Obama mentions atheists in Inauguration Speech

jtsuited

Yup at the end of the whole 'christian, muslim, jewish, hindu' thing he said 'and non-believers'.

discuss....

karen3212

I was hoping the preacher that's on now might have mentioned them too, but no

Rob_l

jtsuited wrote: »

Yup at the end of the whole 'christian, muslim, jewish, hindu' thing he said 'and non-believers'.

discuss....

Whast there to discuss he is trying to be all inclusive and as far removed the good christian George bush as he can.

I still dont think we will see much "change" but thats just me.

oshead

I notice he paused before he said "and Non-Believers". No doubt to emphasize.

Glad we got a mention

Dave OS

Dades

jtsuited wrote: »

discuss....

Yes, we can.

Galvasean

CHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGGGEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

'Bout time a US president acknowledged we exist, y'know in a non "They're eating away at the moral fabric of America!" kind of way.

cavedave

I thought it was a brave thing to say in what is largely a religious country.

Galvasean

'Bout time a US president acknowledged we exist

Many U.S presidents were of no religion. The majority of the founding fathers were deists. They also owned slaves so no point beatifying them.

John Quincy Adams, according to his own letters, placed his hand on a constitutional law volume rather than a Bible to indicate where his fealty lay. Franklin Pierce "affirmed" rather than swore his oath on the Bible, reportedly because of a crisis of faith following his son's death.

pH

oshead wrote: »

I notice he paused before he said "and Non-Believers". No doubt to emphasize.

Glad we got a mention

Yea, I noticed that too, so basically only the agnostics and deists are out in the cold now.

I wonder what they did to be so rudely shunned?

philologos

karen3212 wrote: »

I was hoping the preacher that's on now might have mentioned them too, but no

The prayer by Rick Warren was one for the whole nation, he didn't even give special mention to the Christians even though it was a Christian prayer. Gene Robinson in his prayer on the day before, didn't mention Jesus or Christianity in his.

Dont be at yourself

The preacher who was on before Obama seemed like a bit of a nutter. Despite the last 8 years of Bush, it is still shocking to see such an overtly Christian message presented by the US Government. Today's inauguration was almost like a church wedding.

Seifer

Hehe so good to have a place to come to get these things off your chest.
I turned to sky news just as the preacher guy was starting his prayer and it was sickening the amount of waffling he did.
Then my eyes lit up when Obama said non-believers
On a side note, he should have that chief justice killed for messing up his historic inauguration

Dades

To be fair there didn't look like much separation between church and state.

Dades

Dades wrote: »

To be fair there didn't look like much separation between church and state.

And it's ironic because it was originally set up to be a secularist state.

Dave!

tbh I'd have been more impressed if he had managed to avoid turning the inauguration into a mass... 2 preachers like...

philologos

NekkidBibleMan wrote: »

The preacher who was on before Obama seemed like a bit of a nutter. Despite the last 8 years of Bush, it is still shocking to see such an overtly Christian message presented by the US Government. Today's inauguration was almost like a church wedding.

He seemed like a nutter for saying a Christian prayer or?

Dont be at yourself

His general demeanor and delivery of the prayer struck me as odd. I thought he was going to start rolling around on the floor, screaming to us that he has seen the light.

philologos

He delivered the prayer with a bit of sincerity, and that is equated to being a nutter?

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

He delivered the prayer with a bit of sincerity, and that is equated to being a nutter?

Some times there's such a thing as too much sincerity.

Seifer

Jakkass wrote: »

He delivered the prayer with a bit of sincerity, and that is equated to being a nutter?

Delivered the prayer sincerely to his imaginary sky friend? Sounds nuts to me...

Dont be at yourself

He delivered the prayer with a bit of sincerity, and that is equated to being a nutter?

Please don't put words in my mouth. I don't equate sincerity to being a nutter.

I've no doubt that he was entirely sincere in giving the prayer, but to me he came across almost as a caricature of the stereotypical evangelical preacher. He was rabidly evangelising.

philologos

How was he evangelising? I watched the whole prayer, he didn't say that he wished for every American to become a Christian. It seems however, if you invoke God's name anywhere you are seen to be a nutter or a fanatic. It's a prayer, that's the point. He was asked to pray to God for the American people by Barack Obama.

You said, that you expected him to roll on the floor screaming, that would have indicated that you thought since he was rather fervent in his prayer (or sincere), that he was a nutter. Apologies if I read into it too much but it was what you seemed to be saying.

Dont be at yourself

Apology accepted.

Sadly, I've neither the time nor the inclination to continue this merry dance. Goodnight!

lostexpectation

oh im sorry for the posters here who still can't conceive a world were people don't confess to your god or any god
rick warren superpastors speech

Help us, oh God, to remember that we are Americans. United not by race or religion or by blood, but to our commitment to freedom and justice for all. When we focus on ourselves, when we fight each other, when we forget you, forgive us.

When we presume that our greatness and our prosperity is ours alone, forgive us. When we fail to treat our fellow human beings and all the earth with the respect that they deserve, forgive us. And as we face these difficult days ahead, may we have a new birth of clarity in our aims, responsibility in our actions, humility in our approaches and civility in our attitudes—even when we differ.

Help us to share, to serve and to seek the common good of all. May all people of good will today join together to work for a more just, a more healthy and a more prosperous nation and a peaceful planet. And may we never forget that one day, all nations, all people will stand accountable before You

eh no they all won't

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jan/09012003.html

philologos

lostexpectation wrote: »

oh im sorry for the posters here who still can't conceive a world were people don't confess to your god or any god
rick warren superpastors speech

I don't expect all people to believe in what I or Rick Warren say, I honour that many of my friends do not believe in God the way I do, or at all. That's irrelevant. I am living in a world right now where people don't confess to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I don't see how that affects how posters view God.

Anyhow as for Rick Warren, I think that his prayer to the nation although non-Christians may disagree with it, was a prayer with good sentiment for Obama's presidency, and I do hope that Obama will have divine guidance in the White House for the next four years, maybe even the next 8. I disagree with many of Obama's policies, but he is the leader of the US and that isn't to be disputed.

lostexpectation

Jakkass wrote: »

How was he evangelising?

[rick warren]And may we never forget that one day, all nations, all people will stand accountable before You

Jakkass wrote: »

I watched the whole prayer, he didn't say that he wished for every American to become a Christian. It seems however, if you invoke God's name anywhere you are seen to be a nutter or a fanatic. It's a prayer, that's the point. He was asked to pray to God for the American people by Barack Obama.

[rick warren] And may we never forget that one day, all nations, all people will stand accountable before You

Fanny Cradock

For a moment there I thought you had located the shift key on your keyboard. Then I realised it was pasted

UU

Yeah fair play to him indeed! Although it still sort of annoyed me the way he put his hand of the Bible and stuff but what do we expect well I hope he'll be better than Bush anyway!

lostexpectation

interesting how its the chief justice? who says 'so help you god!?' and he repeats it... so help me god.

their judges are so wrong and still unable to challenge faith in america

lostexpectation

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

For a moment there I thought you had located the shift key on your keyboard. Then I realised it was pasted

do you have any comment on the issues?

eoin5

Well non-believers get mentioned in mass every so often so its not that strange, although usually its something about saving them from eternal damnation or some such drama. Still, its nice to have your existence recognised sometimes even if the reasons for it arent all that great.

ZuStar

I don't think this matter is being treated with the significance that it deserves.

Think about it: the chief officer of a nation that is and has been marked by fanatical religiosity and was originally born of the staunch pious oppression of Puritans actually made mention of non-believers as a legitimate portion of the population! Not as sad, misguided souls, not as god-less heathens - as PEOPLE. As people with a legitimate view! We live in a nation where being atheist can engender more prejudice than being homosexual. People have more sympathy for criminals than they do for atheists. And the freakin' PRESIDENT actually acknowledged non-believers in his INAUGURAL SPEECH!!

I think that says a whole lot about what we can expect from this administration. And it says a whole lot about the way that this country is beginning to view religion and the lack thereof. I nearly choked on my carrot juice when I heard Obama say that.

javaboy

pH wrote: »

Yea, I noticed that too, so basically only the agnostics and deists are out in the cold now.

I wonder what they did to be so rudely shunned?

Imo the term "non-believers" relates more to agnostics than atheists.

Believer: "I believe in God"
Atheist: "I believe there is no God"
Agnostic: "Links?"

ZuStar

The last time atheists got much of a mention from a US President, taken as a directly from an interview which lead to law suits filed by the American Atheists.

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are Atheists?
Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the Atheist community. Faith in god is important to me.
Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are Atheists?
Bush: No, I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.
Sherman (somewhat taken aback): Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?
Bush: Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on Atheists.

For more jaw-dropping, yet Bush-typical ignorance see: http://www.skeptictank.org/gbush.htm

PDN

lostexpectation wrote: »

interesting how its the chief justice? who says 'so help you god!?' and he repeats it... so help me god.

their judges are so wrong and still unable to challenge faith in america

The role of the judges, and specifically the Chief Justice and the Supreme Court, is not to agree with what you think to be right, or to challenge faith. They are there to interpret the Law and uphold the Constitution.

Incoming Presidents are free to include or to omit the 'so help me God' phrase from the oath. They are free to choose whether to swear on a Bible or not. They are free to choose whether to swear an oath or not - they may instead simply make an affirmation. To enforce any of these things would be a breach of the Constitution because religion may not be a test of office, and the State has no power to enact a law enforcing or establishing a religion.

Obama (like just about every other President) chose to add the 'so help me God' phrase to the oath, and to swear on Lincoln's old Bible. The job of the Chief Justice is to administer the oath in accordance with the President elects wishes - not to challenge the President Elect's faith.

cavedave

ZuStar

was originally born of the staunch pious oppression of Puritans

{citation needed}

Many of the founding fathers were not followers of an organised religion

Lambert (2003) has examined the religious affiliations and beliefs of the Founders. Some of the 1787 delegates had no affiliation. The others were Protestants except for three Roman Catholics: C. Carroll, D. Carroll, and Fitzsimons. Among the Protestant delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 28 were Episcopalian, eight were Presbyterians, seven were Congregationalists, two were Lutherans, two were Dutch Reformed, and two were Methodists, the total number being 49.

PDN

cavedave wrote: »

{citation needed}

Many of the founding fathers were not followers of an organised religion

I think ZuStar was referring to the puritan Pilgrim Fathers who founded the colonies, not the Founding Fathers who established independence 150 years later.

There were 74 delegates in 1787, so the figures you quote would indicate that 49 were Protestants, 3 were Catholic, and 22 had no formal religious affiliation.

Goduznt Xzst

Dades wrote: »

To be fair there didn't look like much separation between church and state.

-JammyDodger- wrote: »

And it's ironic because it was originally set up to be a secularist state.

The American founding fathers also wanted the US to be a Republic, and it's ended up as a crummy Democracy... goes to show you can't always get what you want. Interesting point, the word Democracy doesn't appear once in the American Constitution.

Dades

javaboy wrote: »

Imo the term "non-believers" relates more to agnostics than atheists.

Believer: "I believe in God"
Atheist: "I believe there is no God"
Agnostic: "Links?"

That makes no sense.

philologos

lostexpectation wrote: »

interesting how its the chief justice? who says 'so help you god!?' and he repeats it... so help me god.

their judges are so wrong and still unable to challenge faith in america

It's not the place of the judges to challenge faith (and arguably it isn't their place to encourage it but given Obama's Christian faith I think it's acceptable). I think it is best if faith and diversity is embraced not frowned upon. Makes for a better society. Religious people will always exist, there is never going to be a point in human history when there isn't a sizeable amount of people professing faith in God or gods.

Dades wrote: »

That makes no sense.

Makes a lot of sense.

Current objective stance: "There may be a God, or there may not be a God"

Atheists: "There is no God"
Theists: "There is a God"

Both of those views deviate from the objective stance, which takes faith.

Agnostics clutch to the objective stance as they are quite happy on the fence.

Seifer

Jakkass wrote: »

It's not the place of the judges to challenge faith (and arguably it isn't their place to encourage it but given Obama's Christian faith I think it's acceptable). I think it is best if faith and diversity is embraced not frowned upon. Makes for a better society. Religious people will always exist, there is never going to be a point in human history when there isn't a sizeable amount of people professing faith in God or gods.

Yeah and the world is flat and always will be.

philologos

Seifer wrote: »

Yeah and the world is flat and always will be.

Well luckily theism isn't comparable by any standard to people who view a flat earth. :pac:

Theism is currently consistent with all forms of science that we have. Flat earthers however aren't. They're in quite a predicament compared.

Seifer

Jakkass wrote: »

Well luckily theism isn't comparable by any standard to people who view a flat earth. :pac:

Theism is currently consistent with all forms of science that we have. Flat earthers however aren't. They're in quite a predicament compared.

Theism changes itself to be consistent with whatever it feels like it needs to be consistent with without losing followers.

My point was that making statements about the future as grandoise as yours is a fruitless exercise.

Jakkass wrote:

Makes a lot of sense.

Editing a little what he said:

Imo the term "non-believers" relates more to agnostics than atheists.

Believer: "I believe in God"
Atheist: "I am a non-believer"
Agnostic: "Links?"

By his very own definition what he said makes no sense.

philologos

Seifer, people have always searched for some higher meaning in civilization right from the very start, and people have always disbelieved I guess too considering Epicurus and others, it's something that is most probably going to be with us until the end of time, and most certainly the end of our lifetime.

20goto10

What ever happened to not mixing state and religion? Obama's "lets be respectful to everyone" routine is a farce. We all know where his true beliefs are so who exactly is he trying to fool? He's the leader of the United States. He shouldn't be covering all religions or being respectful to all beliefs, he should just shut up and not mention any of them and get on with politics. I was very disappointed with his inaugral "performance". He's basically vowed to continue mixing politics and religion, he's just going to do it differently. Its not going to work, the approach was not the problem, the problem was mixing state and religion in the first place.

Dades

Jakkass wrote: »

Makes a lot of sense.

Sure... if you base your opinion on an incorrect interpretation.

Jakkass wrote: »

Atheists: "There is no God"
Theists: "There is a God"

Both of those views deviate from the objective stance, which takes faith.

See the bit I've highlighted? That's the part where you are wrong.

Atheists do not (or should not) state "there is no god". Atheists do not believe there are god(s). Hence non-believers. A strict agnostic, i.e. rather than an "atheist agnostic", is not a non-believer as they will not formulate a belief on principle.

It's time for a thread to end all this atheism is a "faith" crap.

Seifer

Jakkass wrote: »

Seifer, people have always searched for some higher meaning in civilization right from the very start, and people have always disbelieved I guess too considering Epicurus and others, it's something that is most probably going to be with us until the end of time, and most certainly the end of our lifetime.

People searched for a higher meaning when they understood nothing of the world.
People in this day and age, knowing as much as we do about the world around us have no excuse for believing in such ridiculousness.

This point can be explained quite easily using the metaphore I mentioned before about how due to ignorance, people believed the world was flat.

Goduznt Xzst

Jakkass wrote: »

Theism is currently consistent with all forms of science that we have. Flat earthers however aren't. They're in quite a predicament compared.

I like that you said Theism and not Christianity. Was that a typo, because I'm sure you'd be the first to admit that not all Gods, except for you own precious one, are compatible with Science.

However, will you accept that the FSM is as compatible with Science as the Judeo-Christian God?

javaboy

Dades wrote: »

That makes no sense.

In my defence, any self-proclaimed atheist* I have ever met has stated they believe there is no God.
Whereas people I've met who claim to be agnostic* say they have no belief and just go by the facts.

My interpretation of "non-believer"* is someone who doesn't believe there is a particular number of Gods, be it zero, one or fifty.



*These interpretations are probably all wrong. If so, fair enough.

philologos

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

I like that you said Theism and not Christianity. Was that a typo, because I'm sure you'd be the first to admit that not all Gods, except for you own precious one, are compatible with Science.

However, will you accept that the FSM is as compatible with Science as the Judeo-Christian God?

I said theism because the discourse concerning science is generally to see the influence of a Creator, rather than a particular God on the universe. It is only when we analyse the Bible as a hypothesis and compare it's events to events in history (there are quite a few which are correlated), and look to archaeology, theology and so on, to see which hypothesis is most probable for this divine being.

The Bible hypothesis given the full picture is stronger than that of the FSM, but if we are to look at science alone, I can only concede you are correct if you view the Creator as the FSM.

Dades

javaboy wrote: »

My interpretation of "non-believer"* is someone who doesn't believe there is a particular number of Gods, be it zero, one or fifty.

Fair enough! I assume a non-believer is someone who just doesn't believe!

pH

javaboy wrote: »

My interpretation of "non-believer"* is someone who doesn't believe there is a particular number of Gods, be it zero, one or fifty.

Reminds me of a joke ... What has more legs a dinosaur or no dinosaur? *

Dades wrote: »

Fair enough! I assume a non-believer is someone who just doesn't believe!

In Obama's statement there is a strongly implied "In God" at the end of Non-believers. Otherwise if we're going to apply the phrase "non believer" to mean anyone for which you can find one thing they don't believe in we're all non-believers (FSM, vampires, Zeus ... keep going 'til you find one)


*

No dinosaur. A dinosaur has two or four legs, no dinosaur has 83 legs.