Obama
30 June 2006 by Raindogzilla
As much as I hate religion- and I do, it really sticks in my craw, I find myself more and more leaning towards embracing the moderate faction of U.S. Xians as a means to negating the influence of the Dominionists, the Ron Luces, and the plain vanilla fundies that have brought us twelve years of a Repiglickin-controlled Congress and eight years of the awful Bush administration.
On that note, Senator Barack Obama(D-IL), spoke to the Sojourners recently.
Full article is here.
‘”If we don’t reach out to evangelical Christians and other religious Americans and tell them what we stand for, the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons will continue to hold sway,” Obama said, naming two outspoken right-wing Christian figures.”‘
snip.
‘”I think we make a mistake when we fail to acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people.
“After all, the problems of poverty and racism, the uninsured and the unemployed, are not simply technical problems in search of the perfect ten point plan,” Obama said.“They are rooted in both societal indifference and individual callousness — in the imperfections of man.”‘Now, I’m not so big on any kind of acknowledgement of faith, least of all it’s power, but he does seem to suggest that the “indifference” and the “callousness” might be best attacked from a moderate religious viewpoint- a christlike viewpoint for a change? This makes sense, or sense enough for me to bite my tongue in a political context about my enmity towards all faith. He goes on;
Now, I’m not so big on any kind of acknowledgement of faith, least of all it’s power, but he does seem to suggest that the “indifference” and the “callousness” might be best attacked from a moderate religious viewpoint- a christlike viewpoint for a change? This makes sense, or sense enough for me to bite my tongue in a political context about my enmity towards all faith. He goes on;“It is doubtful that children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance feel oppressed or brainwashed as a consequence of muttering the phrase ‘under God;’ I certainly didn’t.”‘
All along, I’ve thought Newdow’s campaign against the god mention in the pledge was just retarded, same with the currency. It’s just, I don’t know, insignificant in the grand scheme of these Dominionists. I campaigned for Paul Hackett here in Ohio, an oh-so-close loss to “Mean” Jean Schmidt- the woman who called Jack Murtha a “coward.”
In that campaign, I wasn’t shy about belittling the religious even among the campaign staff and I’m starting to think that was the wrong approach. You?
30 June 2006, on 4:52 pm
RDZ, you’re in Ohio? Where? I’m in Cleveland Heights.
And I go back and forth about this. There are lots of fundamentalists who simply cannot debate because they’re not looking for anything except their own “truth.” The experience Ann Druyan writes about in her piece (in a previous post)in which a creationist spent time with Carl and then changed his mind - I don’t know what I think about that. It is good not to humiliate people when you’re debating them? Probably, except for the ones with a lot of power who misuse it to hurt so many people. But perhaps the creationist was really on the edge, and it was the force of Sagan’s arguments that got to him, rather than Sagan’s behavior. And I miss him so much.
I guess I think it’s something I would take one experience at a time. Some people you simply know when you meet them that they’re not even a little bit open minded (we can all name lots of them who are in the public eye). But there must be others, outside the media limelight, who could be educated.
I would also say, to Obama and Clinton, et. al, that unless you Democrats come up with something to stand for, it doesn’t really make much difference whether you can talk to fundamentalists or not, because you don’t represent any kind of alternative.
I’d also like to know what others think.
30 June 2006, on 5:19 pm
I would also say, to Obama and Clinton, et. al, that unless you Democrats come up with something to stand for, it doesn’t really make much difference whether you can talk to fundamentalists or not, because you don’t represent any kind of alternative.
I agree with you. All the evangelical butt-kissing going on by supposed liberals is pissing me off. And them trying to sound “republican” and appeal to the far right is flimsy, fake and weak. I know it’s the “game of politics” to get elected, but I am not merely going to vote for someone just because they are a Democrat. I want a candidate who for the most part stands for what I stand for, and lately, I don’t really know what any of them stand for…(except Al Gore on the issue of global warming Most democrats seem to be losing their marbles and jumping on the fundie bandwagon makes my trust for them lessen.
30 June 2006, on 7:05 pm
Well, ya catch more flies with honey than with vinegar, or however that expression goes. Of course, here we are writing on a site called “God is for Suckers!” Oh, well… So much for the nice approach.
30 June 2006, on 7:16 pm
The nice approach rarely works, wouldn’t an honest approach be refreshing?
30 June 2006, on 8:32 pm
An honest approach in politics will never work until we actually have a viable third party. The Repiglickins and the Dems both usually end up putting party ahead of country when push comes to shove and you get McCain with his nose up Falwell’s butt, Hillary working the center at the behest of campaign advisors and focus groups, Kos and the like, the grassroots- or “netroots” actually wielding some power and ready to hold folks like Hillary accountable, and a Democratic Leadership Council at odds with the voters. Here we’ve got the right in as much disarray as it could possibly get barring impeachment for Bushie and Dickie and the Dems still don’t really know who they are. How ’bout the leadership of FDR, the spine of Harry Truman, and the integrity of Jimmy Carter? How ’bout the liberalism, the Apollo space program vision of JFK- only with alternative fuels? How ’bout seriously getting special interest money out of politics? How ’bout growing a pair?
Catherine, I’m in Hamilton, Ohio, north of Cincinnati and not even in Hackett’s district. But, emphasizing my point above, Rahm Emmanuel and Howard Dean put the kibosh on Paul’s Senate campaign before it even got to a primary with Sherrod Brown- a decent candidate but essentially a party functionary compared to the maverick Hackett, an Iraq vet unafraid to call a piece of shit a piece of shit. I lived in Berea as a kid, backing up on the Metropolitan Park and a ravine away from the Rocky River.
30 June 2006, on 9:48 pm
This is the very reason I have such a hard time voting. Isn’t placating the evangelicals equivalent to two steps backward. No guts no glory. Bow down to stupid. Man how pathetic.
Who exactly is compromising these poitical hacks? Is there some boogey man who goes around and forces them to be and act stupid?
Bumper sticker I saw today;
Your proctologist called, He’s found your head.
30 June 2006, on 10:03 pm
This is the problem with democracy–it’s too dependent on the majority, which in the case of the USA is Christian. What chance do atheists have of ever influencing a true change in government?
The one main issue to be concerned with on voting day is whether the candidate you’re thinking of voting for upholds the US Constitution. Because without it we’re screwed.
30 June 2006, on 10:20 pm
I wonder when folks will acknowledge that ‘voting for people’ was a stopgap measure on our path to, like, our mutual liberation.
I’ve voted for religious people. And perhaps somewho wasn’t, based on blurb. People, religious and not, know this is fake. Will it be god’s vote-subverting kingdom, or, like, compassion and reason — which you also can’t just ‘vote for’, you gotta admit.
while superglue {
nul $votes
- John
p.s. psst parecon
30 June 2006, on 10:27 pm
I would also say, to Obama and Clinton, et. al, that unless you Democrats come up with something to stand for, it doesn’t really make much difference whether you can talk to fundamentalists or not, because you don’t represent any kind of alternative.
Right on, Catherine. I know it’s a repeat, but that statement is worth repeating over and over again.
Raindog, I don’t think “biting your tongue” is the right approach when a frankly bigoted and arrogant statement (like the one about the pledge) is made. I’d say call those out straightforwardly and then get back to business working together. Mutual respect has to be there, and it’s not if “our side” is allowed to use anti-atheist demagoguery as a political appeal. The response should be proportional to the offense (and Obama was clearly wrong but not evil or outrageous) but we should definitely have one.
That said, I’d actually LOVE to see Dems mounting a critique of Republican economic policies using a bit-o’-Jesus. Obviously that would have to come from Dem-leaning religious figures, not from politicians themselves–otherwise it would be just a cynical exercise. The religious left should, to be blunt, quit harping on the irreligious and instead work to put their values into play in politics. I basically agree with most of those values as I understand them and will be happy to work with them.
30 June 2006, on 10:28 pm
At first I was taken aback by Obama’s statements. But then I got to thinking…always a dangerous thing.
Forget the extremist socially conservative shitheads that the republicans already have in their pockets. There is very little in the “progressive” category that these cretins would ever support. Don’t even waste your time.
Maybe liberals do need to pander…uh, I mean…appeal…to the religious people who may be more open in their outlook. You know, those Christians who actually concentrate more of the teachings of the New Testament (Jesus and his crew) as opposed to the pseudo-Christians who seem to hold the inane babblings of the Old Testament in highest regard (most of the fundamentalists and evangelicals). Maybe the key to success in eliminating or postponing the establishment of theocracy in this country is to adopt some of the strategies of our enemy. Democrats should embrace Jesus and his teachings. Show voters, particularly those on the fence, how the Democrats’ vision of government is so much more “Christian” than that of the Old Testament based view favored by Republicans. Maybe serious Democratic candidates for president should publicly scrunch up their faces in prayer, especially in front of the cameras, just in the way that TV evangelists like Swaggart, et al have always done. They should be seen at weekly church services, and they should take every opportunity to thank “God” for this and that blessing in front of TV cameras, just as so many scumbag republicans have been doing.
To whatever extent it’s all mere theatrics, so what? To whatever extent it may be dishonest, ditto! Americans seem to thrive on lies, with the exception of lies about getting extra-marital blowjobs. Don’t ever lie to “The American People” about something serious like that!
Play the religion game, but concentrate on what Jesus is actually alleged to have taught. Let’s face it - in this intellectually backward nation, where people like Ann Coulter actually earn the title of “political commentator,” there aren’t really other viable options, other than armed conflict with these bastards. Known atheists are not going to hold any political power of significance here anytime soon. (Can anyone provide a list for the group showing actual known atheists and the high political offices they hold?) I’ll maintain that if a person running for political office “comes out” as an atheist, he/she will have a very difficult time even being elected or appointed to the position of local animal control officer (i.e., dog catcher).
I hate to say it, but maybe liberals, progressives, democrats…and atheists need to start playing the game. I grit my teeth as I write this. My teeth are actually hurting. But voters - people - our neighbors - most of them don’t want truth. They resent “egghead intellectuals.” They don’t trust “free thinkers,” and are especially turned off by the word “thinker” in that phrase.
They want to be comforted.
30 June 2006, on 10:31 pm
The one main issue to be concerned with on voting day is whether the candidate you’re thinking of voting for upholds the US Constitution. Because without it we’re screwed.
Ramen Lynda.
30 June 2006, on 10:44 pm
Sportin’, the god dropping pledge is a problem to you and I as adults but think back to when you were saying it as a kid. Did you really even pay attention to any of what you were saying? It’s just mindless recitation and people like Newdow just reinforce the persecution complex of the fundies. It’s just, like I said before, insignificant in the face of a majority party run by wingnuts that the Dems can’t even summon up the chutzpah to kick when it’s down.
Jimmer, Obama’s not suggesting placating the Robertson/Falwell cadre at all. He’s saying we need to make nice with the Episcopals, the Presbyterians, the Methodists, the liberal Southern Baptists of the Jimmy Carter strain, and, mainly, the Lefties who happen to be religious.
Realistically, what, eighty some percent of folks believe in some god or another? And, if you’re shooting for fifty percent of the vote or so, math says you need some of them. In a fairly evenly split country, GOP/Dem-wise, the phrase “secular” or “godless” left is a myth perpetuated by the bloviating rightwing mouthpieces-and we need to nip it in the bud. It’s just not the time for rightly protesting the connotations of amorality in the perjorative “godless”.
30 June 2006, on 10:59 pm
House of rep Ron Paul gave a speeh on the floor and was broadcast on c-span. He is one person who is telling more about the truth of why people are so mad at the politicians. I think he really gets it for the most part. Here is link to speech he gave.
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2006/cr062906.htm
30 June 2006, on 11:06 pm
RDZ: You make a lotta sense. I’ll vote for you. Whatcha runnin’ for?
30 June 2006, on 11:21 pm
RDZ, I hope you’re right about what Obama and others are suggesting. Unfortunately, I have heard nothing from the Dems that convince me that they see a difference between the “rational” religious and the just plane crazy religious. They seem so scared of appearing “godless” that they refuse to do what’s necessary. And that is to openly condemn the theocratic ambitions of the fundamentalists.
Check out a documentary called God’s Next Army. It’s the scariest movie I’ve seen all year. I wouldn’t be surprised that if this movement is successful every reader of this site will end up in a “re-education center” somewhere.
30 June 2006, on 11:34 pm
I think it was back in the 1990s that Gore Vidal, in an interview, talked about the impending war between Fundamentalism and Liberalism; and that there really wasn’t much choice between the Dems and the GOP. They’ve all become puppets of the Military Industrial Complex machinery; …they’re all wealthy, and kiss ass to the Corporations.
The big difference in the whole Political scene, of course, came after the 9/11 attack. It became obvious that the war was on between the Religions; especially the Fundamentalist versions. Suddenly all the politicians started wearing their Religion more and more on their sleeves; competing with each other with their proclamations of faith. One cannot avoid witnessing the ever eroding Separation of Church and State.
Unlike, perhaps, a couple of decades ago, whenever I see a politician, I’m much more acutely aware of what their Religious ‘persuasion’ is. For a couple of examples, every time I see the Democrat, Harry Reid, I’m reminded of his being a Mormon; or seeing Lieberman, that he’s an Orthodox Jew.
A goodly number of the Dems, seemingly coerced by the demonization of the ‘L’ word, are self consciously leaning more and more to the right, instead of representing the more traditional Liberal values that were the ’standards’ of the ‘Old Guard’ Democratic party.
It really, I think, took off with Clinton in the ’90s regarding NAFTA, Welfare Reform, etc. … the rush to becoming Republican ‘Lite’.
In my opinion [nothing original, alas], we’re watching the Dems, because of their OWN Fear and Guilt Religious beliefs, competing for ‘fish’ in the ‘Fundie pond’ for their votes; instead of having a true Liberal backbone — and fishing in the 50% (?) Nonvoting, albeit, disillusioned, ‘Liberal pond’.
I DO, in general, like Obama; but, somehow, I have the feeling that the Dems will botch up their best chance in quite awhile by kissing ass to the Right Wing crowd!
I hope I’m wrong! [But, who'll care?]
30 June 2006, on 11:39 pm
I’ll care, Chuck. I don’t think this country, or the world, can afford much more of these bastards. In the end, as much as they pander, Al Gore would not have embraced a doctrine of preemptive war against a country that was not a threat. The idea would never been raised in a Gore Administration. Anybody who still believes the lie that we are fighting them there so that we don’t have to fight them here deserves this government. They weren’t there before we went there! Luckily, polls show that even the dimmest Americans are getting it. Now the Dems have to come out swinging hard. I’m so afraid they won’t. One thing’s for sure, they hear from me weekly about it.
1 July 2006, on 1:03 am
I guess it really falls to our morality. We make a sacrifice for the greater good by siding with those for whom religion is more a quaint, even endearing, personality quirk against those for whom it’s a virulent, do not operate heavy machinery, brain plague- Ovine Spongiform Encephalopathy, anyone?
We get out of it, ideally, a nation- and thereby world, with a much better chance of continued survival. We get a chance to further- or reignite more like, this great experiment, this Democratic Republic. Oh, gawd, stop me before I get patriotic.
But it really gets my goat to hear those FUCKTARDS say that we on the left “hate” America when nothing could be further from the truth. A doctor excises a tumor from the body of a patient not because he hates the man but to save his life.
So, to the Limbaughs, the Hannitys, the Coulters, the Malkins, the Santorums, the Haggards, the Phelps’, the Robertsons, the Falwells, the Bushes, and the Cheneys of this world:
Happy Independence Day, you cancerous fucks!
1 July 2006, on 1:19 am
Hehe, RDZ. Preach it.
BTW, emails to you are getting bounced back. I am replying directly to your notes. Here is what I said:
On your Obama post, the reason you were getting that blank space to the right was that your image was set to align=”top”. I set it to align=”right” . You also forgot to title your post, so I gave it the generic title “Obama.” Feel
free to go back and change it if you like.
Also, for the Leviticus image that I fixed, you’re getting that some result with no src=”" attribute. Still haven’t a clue as to why. Just use the img button in WordPress rather than using Flickr’s code.
Thanks!
1 July 2006, on 11:50 am
Will do, Sean. I don’t know what it is but the one I posted from here on the strange machine and IE6 worked, whereas the “Leviticus” post I did at home on my machine and Firefox didn’t. Strange. Here’s something I’m wondering about. When I paste flickr’s code into the Wordpress box, the link letters appear highlighted. Does that mean anything? Also, when I go back to try and edit- once I’ve realized that the picture isn’t there, I find that the code has shifted. As far as the bounce back goes, I got your change of email notification at raindogzilla69@fuse.net so I don’t know what’s wrong.
1 July 2006, on 12:39 pm
“This is the very reason I have such a hard time voting. Isn’t placating the evangelicals equivalent to two steps backward. No guts no glory. Bow down to stupid. Man how pathetic.”
Jimmer, I should have made it clear in my post about do we address fundamentalists or not, that I was referring only to real people, i.e. not politicians. I don’t want to hear any of them talk about either their shitty fundamentalism or their trying to be understanding of someone else’s shitty fundamentalism. It makes no nano of difference, since they’re all sellouts (excepting folks like McKinney, Lee, Waters, Conyers, etc., we all know who they are). I was speaking only of what do you do when you meet a real person who is spouting such drivel and I’m not sure, but lean toward taking each case as it comes.
Great bumper sticker, by the way. Good laugh for a hot Saturday.
Raindog, what’s become of Mean Jean? Haven’t heard anything since she scandalized everyone by accusing Murtha of being a traitor. Also, you undoubtedly know more than I do, but I thought Hackett wasn’t anti the war exactly, but just had a different approach to it. Cleveland Metroparks is one good thing about living here; Darwin knows there are many awful things.
1 July 2006, on 3:14 pm
Sorry, RDZ, but I haven’t a clue what’s going on. I don’t know why anything would look highlighted in the WordPress edit box itself. The code is definitely shifting, all right. Best try not using the Flickr code and use the img button in WordPress. I’m stumped.
1 July 2006, on 6:13 pm
Catherine, I understand things have improved up there since the Cuyahoga River caught fire right before I moved south. Mean Jean still walks the floor of Congress, having withstood a fairly stout primary challenge from someone not so wingnutty. That district(OH-2) went over 65% for Bush in both ‘00 and ‘04 and, still, Hackett came within two percentage points of nailing Schmidt. Paul’s working with IAVAPAC- Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America Political Action Committee, subbing on radio for both Springer and Ed Schultz, and, I’m not so sure about this one, suing the gov’t on behalf of 26.5 milion vets who’s info was recently stolen.
He wasn’t completely against the war- or the removing of Hussein anyway, I mean, he went. But he was disgusted by the way the American public was manipulated by this administration- into believing Iraq was an imminent threat, had WMDs, was part of 9/11, was a haven for terrorists, etc. He also was sickened by the way they ran the War in pretty much every phase.
1 July 2006, on 7:34 pm
I’ve been thinking about this for awhile now. It still seems as though the politicians are being compromised into passing a quasi- religious test. They are more or less required to hold a religious belief of some kind. That mile long inch. I think in that way that they are placating the evangelicals. Not in a point by point accepatance but just in acknowleging the religious set-up. The evangelicals have been shaping the debate now for 30+ years and are getting very good at it. I am uncertain as to what the antidote is for such qualifying. But the reality is that religion has shaped the political environment and that of and by itself is a major cause of the problems we face. As well as a major concern for the longevity of real true freedom. To the religious there is only a few problems that need to be addressed by Gov’t. The rest of life is about religion. I still hear people who want the HPV vaccine to be given to girls when they are 18 any younger and apparently that gives the young girls a license to have sex.??? And these are the people who are dominating the political scene.
The religious as M was saying apparently will unite behind their own beliefs and accept people who have similar beliefs. But they will not accept those of us who do not share their beliefs. I understand the idea Obama is giving as more of building bridges but I am most afraid that the bridge leads to a one way dead end street.
1 July 2006, on 8:26 pm
Jimmer, it’s not particularly an appetizing option getting in bed with the religious but, just from my experience with quite a few of the more moderate xians, I find that they do respect the separation of church and state, that they decidedly do not want a theocracy, that they, in fact, are not really even inclined to pimp their goddery to others unless they’re asked. They support civil rights, most support gay marriage, choice, and war as an absolutely last option. They’re really a lot like us though they haven’t taken that final step, and it is absolutely necessary to include them on the left- see the percentages above, if we are to rid ourselves of this meddlesome neocon infestation.
Hey, Sean, maybe doing this is altruism?
1 July 2006, on 8:48 pm
First of all, check out The Atheist Prophet The name is a joke, of course. Just getting started with it but tell me what you think…
I yhought I posted to this already. A spamware issue again?
Pfft. Probably NSA courtesy of AT&T. But I digress.
Man, fuck Obama. He’s a pissant sellout apologist that uses issues lie this to cover his pro-corporate takeover of the Government. The dill hole rolled over for the Credit Card Industry bill. Man of the people my ass.
I read about this the day after in my local paper, the St. Louis Post Disgrace.
My ire was sparked from this line:
“The Christians who I would work with, they recognized themselves in me; they saw that I knew their book and shared their values and sang their songs. But they sensed a part of me that remained detached and removed, that I was an observer in their midst,” Obama said.
So, it bothered him that the Christians mistrusted and ostracised him. And even though he considered himself a skeptic of sorts, he betrayed logic and surrendered to peer pressure.
For political gain. It’s like Lieberman, who on Meet the Press on Easter Sunday 2005 that he thinks that people do not have freedom from religion, only freedom of. Which mirrors a widely reported “belief” of the Bush family that you’re not really an American citizen if you don’t beleive in some dumb ass dogma.
Preferably theirs. I wouldn’t recommend Islam right now either. You might get charged for blowing up the Sears Tower!
Personally, I think it’ time for a class action suit against the Government. Newdow is only picking the window dressing issues. We need to focus on thing like the Faith Based Initiatives and electioneering in evangelical churches.
1 July 2006, on 11:39 pm
DRB, the point of the post was not to in anyway tout Obama politically but, rather to tackle that sticky issue; whether seculars and liberal religionists can coexist and, more importantly, effectively organize an offesnse against the offensive fundies. After being impressed with his speech at the Dem Convention, I haven’t paid much attention to or heard much about Obama’s fledgling term. This would seem to indicate that he’s going along to get along and/or being kept in line by the boys in the smoke-filled rooms that run the party. I have no love for any dems who voted for the bankruptcy sham or, for that matter, for the ones who rolled over for Alito and Roberts and refuse to take a stand against the War. In other words, this is no endorsement of Obama. Oh, and for some folks who are doing something about the electioneering in evangelical megachurches, check this.
5 July 2006, on 7:33 pm
It seems to me that politics has always been a swamp of sorts: no matter who you are going in, you’re deliberately entering what amounts to a mudhole, so prepare to get dirty.
What will determine who survives the quicksand is any given individual’s ability to observe, analyze, weigh options, and make a decision in what amounts to nanoseconds. If getting your way, even if it’s truly for the “greater good,” means wallowing with the big pigs for a while, then that’s what you’ll have to do. At the very least you’ll learn their tactics and strategy, and eventually you’ll float on the top of the mire as opposed to sinking in it.
Sartre wrote what I consider a great play (despite my impatience with existentialism) entitled, “Dirty Hands.” In it, a charismatic party leader negotiates with his political opponents rather than keep his stance “pure.” One of Sartre’s points was that in politics, as in life, it’s not only practically impossible to keep your hands clean, but often imperative to get them dirty in order to further your goals.
I think extreme circumstances call for extreme measures. If liberal politicians are to have any hope of achieving their objectives, they may have to jump in the muck with everyone else, even if they end up climbing on top of them to gain the upper hand. It may be ruthlessly Machiavellian, but if it works–?
5 July 2006, on 8:00 pm
I agree, Eve. Politics is not for the pure. You gotta do what you gotta do. The key is always the end result. I grew up in a family active in politics and learned at an early age to leave my idealism at the door. Well, not so much at the door, but in my back pocket. When it comes to candidates and issues I support, I keep my eye on the distant target, but for negotiating the immediate obstacle, I play to win.
5 July 2006, on 10:04 pm
I like that, Sean; “don’t leave your idealism at the door, just in your back pocket.”