Obama Includes Non-Religious Americans in Speech

Email Print posted by Verified1 07/07/2008 12:07:29 AM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
If you like this story, digg it!
Another Powerful Speech by Barack Obama on Faith in Action.

For those of you (read Cenk) who are ardently secular, I'm happy to say that in a recent speech, Barack included you as a group in a speech to the AME General Conference. He includes the non-religious in his list of groups equally deserving of assistance not only from the federal government, but from programs sponsored by faith communities that will be aided by his office of faith based initiatives.
 
I hear and understand the objections that some have to such a scheme and its potential for future abuses. But he's also right - there are important, successful initiatives out there that can do a lot more good if supported by the government. Right now, Uncle Sam's pockets are emptying inside out for a lot of programs that do nothing for the poor, and we all know that politicians are sure not getting elected for helping the poor. We can argue the hypocrisy of some groups of religious people and what politicians they do vote for, but that's another topic for another thread. The red tape for this program is bound to be tricky, in order to comply with separation of church and state, and no one will be surprised if there are abuses that should be exposed. But I still think it's worth a try.
 
Cynics (and non-cynics if there are any left) might disagree, but I found this to be a powerful speech, especially because several of my husband's ancestors were among those congregants pulled from St. George's on their their knees for refusing to move to the gallery they had built at the request of the white church members. You'll hear Barack refer to this history. The pre-Civil War history of Black resistance to American apartheid is inexorably bound to the church, especially in the North. If you ever need a little inspiration, recommend you spend some time refreshing your your knowledge of Absolom Jones, Richard Allen, the Free African Society and the National Convention Movement.
< 12345 | Michael Corleone '08 >
 Display:
Obama Includes Non-Religious Americans in Speech | 13 comments (13 topical, 0 hidden)
Why bother (none / 0)
We're all going to burn in hell anyway.

;)

by ihavenobias on 07/07/2008 11:19:24 AM EST

Burning in Hell (none / 0)
Haha, so it's safe to say you're in the cynic category, eh IHNB? I'm not sure how much worse Hell would be than the knowledge that it is right now being created in our name and we perpetually feel powerless to stop it.

by Verified1 on 07/07/2008 12:25:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I was just joking (none / 0)
I'm in the non-theist category.

by ihavenobias on 07/07/2008 01:50:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
That's great! (none / 0)

Thanks for posting this because I missed it.  Let's hear it for faith-in-atheism nonprofit aid groups!! 

Could this be a new religion?  Faitheism?

by desertpear on 07/07/2008 02:10:54 PM EST

I'll contribute. (none / 0)
Faitheism. Great idea desertpear. :-)  I'll contribute. Perhaps you could use the group to decry the American acceptance of Truthiness.

by Verified1 on 07/08/2008 04:04:06 AM EST

[ Parent ]
separation of church and state is what matters (none / 0)

maintaining the wall of separation between government functions and religious organizations does not mean opening the door to "faith-based" crap, and throwing some "shut-your-mouth" scraps to non-religious groups.

the fact that obama believes in fairy tales disqualifies him for the office of presidency---not on "religious" grounds, but on grounds of plain intelligence and sanity. 

by neo on 07/07/2008 04:38:35 PM EST

atheists (none / 0)
Americans have made it clear in polls that they would vote in a gay president before an atheist, which shows how intelligent the electorate is, and how long before a non-Christian can be a serious candidate.  Most Americans prefer to live in fairy tale land.  Since Obama was raised by secular parents, it is possible his "faith" is for political purposes, but I don't have a problem with people's personal religious beliefs as long as they are kept separate from government. 

by desertpear on 07/07/2008 04:56:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Tolerance (none / 0)
Neo, Faith is a deeply personal spiritual journey, so I don't expect anyone to understand mine. That's not the purpose of faith. That said, I hope I rarely accuse people of idiocy. I completely understand why non-religious people would believe that faith in the Divine is a fairy tale. The fact that you think it's a fairy tale doesn't really amount to a hill of beans to my journey. But I think it is important to recognize that there is room for some tolerance here. Not all of us are proselytic, greedy shysters. In this case, I hope you will see that denigration merely defeats your argument.

by Verified1 on 07/08/2008 01:12:41 AM EST

[ Parent ]
fuck you and fuck your fellow morons (none / 0)

denigration is the _only_ proper response to morons that believe crap.

you religious nuts deserve to be hounded into oblivion. 

by neo on 07/08/2008 05:16:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Personal or public? You can't have it both ways. (none / 0)

Faith is a deeply personal spiritual journey, so I don't expect anyone to understand mine. That's not the purpose of faith... The fact that you think it's a fairy tale doesn't really amount to a hill of beans to my journey.

I wasn't going to comment on this thread but the above quote is too much to bear. What's your "personal journey" doing in the public sphere? I don't think you (or Obama, sad to say) understand the concept of "separation of church and state". You are arguing for public funding of churches, with no means to monitor how the money is spent. While I would tell neo to take a few breaths before posting, I'm going to say to you: keep your journeys personal and out of the goddamn government.

by mr science on 07/08/2008 07:17:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Response (none / 0)

Mr. Science, thanks for reading my post and for your reply, but I am indeed not arguing for public funding of churches. I'm not sure where you saw that in my post.

I do support the work that some religious organizations might be doing, simply because there is a tremendous need in the real world for people who have difficulty getting needed services elsewhere. Those of us in the helping professions know how desperate is the need for assistance to the poor, the homeless, illegals, the sick and those who live on the margins of society. If some federal money can be funneled through existing programs sponsored by religious organizations, I don't have a problem with it, as long as no one is preaching or otherwise promoting their religion or restricting access due to religious scruples. And that is why Obama included Muslims and the non-religious in his speech to a Christian organization. I think groups that would rather proseytize or badger or restrict access for dogmatic reasons should rely on private funding. I realize there is potential for abuse, but that doesn't mean we cannot give it a try with proper regulation. Lots of non-religious programs funded by the government also suffer from fraud and abuse of the system, so it wouldn't be a new phenomenon.

My "personal journey" comment was in in response to neo's nasty characterisation of faith as "crap." If my personal journey is in the public sphere it is only because it is part of who I am as a person, so in that small way, if I am in the public sphere, then I guess it is too.

by Verified1 on 07/09/2008 02:04:43 AM EST

[ Parent ]
please... (none / 0)

But I still think it's worth a try.

This initiative YOU ARE ENDORSING is a violation of church state separation. This is an expansion of Bush's "Faith Based Initiative". Like Bush, Obama has offered no clear system of accountability on how the money is spent. Bush also said that the money would not be used to proselytize and discriminate in hiring and only for secular programs. Here are a few of the abuses to date. There is no reason to expect that the public funding of churches under this program will be monitored at all by the government.

If my personal journey is in the public sphere it is only because it is part of who I am as a person, so in that small way, if I am in the public sphere, then I guess it is too.

This continued rationalization of yours shows how adept your mind is at shuttering away dissonant thoughts. How presumptuous, what hubris, what breath taking arrogance to say the public sphere should in any way be subject to your "personal journey" of faith that you "don't expect anyone to understand". You give yourself away, yes you are using this rationale to justify an encroachment of church state separation when you combine such faith with public programs. My argument is simply to keep it to yourself and honor church state separation. Don't assume I will simply go along with your polite Xian reassurances and calls for tolerance, you are pushing your faith into the public sphere whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

by mr science on 07/09/2008 12:05:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Assumptions (none / 0)
Assumptions are what seem to be at issue here. And they are not always correct - neither yours nor mine. Hope you get your breath back sometime soon.

by Verified1 on 07/09/2008 02:02:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Obama Includes Non-Religious Americans in Speech | 13 comments (13 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: