm still going to give Barack a chance. Politics is politics and politicians will say anything to get elected. I also think that electing a black (or a woman) president would be a significant milestone in this country.
It's important though that atheists like us make our disagreement heard loud and clear. Barack is our ideological enemy when he speaks of America being a nation of faith.
Posted by: Christianjb | February 10, 2008 11:44 AM
Keep your eye on the ball, PZ. You shouldn't despise Mr. Obama's religion BECAUSE it is religion -- you should despise the undesirable consequences of religion. When religion intrudes into the public domain, then you are justified in despising it. But it is the intrusion, not the religion, that is the proper target of your despite.
Suppose there were pious individuals who kept their religious beliefs entirely to themselves. They fervently believed in their god, but considered their faith such a deeply personal matter that they refused to discuss it with any other person. It would be impossible to know what these people's religious beliefs were. And there would be absolutely no basis for condemning them, as their spiritual beliefs inflict no injury upon others.
It has long been a principle of Anglo-Saxon law that thoughts and beliefs are beyond the reach of law. Having vicious rape fantasies is not a crime; permitting those fantasies to have physical expression is.
Returning to Mr. Obama, the question we must ask is, have his religious beliefs intruded injuriously into his policies? I see no evidence of such intrusion.
Posted by: Chris Crawford | February 10, 2008 11:44 AM
He's a Republican:
I believe in the free market, competition, and entrepreneurship, and think no small number of government programs don't work as advertised. I wish the country had fewer lawyers and more engineers. I think America has more often been a force for good than for ill in the world; I carry few illusions about our enemies, and revere the courage and competence of our military. I reject a politics that is based solely on racial identity, gender identity, sexual orientation, or victimhood generally. I think much of what ails the inner city involves a breakdown in culture that will not be cured by money alone, and that our values and spiritual life matter at least as much as our GDP. -from Audacity of Hope.
Posted by: CalGeorge | February 10, 2008 11:47 AM
He was naming religious belief systems, so of course he didn't say "atheists". That wouldn't make sense.
It would've been nice if he'd said, "secular humanists" or something, but the response to that would mostly be "huh?" or "how dare he!".. not a good move when trying to make a case that an estate tax is the more moral move (in that it would be a distraction).
Posted by: Kig | February 10, 2008 11:47 AM
I also think that electing a black (or a woman) president would be a significant milestone in this country.
Condaleeza Rice for president!
Um, no.
Posted by: inkadu | February 10, 2008 11:50 AM
Obama has clearly stated that he believes in evolution (just like all other Democratic candidates):
http://blogs.physicstoday.org/politics08/question_5/
In fact, he has repeatedly said that people's religious views cannot and should not be used as arguments in political discourse but that political decisions must be based on observable experience. Whenever he does profess his religiousness, I get the clear impression that he does so mainly to appeal to the 50 percent of Americans who would never vote for an atheist.
As I no longer live in the US and don't intend to return, I do not vote in presidential elections. But if I did, Obama would be my candidate.
Posted by: Gregory Earl | February 10, 2008 11:55 AM
I agree with you on a fairly significant level. On the one hand, Jimmy Carter was possibly my favorite president of the last fifty years and on the other. He was very religious, yet he respected the constitution enough to not allow his religion to dictate his policy. That may well be the reason he was not reelected. He has since become a fantastic humanitarian, even winning the Nobel Peace Prize. But then, on the other hand, there is that little fact that, as a nonbeliever, I have not had the opportunity to vote for an openly nonreligious person in ANY election. It's a bit ridiculous. And while I find Obama to be the least threatening of all the remaining candidates, I really find his religious fervor to be somewhat frightening. As I told my wife the other day: "I really hope Obama doesn't end up screwing us over if he gets elected."
Posted by: aapala | February 10, 2008 12:03 PM
Even better:
"Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy, should we go with Leviticus which says slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is an abomination? Or we could go with Deutoronomy which suggests stoning your child if he strays from your fith, Or should we stick with the Sermon on the Mound? A passage that is so radical that our own defense department would not survive its application".
Is this a whiff of textual criticism?
Posted by: Alric | February 10, 2008 12:04 PM
I think you area partially missing his point: religious people too seldom inject their religious beliefs into the political debate in the right way. For example, religious people should have a rigorous anti-poverty agenda. Do they? No. They should have a pro-environment agenda. Do they ? No. They should be doves, not hawks. Are they? No. This list goes on and on.
I think he was calling out the vast hypocrisy of religious people on issues of politics and we need more of that.
Posted by: lolife | February 10, 2008 12:07 PM
I admire your strength in the face of religion, but it isn't, as of yet, practical. As you point out, we don't have a choice of atheist candidates. Everyone we get to vote for is going to be a Christian, or at least won't admit it publicly if they aren't. I've resigned myself to pulling the lever for these kind of people. What I absolutely cannot stand is people like Mike Huckabee who will turn this country into a theocracy. I could never vote for the likes of him. But Obama is not the likes of him. Yes, his focus on religion is grating, but I still believe he favors a secular democracy. That is why I have few reservations in placing my trust behind him.
Our time has not arrived yet, and until it does, we cannot be too picky. But we should, of course, be as loud as possible about it.
Posted by: Cyde Weys | February 10, 2008 12:07 PM
Wow, with all due respect to you PZ, this post is below your usual great standard. I thought of all people you should have heard of the logical fallacy called cherry picking. If you listen to the whole speech that you linked to, you can notice a few things.
1) Listening to the context and content of what Obama is saying as he tells us more Americans believe in angels than evolution, notice he is not saying it is a good thing, or praising it in any way. It is a fact. And he actually goes on to later say christians don't have to take the bible literally. (Obviously he himself doesn't)
2)When you complain about Obama supposedly claiming atheists are immoral, heinous etc. go and look at the transcript you provided us with.
"In fact, because I do not believe that religious people have a monopoly on morality, I would rather have someone who is grounded in morality and ethics, and who is also secular, affirm their morality and ethics and values without pretending that they're something they're not. They don't need to do that. None of us need to do that."
Hmmmm.... can someone please say cherry picking again for me?
Indeed I am sometimes concerned when I hear Obama regularly talking about faith in politics. But just remember a few things. He needs to exaggerate his faith as a backlash against the Muslim-smear campaign. He regularly talks about (in that transcript you provided too) the importance of secularism, and gives reasons why church and state must be strictly separated. So when I hear Obama talking about how faith has a role to play in politics, it seems to me he is saying what he feels his faith gives him (perhaps more empathy, etc.) can be used in his career. He regularly criticizes the general idea that faith is only about being anti abortion, anti gay rights, anti immigration etc. and says instead that faith should be used to tackle poverty and genocide and starvation. So when our Mr Obama talks about the role his faith plays in his politics, it's about how he thinks it makes him an overall better person, not about specifics.
I was hoping a better standard of writing than this, PZ.
Posted by: DL | February 10, 2008 12:14 PM
Perhaps his religious posturing has blocked your secular scrutiny because he's no more progressive than Clinton - in fact, less so I would argue. I'm sitting this one out.
Posted by: CJ | February 10, 2008 12:15 PM
@ 15 and all similar,
Yep, he's a very flawed candidate. Now, show me someone less flawed. Rant if you must, I'll understand. Wish and hope for the chance to vote for a more rational candidate. I do. But if you vote for someone else, you aren't being rational either. The phrase "cut your nose to spite your face" comes to mind.
Posted by: Dahan | February 10, 2008 12:16 PM
Yes there were elements of Barack's speech which even a grizzled atheist could heartily agree with. However, he's really trying to be all things to all people and his argument as a whole lacks any consistency.
I watched the whole painful video last night. Over-all I found that for every proclamation of secularism he was able to sneak in a reference to the importance of faith in government.
This is Obama's way with everything. He wants to unite people who fundamentally disagree on points of principle. Maybe when he gets elected we're only going to torture people on Tuesdays and Thursdays.
Now is not the time for liberals to join hands with the theocon/neocon right. This country is on the edge of economic collapse and is the pariah of the world for its military adventures in oil rich countries.
My dreams of 'hope' and 'change' involve rather less money going into evangelical coffers than Obama's.
Posted by: Christianjb | February 10, 2008 12:16 PM
As a Brit, and an atheist, I just want to say: Obama's still your best bet.
Posted by: Wrought | February 10, 2008 12:17 PM
I think Obama is very intelligent. There is no way a non-theist is electable. Obama knows this. My hunch is that Obama sees religion as a useful tool. . .
I hope that is the case.
Posted by: Neal Norton | February 10, 2008 12:20 PM
He's a MUCH better alternative as opposed to Hillary...
I don't vote for someone on religious preference, unless they're like Bush. Economics, Health care, and the war are MUCH more important right now. Obama has evolved to be as neutral as expected in the religious area.
Posted by: Rebekah | February 10, 2008 12:23 PM
Here in California we actually do have an atheist congressman. Pete Stark acknowledged back in March that he does not believe in a supreme being. Unfortunately, I don't live in his district. I live in Mormon John Doolittle's district.
Elect a black or a woman? Rue Paul for president!
Posted by: Laurie | February 10, 2008 12:26 PM
Obama's ability to frame progressive policies in terms of values that make sense across the political spectrum is nothing to be sneezed at. I'm amazed at the inroads he's made with people who are lifetime Republicans while saying things that I agree with as well.
Obama also explains how separation of church and state (even the "establishment clause" preventing government-sponsored religion) benefits religion, and was initially backed by religious leaders. I can try to tell Christians this message myself -- along with the message about shared values -- but they're more likely to believe it when it comes from one of their own. Such leadership will go a long way towards convincing the general population that non-believers deserve rights, fair treatment, and even a place at the table of discussion.
Please see my endorsement of Obama.
Posted by: C. L. Hanson | February 10, 2008 12:27 PM
Rue Paul for president!
I'd vote for old RuPaul! She's still looking fabulous, and "Peace, Love, and Hairgrease" is a much better campaign theme than "Straight Talk Express."
Posted by: MAJeff | February 10, 2008 12:27 PM
One of my many issues with Obama, and this isn't fair because its more his supporters, but the way his fans will swear their allegience to republicans rather than vote for Clinton if she gets the nomination (been listening to ann coulter lately perhaps). Just another bit of proof of their fickle unreliability. I don't hear many Clinton supporters trying to hold their votes hostage to force everyone to vote for her.
And notice how when Clinton says whatever all groups want to hear from her, she's got no integrity. When Obama does it, he's just a "uniter".
Posted by: Karey | February 10, 2008 12:28 PM
@ 38,
Rue Paul? Sorry, I got nothing against gay people, lotsa my friends are. Nothing against black people, lotsa friends there too. But she's so tall! Can't abide that. I have to set my standards somewhere.
Posted by: Dahan | February 10, 2008 12:31 PM
I am situated in a department that whose politics always lean progressive and often socialist. However, lately all my colleagues have been so rah-rah Obama and I just bite holes in my tongue. The few times I have tried to raise my issues about his religion, gay marriage, and the people who take important roles in his campaign, I feel like I get the weird fish eye. I am not an atheist, I may not even be an agnostic -- though 12 years of Catholic school leaves some strange marks. I also believe that we either need to have gay marriage or that the states needs to get entirely out of the business of marriage. When I bring up my objections, my left-of-center friends respond that he wouldn't be a threat at all to secularism and how he is so inclusive, unifying, and will bring our country together. Meh.... Although, this may be true, it seems that that when we have had individuals elected who where so vocal about their faith, our government has moved in a direction less beneficial to secularists.
Kucinich may be just as religious, but so much more progressive, and I feel that his religion wouldn't come out as much now that he has reversed his strong pro-life voting record. Clinton my be further to the right, but again, somehow her faith is less injected in her campaign. I also like Edwards better.
For the individual who commented that the Dems agree 85% with the author, well this isn't true for me. But since a Green vote isn't feasible, and would possibly be grounds for divorce in my household, I will support whoever is the democratic candidate in November, even though it really irks.
Thanks for verbalizing why Obama really rubs me the wrong way.
Posted by: cawp | February 10, 2008 12:36 PM
#1: voting for a freethinker?
you're two centuries too late.
adams, jefferson, and madison would be pilloried today.
I wouldn't call Adams a freethinker. He was a rather devout believer and critical of Jefferson's and Paine's lack of faith. However, he seemed to shape his religion by his ideals, rather than the other way around.
Posted by: aporeticus | February 10, 2008 12:42 PM
I was on board with John Edwards until he dropped out (he was the only one talking about power and the class structure in a realistic way). I'll vote for the Dem nominee; both are, I suppose, acceptable, but neither excites me. Clinton's neoliberalism and Obama's "post-partisan" nonsense are both troublesome, but far better than McCain or Fuckabee.
What drives me crazier about all this, though, isn't Obama himself but his supporters. Guys, he's not a messiah. He's a lawyer and politician.
Posted by: MAJeff | February 10, 2008 12:43 PM
#8: This speech is actually from the same one that PZ posted. He's just cherry picking the parts he read. If you read the whole speech, the overlying tone is fair and balanced. Yes, Obama is Christian, so of course he's going to same some religious things that staunch atheists won't agree with. BUT, at the same time, the fact that he recognizes nonbelievers as moral and good citizens makes me very hopeful.
"In fact, because I do not believe that religious people have a monopoly on morality, I would rather have someone who is grounded in morality and ethics, and who is also secular, affirm their morality and ethics and values without pretending that they're something they're not."
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/
Posted by: Jennifurret | February 10, 2008 12:44 PM
Senator Clinton is very pro-science and seems much less god-soaked than Obama. Hillary said "God bless you" in Iowa to suck up to the Christians there, but she thinks creationists are morons. I would bet she's an atheist, but would rather be president than admit it.
Clinton Says She Would Shield Science From Politics
http://tinyurl.com/ypkubk
Ending the War on Science, Hillary Clinton's Agenda to Reclaim Scientific Innovation
http://tinyurl.com/32ak6o
Posted by: BobC | February 10, 2008 12:48 PM
And Mike Gravel is a Unitarian and never once stooped to God-talk, which is commendable. However, Mike Gravel is a Unitarian, which is a wishy-washy, politically correct, pomo religion which thinks that all religions are equally true and peaceful and that we should all just hold hands and get along. The Archbishop of Canterbury, for example, would fit right in.
Posted by: aporeticus | February 10, 2008 12:49 PM
If Mike Gravel had any chance of winning he would get my vote.
Gravel was asked if he thought creationism should be taught in public schools.
Mike Gravel: "Oh God, no. Oh, Jesus. We thought we had made a big advance with the Scopes monkey trial....My God, evolution is a fact, and if these people are disturbed by being the descendants of monkeys and fishes, they've got a mental problem. We can't afford the psychiatric bill for them. That ends the story as far as I'm concerned."
Posted by: BobC | February 10, 2008 12:53 PM
I'd vote for Gravel in a heart beat to if he had a chance to win.
Posted by: Dahan | February 10, 2008 12:56 PM
I reject the claim that I'm cherry picking: the clear message of this speech is that people of faith have a special privilege and obligation in bringing virtue to government. It is a bad message. It is wrong and it serves to further marginalize the god-free people of this country.
He's a guy with a bias in favor of religion. He's also a politician who's usually good at weaseling away from any revelations that might alienate a constituency. You can find instances of the latter, but it's not going to change my impression.
And please, note the message here: I find him a deeply flawed candidate, but I have voted and will vote for him. Electing a president does not mean we put a saint on a pedestal. I'll give him a shot, but I'm not giving him carte blanche, for the specific reason that I do not trust his leanings toward religiosity at all. If you're trying to argue that I shouldn't find anything substantial to criticize about him, you're not going to get anywhere with me.
Posted by: PZ Myers | February 10, 2008 1:01 PM
49: Wow, yeah, it's hard not to like him despite his irrational fear of nuclear power.
Posted by: aporeticus | February 10, 2008 1:03 PM
Maybe I'm just deluding myself here, but I feel like he's at least somewhat less likely to throw atheists under the bus simply because his mother, who he said had a pretty strong influence on him, was an atheist. Anyway, at least he knows we exist.
In fact, I find the whole "secret Muslim" thing funny given the fact that what they really should be floating is that he's a secret atheist. It's more plausible and we're apparently less electable than Muslims according to some poll. I read that Obama's father, while having a Muslim background, was also an atheist.
Posted by: Tracy Smith | February 10, 2008 1:05 PM
Christ you're fragile, PZ.
Posted by: dougie smooth | February 10, 2008 1:18 PM
"I was not raised in a particularly religious household, as undoubtedly many in the audience were. My father, who returned to Kenya when I was just two, was born Muslim but as an adult became an atheist. My mother, whose parents were non-practicing Baptists and Methodists, was probably one of the most spiritual and kindest people I've ever known, but grew up with a healthy skepticism of organized religion herself. As a consequence, so did I."
Posted by: cay | February 10, 2008 1:18 PM
Comments 28, 29 and 39 bear repeating.
(Did Obama really say what's copied in comment 28?)
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | February 10, 2008 1:19 PM
Take half a loaf now, Jeff. Come back for another slice later. We don't see any major candidate acknowledging that adults should be free to marry whom they choose. But if the Democrats support civil unions while the Republicans support a constitutional amendment to "save" marriage, the choice is clear. Accepting civil unions is a significant step in the right direction. (Heck, all marriages should be civil unions as far as the state is concerned. People who want the religious fripperies can include it as value-added entertainment, but government should get out of the "marriage" business.)
Posted by: Zeno | February 10, 2008 1:31 PM
Zeno,
I'm familiar with the half-loaf stuff and I realize that it's the best we can get now. But, the only way we got the second-class civil unions was by pushing for marriage itself. By pushing for civil unions, we'll get less than that.
Additionally, don't get the state out of the marriage business (it's too ingrained in international law and the like), stop allowing clergy to certify civil contracts.
Posted by: MAJeff | February 10, 2008 1:34 PM
Obama on his faith:
The prayer that I tell myself every night is a fairly simple one: I ask in the name of Jesus Christ that my sins are forgiven, that my family is protected and that I am an instrument of God's will. I'm constantly trying to align myself to what I think he calls on me to do. And sometimes you hear it strongly and sometimes that voice is more muted.
Moronic crap. He should call his next book The Audacity of Stupidity.
Posted by: CalGeorge | February 10, 2008 1:42 PM
#53: This is a good point. He's talked about how he has learned ethics and values from secularists and atheists in his family. He's religious, but on a fundamental level he doesn't think "people of faith" have a monopoly on virtue.
Posted by: C. L. Hanson | February 10, 2008 1:45 PM
I read Mr. Gregory Earl's comment with great interest because he said Obama stood for evolutionary beliefs. However, his citation was not enlightening -- it referenced a blog that in turn referenced a statement here: http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/magazines/barack_obama_i_inhaled_that_was_the_point_46068.asp I've read it several times, and Obama's statement is a muddle -- and he actually seems to say religion is not a question of faith with him because he is certain in his beliefs. If that is the true reading, that it's a dangerous statement. Perhaps Mr. Earl can further enlighten us. Mr. Earl's blog cite also gives Clinton's position, and she is much clearer in her support of evolution and is critical of its opponents. http://blogs.physicstoday.org/politics08/question_5/
I have worried about Obama's faith for some time, because he has sought guidance from prayer (which I think is delusional) and because his spiritual mentor Jeremiah Wright has been close to Louis Farrakhan for years, including traveling to Libya with him in 1984, and recently giving Farrakhan an award. As far as I can tell, Farrakhan is a terrible anti-semite.
I have been going back and forth on a voting decision -- our state's primary is Tuesday. After reading all this, I may be back to Clinton. (I disagree with PZ that she is less progressive than Obama; most commentators view her health plan as much more vigorous than his.)
Posted by: Peter M | February 10, 2008 1:53 PM
Maybe instead of bemoaning our choices we should start drafting a platform for a new rationalist party?
Posted by: Eric Paulsen | February 10, 2008 1:54 PM
PZ, I think a lot of people are reading that statement differently than you are.
you see it as a call to religious people to inject morality. I see it as a statement that christianity isn't the only religion in the US that should be positively represented in Washington. A rather ecumenical statement, really.
I do find it interesting how important a candidate's religion seems to be in the US. I have no idea what my MP's religion is. I only know that my PM is a christian because it's been mentioned. Only reason I know my last PM was a catholic was because the vatican felt it necessary to criticize him for his stand on gay marriage (i.e. for it, as a basic human right).
(of course, I also find this fascination with political spouses weird...I'm not sure what my PM's wife's name is, or if my MP is even married)
Posted by: CanadianChick | February 10, 2008 1:57 PM
I just traced the quote in comment #28 to this: http://www.alternet.org/story/38260/?page=4
It is all attributed to Obama, and much of it is quite good from a secular standpoint, i.e., it's about the best one will get out of a religious believer.
Posted by: Peter M. | February 10, 2008 1:58 PM
BobC #47 said: Senator Clinton is very pro-science and seems much less god-soaked than Obama. Hillary said "God bless you" in Iowa to suck up to the Christians there, but she thinks creationists are morons. I would bet she's an atheist, but would rather be president than admit it.
I don't know...this is a woman who actually chose to use the words "prayer warriors". Check out this article on her religiosity from Mother Jones magazine, which has the teaser blurb: "News: For 15 years, Hillary Clinton has been part of a secretive religious group that seeks to bring Jesus back to Capitol Hill. Is she triangulating--or living her faith?"
Posted by: cm | February 10, 2008 2:02 PM
Seriously, does it matter that much whether he believes or not in the invisible bearded guy in the sky? Christopher Hitchens does not, yet he's all for waging war on the infidels in Babylon all the same as the chimp in chief. The thing is, you can't be running for pres. in the US without paying major lip service to the churches.
Obama has the support of Lawrence Lessig (constitutional lawyer, founder of Creative Commons, defender of P2P), btw, while the Clinton Corporation has given the world the DMCA and is in bed with hollywood types. He is the only candidate who is seriously pro net neutrality and open access. If you're a free thinker, IMO, you want someone who is going to guarantee /actual/ freedom of thought, even if he happens to believe in god(s).
Posted by: NM | February 10, 2008 2:10 PM
PZ said "I seem to still be waiting for a chance to vote for a freethought city councilman, so it may be a while."
Maybe you should stop waiting and run yourself?
Posted by: Jason | February 10, 2008 2:17 PM
PZ "I reject the claim that I'm cherry picking"
Reject it all you want: I hate to say it, but you've misrepresented him here. Cherry picking is perfectly applicable. It makes no sense to simply ignore entire sections that directly contradict your interpretation, and then lamely excuse yourself with saying that he's "weaseling away from any revelations that might alienate a constituency" when you were the one playing fast and loose with the original meanings.
The fact that you will vote for him has nothing to do with making him say things in your summary that he didn't actually say in his speech: you have ignored caveats that seriously weaken your claims and you imply far stronger and more exclusive meanings to things than the text actually warrants. You only need to compare your summary to the text to see this.
The passage you quote is him arguing that its not wrong for people to bring their religious values into political debates. That's a fair point, and I agree with that. And in fact, the text is basically saying that all the Christians, Jews, and Muslims are, in fact, NOT living up to their moral beliefs, and should. What's wrong with that? It's basically calling them hypocrites.
Nowhere does he say that secular people are without values, or that the lack of values in politics is the fault of secular people. And yet this is exactly what you imply.
Talking about religious people and about being a religious person and how those things can be positive and shouldn't get left at the door is not a threat to atheists. It's very easy to frame that sort of thing such that it DOES exclude atheists and argue that they don't have their own values that shouldn't get left behind. But it's also possible to avoid doing that. Obama did the latter. You are claiming he did the former.
Posted by: Bad | February 10, 2008 2:18 PM
I am voting for Obama as well.
Do I really have choice otherwise?
Posted by: Lago | February 10, 2008 2:23 PM
PZ,
I really enjoy your blog, but this is pretty ham-fisted for someone who is usually a bit more, well, discerning. I'm no defender of Obama, but he does go out of his way (in a venue where doing so is itself risky) to avoid the implication you attribute to him:
"In fact, because I do not believe that religious people have a monopoly on morality, I would rather have someone who is grounded in morality and ethics, and who is also secular, affirm their morality and ethics and values without pretending that they're something they're not."
Similarly with the point about King's speech, which, to restore context, goes:
"Imagine Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address without reference to "the judgments of the Lord." Or King's I Have a Dream speech without references to "all of God's children." Their summoning of a higher truth helped inspire what had seemed impossible, and move the nation to embrace a common destiny."
This, rather cleverly, says nothing about Dr. King's beliefs or motivations. The point is a purely rhetorical one--by clothing conceptions of social justice in the common language of religious tradition, King "helped inspire," and who would be bone-headed enough to think that thousands of church groups around the nation would have been equally inspired, absence any content about god and religion? Moreover, especially in King's day, what secular groups would have had anything like similar mobilizing power? No doubt secular groups were equally committed to social justice, but it's not hard to imagine what the common social reaction would have been to a blanket rejection by such groups of religious themes. This isn't logical, it isn't at all fair, but it is entirely democratic.
Posted by: Blinn Combs | February 10, 2008 2:23 PM
How to include atheists in the dialog, while writing them off in the end...
From the Obama site: So let's rededicate ourselves to a new kind of politics - a politics of conscience. Let's come together - Protestant and Catholic, Muslim and Hindu and Jew, believer and non-believer alike. We're not going to agree on everything, but we can disagree without being disagreeable. We can affirm our faith without endangering the separation of church and state, as long as we understand that when we're in the public square, we have to speak in universal terms that everyone can understand. And if we can do that - if we can embrace a common destiny - then I believe we'll not just help bring about a more hopeful day in America, we'll not just be caring for our own souls, we'll be doing God's work here on Earth. Thank you.
Thank you, Barack!
Posted by: CalGeorge | February 10, 2008 2:25 PM
By chance, I decided to start catching up on my blogs directly after reading the text of this speech. I'm not American, I AM an atheist, and it thrilled me. The paragraph you quoted first is not my favourite, but contextually, he was addressing the fact that people of faith have a role to play in government. The whole speech was about not forcing your faith on the populace, but rather translating that faith into morality. He talks about how literal readings of biblical stories fail hard (slavery, child abuse, not eating shellfish...) in the arena of building a moral nation. I really think that focusing on that one paragraph is disingenuous, because if you have read the entire text of the speech, then you've also seen this:
"In fact, because I do not believe that religious people have a monopoly on morality, I would rather have someone who is grounded in morality and ethics, and who is also secular, affirm their morality and ethics and values without pretending that they're something they're not. They don't need to do that. None of us need to do that."
He is clearly (and repeatedly) not saying that the godless are amoral, unethical. He is speaking inclusively.