Small correction
Just one little thing, Mr President.
Mr Obama reminded everyone of his religious leanings by saying that “as a person of faith, I believe we are called to care for each other and work to ease human suffering”.
Come on – you know better than that. Play fair. I realize you have to soothe the religious as much as possible, but don’t do it by throwing the non-religious under the bus. You know that’s silly, you know that persons of no faith can just as well believe we should or must care for each other and work to ease human suffering. Yes we say ‘should or must’ instead of ‘are called to’ – but you know the should or must can be every bit as strong and peremptory as the called to. I know you know this because you used to be an atheist yourself, and you know plenty of atheists, and you’ve worked with all sorts of people, and you’re sensible and observant. You’re not like your inattentive clueless incurious predecessor, who probably does really think that only ‘persons of faith’ have any moral sense; so do try not to talk like him.
Thanks about the stem-cell research though. Love ya, mean it.
You won the election, Mr. President. Throwing a bone to religionists was unnecessary when reversing the ban on stem-cell research. They’re still gonna hate you for it and it taints the sweetness the rest of us feel when you resort to such transparent rhetoric.
Don’t mean to quibble, but you’re usually much better at this sort of thing.
Brian. President Obama is getting his retaliation in first, he knows full well he will be howled at for being a Godless commie by the right over the stem cell decision so he is pre empting them with this speech?
There is always the possibility, absurd I know, that President Obama is a sincere, liberal Christian. Just a thought.
There is. There’s also the possibility that he’s really a man and really a democrat. But he isn’t the president of sincere liberal god-botherer male democrats. He’s the president of the United States.
dirigible, that’s true, but as far as I know, the US Constitution does not oblige the President to pretend to be something he’s not, or to offer explanations he doesn’t believe in, simply for others’ comfort.
It might be better to work on the idea that not all Xians are as bad as the Bush years made it feel, rather than hoping that Xianity can somehow be magically airbrushed from US political life. Because the latter is really not going to happen.
Of course there is the possibility that President Obama is a sincere, liberal Christian; as far as I know that is in fact the case. But nothing I said disputes that, nor am I suggesting that Xianity can somehow be magically airbrushed from US political life. I’m just objecting to implicit claims that only ‘people of faith’ (loathsome phrase) think we should work to ease human suffering.
He may have meant it the other way, actually – he may have meant it to point out to ‘people of faith’ that caring for embryos at the expense of people is not the only way for ‘people of faith’ to go. But I still want him to watch the sinister implications. I don’t think that’s asking all that much!
Richard, if the President was attempting pre-emption he didn’t succeed. Even if sincere (and I have no reason to doubt it), his statement came across as merely tailored to the politics surrounding the reversal of policy. He is usually more careful about such things.
Dave, don’t pretend to naivete, the Constitution may not oblige the President to be something he’s not but the American people certainly do.
And stop playing us for fools. I doubt anyone here thinks Xinanity is going to be “air-brushed” from American politics anytime soon – the Constitution notwithstanding.
I’m not a fan of this binary logic. Just because somebody says one thing doesn’t mean he simultaneously means not the opposite. Stating boys need father figures doesn’t imply that girls don’t. Stating the poor need health care doesn’t imply the rich don’t.
Stating his belief system calls him to act a certain way doesn’t imply that those that don’t share that system aren’t.
Unfortunately Zach, you neglect to note the importance of the context in which such statements are most often made and in which they lose much of their binary quality.
It remains the case that a majority of religionists insist religion is the source and keeper of the human moral compass. We would not be having this discussion otherwise. Obama is smart enough to know how his words feed into that presupposition and the unwarranted privilege they give to religion in the context of science and medical ethics.
“Just because somebody says one thing doesn’t mean he simultaneously means not the opposite.”
Right. So that would be why I said, just above that, “he may have meant it to point out to ‘people of faith’ that caring for embryos at the expense of people is not the only way for ‘people of faith’ to go.”
But as Brian said, there is a context for this kind of thing.
Brian I took his speech to mean pretty much what O.B has just said about caring for embryos at the expence of people not being the only way a decent christian man could veiw things. To me it didnt come across as a cynical ploy although this may be in the eye of the beholder?
Also the president has to play the hand he is dealt, as the U.S is about 90 percent christian it is probably quite sensible of him to frame things this way?
Brian, are you suggesting I think he’s making it up? I fail to see the naivete in proposing that a President is entitled to express the views he has. I was responding to dirigible’s implication that *because* Obama is POTUS he shouldn’t invoke religion. I understand that many US politicians keep views which they know to be unpopular quiet, especially about religion, but I find it odd that someone might think Obama was doing this. Colour me confused, about your intention, at least.
Richard, you may well be right. I concede that Obama may have been merely attempting to reframe the STR controversy from his liberal Xian perspective. I think I said as much.
The frisson of irritation I experienced was once again having to endure the invocation of religion in a state where there is a Constitutional separation of Church and State – especially where the issue is science (which Obama has vowed to give precedence) previously hijacked by religionists. The proper invocation would have been Michael J. Fox and other beneficiaries denied the benefits of research by the former President and his fellow religious cranks.
For what it’s worth, I am an American living in Canada where no politician would ever invoke religion as his/her guide to the morality of policy. But then, they’d never attend a political “Prayer Breakfast” either.
Dave, I didn’t say you were naive, I said you were pretending to it by invoking the Constitution while ignoring the obvious political realities on the ground where religion impacts the President and other public figures.
No I don’t think the President is lying. I also think it’s beside the point.
As for “good” Xians versus “Bush” (=”bad”) Xians: who cares or has the time or inclination to parse among them?
Forum members believing Xiananity can be “air-brushed” from American politics? A straw-man of your own invention.
What you believe appropriate for the President to reveal of his personal beliefs as they colour scientific (and ostensibly secular) policy? Fine. Just don’t gloss over other’s arguments when they disagree or refute yours. That’s bad faith.
Be confused about my intentions no longer.
OK, I see now you were trying to be aggressive and confrontational. That’s fine.
Yes, Dave, as opposed to manipulative and disingenous. Done.