Home
 
 
10 February 2008 @ 02:29 pm
A point I've been trying to make for a long time  
Mr. Obama, I honestly wasn't sure about you (even if I still preferred you over Billary or McCain), but you just won me over, sir.

"For one, they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. Folks tend to forget that during our founding, it wasn't the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment. It was the persecuted minorities, it was Baptists like John Leland who didn't want the established churches to impose their views on folks who were getting happy out in the fields and teaching the scripture to slaves. It was the forbearers of the evangelicals who were the most adamant about not mingling government with religious, because they did not want state-sponsored religion hindering their ability to practice their faith as they understood it.

"Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

"And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let's read our bibles. Folks haven't been reading their bibles.

"This brings me to my second point. 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. 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."
From his keynote address, here.

 
 
Mind: impressed
 
 
( Post a new comment )
tzisorey[info]tzisorey on February 10th, 2008 11:06 pm (UTC)
I gotta admit, I'm impressed.... but I don't think he's going to get in.
Natasha Softpaw: RainbowPaw[info]natashasoftpaw on February 13th, 2008 06:39 am (UTC)
I was doubtful at first, but it seems like each successive primary election brings Obama a more clear-cut and decisive victory over Clinton than the last. Today was the "Potomac Primaries" set (Virginia, Maryland, and DC), and Obama won all three elections by huge margins, as much as 3:1 in DC.

There are more primaries coming up, but I think Obama will get the Democratic nomination. McCain is shaping up to be the Republican nominee, but his support is really weak, and he doesn't have the support of the traditional Republican base (rural conservatives), so this could be a very interesting election if it comes down to McCain vs. Obama. The Democrats experienced what happens when the party's main supporters are apathetic about the party's candidate, and Obama has very enthusiastic support from the democrat base this time.
Orange Wingies[info]inaki on February 10th, 2008 11:16 pm (UTC)
Danielle[info]razzlfraz on February 11th, 2008 12:18 am (UTC)
are you registered to vote?

this just in: myspace has removed the atheist group, which was the largest atheist group in history.
/off-topic


the way I think of it is:
mcCain is fucken' insane. lol, ok not really but close. his religious beliefs and anti peoples rights are sickening imho.
clinton - an extreme liar. she says what she has to just so she can get were she wants to go. when bill was president 90% of the stuff in his campaign that never happened (health care etc..) was all from hillery. a lot of the stuff she telling people she will do now, 12 years ago she was saying the exact same things and once she came into power she did none of it! she is a liar, and is not to be trusted. at least she will help the economy, I'm sure.
obama - bit of a wild card because I don't think he has any economic experience. were clinton will shine obama is a guess at best. however, his history dictates that he is not a liar and he is honest to his word. if this is the case then major issues this country needs will get. honestly, if I had the choice I'd choose someone who tells the truth then someone who lies, even if the person that lies says he or she will do amazing things.

imho from best to worst:
obama
clinton
mcCain

also, I honestly don't know why anyone would ever vote for mcCain. his policy is bad for the economy, bad for gay rights, bad for trans rights, bad for peoples rights in general, and is just a bigot imho.
Loriana_Vixen[info]loriana on February 11th, 2008 01:25 am (UTC)
Thank you for posting this.

I think this underscores Obama's use of 'good reason'... something that typically is sorely lacking when it comes to the empassioned matter of religeon .

I admit, I'm very impressed by his views here.
Dakhun Catameep: Couguar Noire[info]dakhun on February 11th, 2008 01:58 am (UTC)
So he's not only opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds, but opposed to abortion as well, also on religious grounds?

And half of Democrats like that? :-P
Autumnfox[info]foxymoonheart on February 11th, 2008 02:23 am (UTC)
No. It means he understands the purpose and importance of the separation of church and state, and supports such.

The abortion reference was an example of this, regarding a specific religion and/or denomination imposing its views upon the masses. In fact, Obama supports a women's right to choose.

While he does not support gay "marriage" (the specific use of that term), he does fully support equal rights for gays and gay partners, including civil unions the equivalent of marriage.

I'm not sure where you're getting your information, so here's a neutral website showing where Obama stands on various issues:

http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm
Dakhun Catameep: Grey Couguar[info]dakhun on February 11th, 2008 03:53 am (UTC)
Well, right now, I'm getting my information from that quote you gave, and he says clearly enough "I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons". There's a lot of hoohaa on the net that claims one way or the other what Obama's stand on abortion is, but this quote you gave puts two things into focus that for me are critical. 1 - that regardless of whatever his party policy is, he opposes abortion personally, and 2 - that the reason he opposes abortion personally is because of his religious faith.

And whenever he's been asked about gay marriage, he can't even comment on that topic without first mentioning his religious faith. If he could maybe answer the question without mentioning religion, that'd be an improvement; but from the various video clips I've seen of him discussing this topic various times, it is apparent that he can't. Any politician who's motivations are primarily religious isn't going to have gay rights as a very high priority. It doesn't matter what his party policy is.

The problem is that Clinton's and Obama's official policies are 95% the same. So you need to look beyond that at just how much weight and conviction they give to each item in their official policy. When I do that, it's clear to me that Obama's priorities are out of whack with my own.

Opposing gay marriage on personal religious conviction and also opposing abortion, again apparently on personal religious conviction, says two things to me: religious right. It's obvious that he's trying very hard to court voters in the religious right, but it just rubs me completely the wrong way. And since I'm neither religious nor socially right-wing, I don't like him.

Edited at 2008-02-11 03:56 am (UTC)
Autumnfox: galactic wah empire[info]foxymoonheart on February 11th, 2008 04:35 am (UTC)
It's called an example. He's trying to make a point. Even if he really is opposed to abortion, he still does not believe his personal religious beliefs should limit what others can and cannot do. Please read the link I gave you which explains his stance on this and many other important issues. Thank you.

Edited at 2008-02-11 04:39 am (UTC)
Dakhun Catameep: Flying Cougar[info]dakhun on February 11th, 2008 03:45 pm (UTC)
Honestly, I get the point. Just because I don't think it is as important as you think it is, doesn't mean I don't understand it. Now, do you get my point?

The choice in the primaries so far isn't between Obama and someone who is opposed to gay rights or abortion, it is between Obama and Clinton, whose policies are almost exactly the same across the board. But Clinton doesn't have to make any effort to explain away why personal religious convictions would or wouldn't get in the way of fulfilling her duties, because she never gave the impression that it would in the first place. She doesn't first say what her religion says about a policy question before giving her answer. That's why I find her preferable. And you're welcome.
Autumnfox[info]foxymoonheart on February 11th, 2008 04:28 pm (UTC)
If you read the original link to Mr. Barack Obama's keynote address, you'll note that this was a response to Mr. Alan Keyes, who attacked Obama's faith because Obama supports gay rights and a woman's right to choose. Hence, Obama proceeded to explain his point of view, honestly and openly, for all to see.
Dakhun Catameep: Grey Couguar[info]dakhun on February 11th, 2008 04:35 pm (UTC)
Yes, but SO DOES CLINTON. Both issues.
Who has the more believable stance on these issues?
What you see as a clever point, I see as a major gaffe. (He's been way too religious in his answers to policy questions. And this just makes him seem even more tangled up in religion - that he's either genuinely conflicted inside because of his religion, or he's just bending over backward to court the religious right. Either way, I'm not impressed.)

Edited at 2008-02-11 04:46 pm (UTC)
Autumnfox[info]foxymoonheart on February 11th, 2008 08:00 pm (UTC)
I think he made his point quite clear, he's not "tangled up in religion", rather, he clearly knows where his personal religious beliefs should not interfere with what is best for the country, including people of all faiths, as well as those of no faith at all.

I have no idea where you're getting the idea that he's somehow courting the religious right. If anything, this should draw support from those who oppose such extremist viewpoints.
Orange Wingies[info]inaki on February 11th, 2008 05:55 am (UTC)
Honestly, any candidate who shows the ability of separating their personal spiritual life from the policies they set forth, one who can separate the person from the position of office gets my vote.
Dakhun Catameep: baby gmgs[info]dakhun on February 11th, 2008 03:51 pm (UTC)
That should be a minimum requirement to be a leader. And how does this actually separate Obama from Clinton policy-wise?
Coyoty[info]coyoty on February 11th, 2008 07:36 am (UTC)
Read the follow-up to the piece you took out of context. He is saying that despite whatever religious beliefs he has on a matter, he must take into account the beliefs of others, including the non-religious, and try to reach some reasonable common ground with them before acting on the matter.
Dakhun Catameep: Fire Cat[info]dakhun on February 11th, 2008 04:02 pm (UTC)
take into account the beliefs of others, including the non-religious, and try to reach some reasonable common ground with them before acting on the matter

As opposed to simply following the law, the constitution, keeping international agreements, or furthering human rights?
Like I said in another comment, I understand what Obama is saying. I even agree in principle, with the general idea, minus what he said about abortion. I just don't see why this should make him preferable to say, any other candidate who is or was in the race. Being able to separate one's personal beliefs from what's best for your country should be a minimum requirement to be a leader. Clinton understood this from the start, whereas Obama (or his speech writers) seem to have only now woken up to that idea - which makes it somewhat less believable.

Edited at 2008-02-11 04:04 pm (UTC)
Eric-Fox-Chan[info]slrdarien on February 11th, 2008 11:04 pm (UTC)
I get the impression that hes letting people know that while his opinion might be its not right, he is supporting it because his religion views should not shape the law. Which can be good or bad really, if his conviction is strong it shows he will uphold the law. But who knows if he might mix his religion in without knowing it.
kathrishali: zigzag[info]kathrishali on February 11th, 2008 02:43 am (UTC)
Interesting. I'm still not sure who I'm going to vote for, though.
mocha_mephooki: PeaceOut[info]mocha_mephooki on February 11th, 2008 03:04 am (UTC)
Thank you for posting this... Obama has been my vote preference already, but things like this really make me feel better about the choice.
[info]defconn1 on February 11th, 2008 03:57 am (UTC)
Anyone know a website that puts the candidates answers to issues side by side (for easy comparison)?

Thanks!
Orange Wingies[info]inaki on February 11th, 2008 05:39 am (UTC)
Eric-Fox-Chan: fur kiss[info]slrdarien on February 11th, 2008 10:46 pm (UTC)
awesome
sweet, that site is very helpful, thank you
Jim "Mutt" Tarpley[info]mutt12 on February 11th, 2008 08:36 pm (UTC)
Obama totally rocks my socks. I hope he gets the nomination. If not, I might consider McCain because he's essentially a Democrat in denial.
Eric-Fox-Chan[info]slrdarien on February 11th, 2008 08:59 pm (UTC)
yep
Obama has good views and also good charisma. And we need a good foreign relations president after the last 8 years.
I think the man has allot of power and conviction when he talks. I am getting doubtful of Hillary even though I think she might do a good job, but as stated in this chain, shes made promises and not filled them before, so my trust in her is not without pause. So far my vote is for Obama. I am undecided so far a I am registered as a Democrat so I could if I wanted. But I usually stay out all that stuff and only Vote on the final go. I might this year.

As far as separating religion and state, I agree totally.
Any one that wants to force others to follow there religion can just leave this country right now and start there own somewhere else.
sandy_hedges[info]sandy_hedges on February 12th, 2008 12:44 am (UTC)
Speeches like this also make me wonder why people waste their votes with Hillary. I really see Obama as a great orator and progressive liberal, a humanitarian in the line of Martin Luther King I would even go so far.
Jim "Mutt" Tarpley[info]mutt12 on February 12th, 2008 01:06 am (UTC)
Alot of people are just voting for her to see a woman in the white house.

Now I'm all for a woman in office, just not THAT woman.