Obama mentions atheists in Inauguration Speech

karen3212

Jakkass wrote: »

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.

aaagh, I didn't see that speech at all. I tuned in late. I was referring to the guy that was on after the poetess. For some reason I thought he was a preacher, but he wasn't I gather. I can't recall his name now.

PDN

lostexpectation wrote: »

does his flub mean he's not president

No, he was already President 5 minutes before he took the oath. According to the Constitution the President Elect becomes President automatically at 12 noon on the 20th of January irrespective of whether the oath has been sworn or not. The oath was administered at 12:05.

philologos

lostexpectation wrote: »

i was referring to the supreme courts judges who would rule on the case.

They have absolutely no business to "challenge faith", if they come in with an agenda like that then they aren't impartial.

PDN

karen3212 wrote: »

aaagh, I didn't see that speech at all. I tuned in late. I was referring to the guy that was on after the poetess. For some reason I thought he was a preacher, but he wasn't I gather. I can't recall his name now.

I think you're referring to Joseph Lowery who delivered the benediction. He's a United Methodist minister who was very active in the struggle against segregation alongside Martin Luther King. I remember that he featured quite prominently in some of the displays at the Civil Rights Institute in Birmigham, Alabama.

I heard his prayer was a bit bizarre but didn't see it myself (had to run an errand of mercy taking our sick dog to vet to get his tail amputated).

Edit:
Having just watched it for myself on Sky+ it wasn't bizarre at all - just part of the African-American style of oratory.

Gadfly

I recently watched a movie/documentary called Religulous by Bill Maher. In the movie he states that 16% of Americans are non-believers so I guess BO mentioning atheists/agnostics was very welcome. I was pleasantly surprised though.

Black Swan

It was a complete surprise to me. Has any US president ever done this after being sworn in?

Húrin

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

Sure we can conceive of it. Why would you assume our minds are as small as those who think that atheism is self-evidently true? The gate that leads to destruction is wide, but the gate that leads to life is narrow, and few people find it.

cavedave wrote: »

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

America is the religion, and the founding fathers are its gods.

lostexpectation

PDN wrote: »

No, he was already President 5 minutes before he took the oath. According to the Constitution the President Elect becomes President automatically at 12 noon on the 20th of January irrespective of whether the oath has been sworn or not. The oath was administered at 12:05.

i know that, it said it in the article too. i provided a link for people to read it, you know.


than again obama and the justice did again to be on the safe side.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28780417/

lostexpectation

Jakkass wrote: »

They have absolutely no business to "challenge faith", if they come in with an agenda like that then they aren't impartial.

they should have the ability to do so and in my personal opinion they don't. i don't think they're impartial in respect to faith. i think they are biased towards it, you needn't worry about it.

lostexpectation

i expect obama to say it, so i see it as less of a big deal, if it was expected, its not a surprise, it be a surprise of bush said, i did a quick check i don't think he did, but regan might have.

lostexpectation

Húrin wrote: »

Sure we can conceive of it. Why would you assume our minds are as small as those who think that atheism is self-evidently true? blaa blaa

because in this forum we live in the real world, its pity the whole boards ain't like that.
and
because jakkass couldn't

which 'You' do you think he was referring to here

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

sionnach

Obama didn't just give us a shout out, he took the constitutional oath of office without his hand on a bible!

msnbc news wrote:

Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the oath to Obama on Wednesday night at the White House — a rare do-over

The president said he did not have his Bible with him, but that the oath was binding anyway.

Only two other presidents didn't take the oath with a bible or missal. Theodore Roosevelt (my favourite president) didn't use a bible for his first inauguration. But the original and the best was John Quincy Adams, who took the oath with his hand on a book of law. That's how it should be done. This puts Obama in good company, JQA is one of the greatest diplomats in American History and Teddy Roosevelt was an all around hero.

ZuStar

Jakkass wrote: »

Theism is currently consistent with all forms of science that we have.

Where is there evidence of theism being consistent with science? Theism still mostly rejects science as being treading on god's territory, and has caused a lot of problems for scientists coming from the political sphere. Religious faith has no foundation in science whatsoever. And saying "many scientists are religous, therefore science and theism go hand in hand" is the same as saying "many white people are fat, thus fatness goes hand in hand with whiteness." There is no logical connection between the two statements. So how do you see theism being consistent with science?

banshee_bones

Rob_l wrote: »

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.

would have to agree with you here!

ZuStar

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, but in terms of beliefs, you believe that there is no God. Likewise in terms of theistic beliefs, there is a God. Both require faith to deviate from what would be considered the current objective position on the issue which agnostics would generally cling to.

I'm not sure where you get your ideas regarding science and faith and atheism. It does not take faith to be an atheist. None at all. Don't second guess it, it's the simple truth. Read Richard Dawkins for a clear and concise definition of what atheism is and what it isn't.

Atheists think, based on the available evidence and following from logic, that invoking the mythology of a creator is not a good theory or model for what is going on in the universe. An important distinction between an atheist and a theist is not just a belief or lack of belief in god; it's the matter of how belief is structured. Religious people base their convictions on what they call faith, which is generally stringent loyalty to a set of ideas that don't stand up to reason. An atheist would willingly change his/her belief if we found evidence to support a god or creator. Theists, on the other hand, are generally threatened by any arguments that dispute their existing conceptual model. There is nothing that could dissuade them from their conclusion, as evidence by their refusal to accept logic or evidence disputing (as is often the case) the holy texts.

Let's keep in mind that the Bible sets the stage for the creation of the earth for about 6,000 years ago.

PDN

ZuStar wrote: »

Let's keep in mind that the Bible sets the stage for the creation of the earth for about 6,000 years ago.

CerebralCortex

ZuStar wrote: »

I'm not sure where you get your ideas regarding science and faith and atheism. It does not take faith to be an atheist. None at all. Don't second guess it, it's the simple truth. Read Richard Dawkins for a clear and concise definition of what atheism is and what it isn't.

Atheists think, based on the available evidence and following from logic, that invoking the mythology of a creator is not a good theory or model for what is going on in the universe. An important distinction between an atheist and a theist is not just a belief or lack of belief in god; it's the matter of how belief is structured. Religious people base their convictions on what they call faith, which is generally stringent loyalty to a set of ideas that don't stand up to reason. An atheist would willingly change his/her belief if we found evidence to support a god or creator. Theists, on the other hand, are generally threatened by any arguments that dispute their existing conceptual model. There is nothing that could dissuade them from their conclusion, as evidence by their refusal to accept logic or evidence disputing (as is often the case) the holy texts.

Let's keep in mind that the Bible sets the stage for the creation of the earth for about 6,000 years ago.

But you see J thinks he has the evidence and that we are ignoring it on faith i.e there is he believes substantial evidence so much so that one should only consider agnosticism at best. A bold statement no?

Acacia

20goto10 wrote: »

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.

By his 'true beliefs' I presume you're referring to his Christianity- in which case, I'm deeply puzzled by the fact that you think he's trying to 'fool' people with a 'farce' of being respectful to other religions ( or lack thereof.) Perhaps he just actually belives everybody should be treated equally regardless of their religion ( or lack thereof.) ( *shock* :pac:)

Where did he 'vow to mix politics and religion'? The fact is that relations between the the U.S. and the Muslim world are tense to say the least- I think Obama was trying to say that no matter what religion (or lack of ) you believe in, everyone is an equal American...(or some such cheesiness! :pac:)

The problem with the statement 'he should just get on with politics', is at moment religious issues are dominating a lot of politics, particularly tensions between different religions. So it's sort of hard to ignore it.

Come on, wouldn't be worse if he didn't mention non-believers at all?

lostexpectation

Yes, yes, I know. I know what you're about to say. Yes, Obama said the word "non-believers" in his speech. He said, quote:

"For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and non-believers."

And yes, that was pretty neat. As far as I know (does anyone know for sure?), this was the first time that a President's inaugural address said anything about non-believers in a positive, inclusive way. I'm not going to underestimate that. He said it, and it was pretty darned cool. A milestone, even.

He said it once... in a speech, one of a series of speeches over the inaugural ceremony, that over and over again hammered home the message, "This is God's country."

http://www.alternet.org/rights/121833/an_atheist%27s_perspective_on_the_inauguration%3A_enough_with_all_the_god_stuff/

don't be satisfied with crumbs

ZuStar

it's true that we shouldn't be satisfied with "crumbs," but we can be hopeful. for a starved person, crumbs at least imply that there is food nearby.

besides, we can't expect change to occur instantaneously just because there's a new guy in office. i don't think a president in this country could risk omitting religious loyalties if he (or she) wanted any of his (or her) new proposals and policies to have the backing of the nation. congress would tear him apart and probably have him impeached in a week, and people would be thankful. do you really think this nation will back someone who doesn't claim to have god on their side? he's already the first black president, he hardly needs more weight on his shoulders. let's just hope that his small offering in words belies a tendency in his mind to stand for a more objective and secular political ideology.

it's not a resolution to the problem, but it does show that there is change afoot. this would be a good time for atheists and non-religious people to take action, as there is a new administration that may be much more willing to lend an ear.

ZuStar

by the way, my prior argument regarding the bible's estimation of the beginning of the earth is by no means a "straw man." it's an actual calculation that is still believed by many and actually shaped much of scientific belief prior to the late 1700s. so it's entirely relevant to point out that "science" as proposed by the bible is no science at all, especially if someone is going to claim that religion and science often agree.

so there, pdn. in your face, metaphorically speaking.

The Mad Hatter

Also, it wasn't exactly the central tenet of your argument so much as an addendum to it.

Rev Hellfire

ZuStar wrote: »

it's true that we shouldn't be satisfied with "crumbs," but we can be hopeful. for a starved person, crumbs at least imply that there is food nearby.

We can only hope this will mean the end soon of the notorious atheist death camps ! Surely the rights of the American voting majority have trampled on the perceived slights of the atheist minority for far to long.

PDN

ZuStar wrote: »

by the way, my prior argument regarding the bible's estimation of the beginning of the earth is by no means a "straw man." it's an actual calculation that is still believed by many and actually shaped much of scientific belief prior to the late 1700s. so it's entirely relevant to point out that "science" as proposed by the bible is no science at all, especially if someone is going to claim that religion and science often agree.

so there, pdn. in your face, metaphorically speaking.

Saying something is an 'actual calculation' is pretty meaningless. A horoscope is an actual calculation.

The idea of the earth being 6000 years old is not something believed by the majority of Christians, nor has it been the teaching of the Church for most of its history. It had its heyday in the 18th & 19th Centuries and was based on a fundamental failure to appreciate how genealogies were constructed in the Ancient Near East.

Your post was a response to Jakkass in the context of atheism and theism. The 6000 year thing was a clear straw man, it had nothing to do with that discussion, and is not a belief that is held by Jakkass or taught in Scripture.

ZuStar

PDN, i have to thank you for illustrating my point so well. yes, a horoscope is calculation much in the same way that much of the "science" is the bible is considered a calculation. and yet, there are people who persist in the belief that the bible is to be read literally and they are not a negligible factor,in social or political life. creationists are still very active.

also, you succeeded in pointing out that christians pick and choose what parts of the bible they like and what parts they don't. it's arbitrary to claim certain parts as entirely accurate and others as just metaphors or typos or whatever justification can be constructed for the sake of excusing contradictions.

and as a side note, my comments are not solely responses on other people's comments. i add other thoughts as well, to better illustrate my points, whether those points are relevant to someone else's statement or not.

daaaaamn, you got served. :cool:

OK-Cancel-Apply

Of course, Obama himself is probably an atheist, but I think it will be a long time before we see an openly atheist president in the U.S.

Dave!

What makes you say Obama is probably an atheist?

tbh if I were an American atheist I'd be considerably disheartened by the fact that 2 preachers spoke at length during the inauguration, more so than placated by the mention of non-believers.

Rev Hellfire

From what I've gathered he's a christian, he's a member of the United Church of Christ.

philologos

ZuStar wrote: »

by the way, my prior argument regarding the bible's estimation of the beginning of the earth is by no means a "straw man." it's an actual calculation that is still believed by many and actually shaped much of scientific belief prior to the late 1700s. so it's entirely relevant to point out that "science" as proposed by the bible is no science at all, especially if someone is going to claim that religion and science often agree.

so there, pdn. in your face, metaphorically speaking.

Hang on though, Origen of Jerusalem and Augustine suggested that the creation of the earth in days could have meant stages in time and this was in the 4th century. No doubt this view probably was around before that time also.

As for the view that the world was 6000 years old, this comes from James Usshers calculations as Archbishop of Armagh. It isn't really the Biblical estimation, it is rather dependant on how one reads Biblical geneologies.

anonymous_joe

A lot more Americans would consider themselves Christian than Europeans.

Quite frankly I struggle to see the problem of someone praying to God during such a ceremony. Christian in praying shocker, kind of thing.

If you're an atheist, you don't believe in it, so why would it effect you? If you're not an atheist, it's a prayer.