Recruitment
Obama says we are one nation under god. But we’re not. That’s factually incorrect.
- Not all of us are under god. I’m not. Lots of people I know are not. We don’t think there is any god to be under; we don’t think there is any good reason to think there is any god to be under; we wouldn’t be under it even if we did think it existed.
- The government doesn’t get to order us to be under god. It doesn’t get to enlist us into the party of those under god. It is none of the government’s business whether or not we are under god. We get to not be under god if we want to; that is our right.
So Obama shouldn’t be telling us we are one nation under god. It’s not true, and he has no business trying to make it true by asserting it. He should keep his poxy god to himself.
Notice, by the way, that PBS too, like the BBC, has something it calls “Religion and Ethics.” PBS, like the BBC, stupidly thinks religion and ethics go together, thus perpetuating the stupid and coercive fiction that ethics depends on religion and that non-religious people are unethical, if not downright evil.
A pox on all of them.
O/T (though on-t I quite agree: sod Obama) –
Would be really interested in some thoughts on this, Ophelia.
Meh. Barack Obama is president of the United States. The president of the United States is not expected to speak honestly in public; he’s expected to project what he thinks is best for the nation. Frankly, if he had asked me, I’d have advised him to say pretty much what he did. Ophelia, you need to re-read your Machiavelli.
President Obama used to use language that was inclusive of non-theists and the non-religious, but that tendency (which was prevalent when his approval rating was higher) has decreased quite a bit. Seems like the worse a president’s approval rating is, the more God-talk we see in that president’s speeches.
It is a desperate measure that won’t gain the effect that he is hoping for. The religious right don’t care what he says about religion; they will still insist that he hates America and is probably a Muslim who acts Kenyan.
So often I am completely discouraged about whether mankind will ever be enlightened about humanism or atheism, religion serves so many powerful interests that the Enlightenment will not be allowed to progress any farther than it already has.
Okay, sign me Gloomy Gus if you want.
Hi Ophelia, this is tangential to the topic, but what do you think? Some of the comments make me cringe.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/brisbane-atheist-burns-koran-and-bible-20100913-157ao.html
One Nation under God
Which God?
If America is under God you’d think there’d be a lot more lightning strikes in Washington.
@Ken: You have a point, but I still think it’s a little disappointing.
I agree, and thought that Jerry Coyne’s alternative would certainly have been preferable.
But, speaking as an American citizen, it’s the case that we’re more than a little disappointing. It is baffling how popular is the perception – which people honestly feel (a good reminder of the disassociation of feeling from honesty) – that Christianity is under assault in America. If, in trying to express national unity in opposition to religious extremism, Obama had not used the word God, it would have been noticed.
For the record, “under god” wasn’t even part of the pledge of allegiance until 1954. So even by American standards it’s isn’t some grand tradition to say we’re under God.
Off topic: What about that referendum passing in Turkey, eh? They say it’ll give the leading party too much power, but I think it’s a good step forward, giving the military less power and illegalizing discrimination against older and disabled people.
Oh, my! You’re so strident!
Bravo, Ophelia.
BenSix@1:
I know you’re not asking me, but I thought that guy spent a lot of time congratulating himself for realizing things that have been obvious to most atheists for a long time.
Here’s the money quote:
Despite what Marks says here, I’m fairly certain that Dawkins, Harris, etc. don’t believe in some metaphysical Platonist conception of morals that exists independent of people. In fact, most of them have come out and said as much. NAs typically interpret “morality” to mean something like “ethical behavior, however ‘ethical’ is defined” rather than any kind of behaviorally normative ghostly writing on the sky. This Marks guy seems to think he’s a genius for completely missing that boat.
That said, that article does make a really good case against religious morality. I just don’t see why he seems to think any of the arguments are new or particularly profound.
Way to feed the demonizing “atheists have no morals” meme — if this guy thinks the average U.S. citizen makes fine linguistic distinctions between “morals” and “ethics,” he’s totally out of touch.
I thought Obama was intelligent I have now change my mind. Does he not understand that ethics should be replaced with the word morality? Which is the religious version of ethics and comes with added punishment.
That collocation of “Religion And Ethics” on the BBC really annoys me, sure Thought For The Day on Radio 4 is normally harmless fluff, but the fact that only religious leaders and commentators are allowed on it just hammers home most religion’s message that it’s only possible to be moral or ethical if you believe in god.