Standing outside
About that struggle that James Croft was having (and perhaps still is).
I feel a similar ambivalence regarding the religious elements of Obama’s beautiful speech…Yet I recognize, too, that I cannot join the ranks of Americans bending knee to pray while remaining true to my beliefs, to myself. I must express my shock and sadness in another way. I’m standing outside the church, my face pressed against the stained-glass windows, longing for solidarity with those inside, but unable to cross the threshold.
This is one major reason Obama should not have used religious elements in his beautiful speech. It is because doing so excludes a large part of the population, which it shouldn’t do. It’s not the business of a president to do that. One of the results of doing that is to make people feel as if they are standing outside, longing for solidarity with those inside, but unable to cross the threshold. That’s bad. He shouldn’t do it. It’s not his job, it’s not his role, it’s not what he’s supposed to be doing, and he just should not do it.
It doesn’t bother me personally, because I don’t long to be inside, but it does bother me because I’m not the only person affected. Religious elements are exactly what some people want, of course, but then they can easily get them in other places. It’s not a president’s job to play preacher some of the time.
How about some inclusiveness for non-believers, for a change?
Being British, I can honestly say that most of us here would be squirming and wincing at any equivalent religious language used by our prime minister. It is pretty much the case that we don’t do religion here in politics. And that is how secularism should be done.
I simply remain baffled and disappointed with Obama. I am equally baffled and outraged at the other side of American politics. I am waiting to see whether or not the violent political rhetoric begins to diminish or become even more entrenched.
Fellow Brit here Egbert – remember that we British folks “don’t do God”!
I wonder, though, if drawing on the huge reservoir of symbolism and imagery within his religious tradition isn’t at least a little reasonable in Obama’s case given his own beliefs and the beliefs of much of his populace. Can we legitimately expect him to craft a whole speech with a tiny minority in mind? The answer to this question may well be “yes”, but it isn’t immediately clear to me that it is “yes”.
He may be our president but hehas little to no incentive to consider us in his decision making. Sadly there’s no where else for us to go and no one is going to criticize him for this. No one who isn’t going to be called an angry atheist trying to take advantage of a tragedy, anyway. Personally I don’t even notice anymore. Whether it was back in high school having to pray before a performance or being ordered to pray while in formation, I’ve more or less accepted it as part of any public ritual.
I should say ‘having to stand there with my head bowed while the Chaplain prays”. Thankfully no one actually ‘orders’ us to pray individually.
Ah, he’s been more inclusive of nonbelievers than any president in our history. Remember that when he speaks, it is as the executive of the nation, not as an independent citizen. I, frankly, admired his ability to draw on the prophetic traditions so important to so many, and I really didn’t think that he was excluding me.
Yes, we are excluded by our neighbors. Obviously. But I don’t have my face pressed against the stained-glass windows. I’m just hanging around outside, waiting for my neighbors to return to our diverse, shared, enterprises. They know that I have no respect for their superstitions, and maybe they’ll think about that one day. Or maybe not. In any event, there’s nothing tragic about our state of affairs.
James Croft:
The minority isn’t that tiny: about 16% of Americans say they have no religion. Many of those are “religious unaffiliated” — nebulously religious but not belonging to any particular religion — but there are still 10% who are really not religious. And 18% say they “seldom” or “never” pray. [source: Pew Forum]
So yeah, it seems weird and inaccurate (if not particularly surprising) when Obama says something like, “I have come here tonight as an American who, like all Americans, kneels to pray with you today, and will stand by you tomorrow.” It’s just false. It would be false if there were only one American who wasn’t inclined to respond to tragedy with prayer, but with such a large number? Yeah, he should be more inclusive.
Remember that Obama was attacked by conservatives for even calling for a moment of “prayer and reflection” instead of just prayer.
From Redstate’s (and CNN’s) Erik Erickson:
“He recently made people mad by quoting the Declaration of Independence and leaving out the bit about the Creator. During his inaugural address he mentioned atheists and subsequently proclaimed us not a Christian nation.
In yesterday’s “moment of silence” he wanted prayer or reflection. Here’s the problem — when conservatives push for school prayer and advocate for a “National Day of Prayer,” they include “or reflection” to get around namby-pamby atheist objectors.
But the left uses it too. The left uses it to accommodate atheists.
President Obama’s statement stands out because it is just another verbal telling that he’s ideologically of the left. He already has problems with a public perception of him and his faith. That things like this keep coming up suggests the general public is right in their skepticism of the sincerity of his faith. ”
I’m something of an ObamaWatcher. Candidate Obama would sometimes use the terms “nonbelievers” and “those who have no religion at all” in his speeches. In his inaugural address, he includes one such reference. [http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-01-20-obama-non-believers_N.htm] But these references to the nonreligious have appeared to taper off since. Additionally, as president he leans on the God-talk more than he did as a candidate. (That’s my personal observation.) I don’t claim to know why, but since taking office it’s obvious that a conscious decision was made with respect to such references.
I don’t know enough about the United States to comment with assurance on this topic. I guess my question is: Despite the fact that there is a sizeable minority who are non-believers, whether atheists or agnostics or don’t cares, still the preponderance of the American population is comprised of religious believers of one kind or another. Over the last decade or two — perhaps longer — no candidate who has not been up front with his or her religion has stood a chance of being elected. This is a curious eccentricity about American life which I don’t pretend to understand. However, this being the case, doesn’t Obama, in order to have any credibility at all, have at least to pretend to religious devotion, especially in a time of crisis?
His presidency is in some doubt, given the rabid reaction of the GOP over the last two years. Would he stand a chance at all if he were just to leave religion out? Would this not be noticed as a huge lacuna which his political opponents would rush to fill in for him? And despite the difficulty in governing the country, because of the high-powered lobbying which obviously dominates DC politics, is there anyone of even marginal liberal sympathies who would like to see a Tea Partier in in the White House? If not, then doesn’t the President need to placate the fanatical religious centre of the country? It may strike one as a tiny bit Machiavellian, but not all that much, surely? If Obama is being criticised for linking prayer and reflection, what chance did he have if he had never mentioned prayer at all? Just a few questions from the sideline. Here in Canada, if a politician so much as mentions religion, he or she is immediately looked at with some justified suspicion, but obviously it’s a bit different south of the 49th parallel.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Eve-Marie. Eve-Marie said: RT @rHumanist, @BarackObama leaves some standing outside #humanism #atheist http://tiny.ly/UyuQ […]
The fact that Obama even mentioned non-believers during his campaign is amazing.
You can’t be POTUS and not constantly mention “our thoughts and prayers”.
On the other hand, I don’t think anyone really thinks Clinton or Obama are hardcore believers at heart.
There’s a large segment of “spiritual” people in our country who would simply find adamant atheism to be churlish. Like “why do you have to rain on our well-intended parade?”. It’s not this black and white church-goers versus atheists dichotomy.
@Eric MacDonald
It could be more about expediency than credibility.
I find it ironic that in order to get the xtian vote Obama has to lie about his beliefs. On the other hand this may be an accurate assessment on his part of how xtianity actually works in practice.
One problem with that is that it’s supposed to be one of our strengths, in the US, that in fact we do keep minorities in mind, even tiny ones. That’s the point of the Bill of Rights, as it’s the point of the Universal version.
Another problem with it is of course that what is at issue is not Obama’s duty to give an atheist speech. It’s not about Obama’s duty to give a speech that respects a tiny minority while insulting the vast majority. It’s about giving a speech that doesn’t systematically exclude anyone.
Now of course you can’t do that in all particulars. He’s naturally going to exclude people who don’t care about what happened in Tucson, people who approve of it, people who are not paying attention, people who are too ill or busy to listen to it or read about it, etc etc. But his exclusion of non-theists is extra. The majority doesn’t have a “right” to have its magical beliefs coddled.
It may be politically necessary for him to do just that, but that wasn’t what I was talking about. I think it’s a bad thing, however expedient it may be.
Ha. I cross-posted with Steve – and we both mentioned expediency. Interesting.
This is a very good point. I think it does come down to the expediency question. During a time of national mourning is probably not the most expedient moment to try to address the exclusion of the nonreligious from public life. I even feel somewhat churlish for raising the issue, frankly. You are right to say that, as a matter of principle, it should be seen as a strength when a president does this.
Actually, I think I’ve just convinced myself of the opposite position: isn’t it MORE important at a time of national mourning to ensure that everyone can share in the nation’s grief? If those who choose not to pray are to be excluded even at such moments, when can they ever expect inclusion?
If he doesn’t cater to christians he won’t get re-elected. Then we get stuck with another right winger who will return to W’s christianizing of the government. In america, a president must be emotional, not tend toward the cerebral, and he must be overtly religous of the christian brand. Otherwise he has no chance.
So we progressives accept it as the cost of having one of ours in office and move on.
James, well quite. :- )
On the expediency thing – I think it’s possible to use “prophetic” language without using explicitly religious language. I think he could sound quasi-biblical without just plain telling us we all bend the knee. I really think it’s a considerable exaggeration to say he won’t be re-elected if he doesn’t tell us all to bend the knee!
I must kindly disagree, Ophelia. Remember, he is already fighting the malicious meme, believed by 20-30% of the country, that he is really Muslim. And his inclusion of non-believers in his inaugural address sparked huge controversy. Unlike any other president, he must constantly reassure voters that he is christian. This christian identity thing is an important issue to the majority of the country. I wish it were an exaggeration.
The non-believers shout-out inspired huge controversy? I don’t remember that. I don’t think it did. Later stuff, yes, but that, no.
Look, people who believe he’s a Muslim aren’t going to change their minds because he tells us all to bend the knee. They don’t really have minds to change – they have slot machines or something.
And I just don’t believe he has to use actual, specific god-talk instead of vaguely prophetic, elevated, poetic language. Limbaugh and Beck are going to squawl no matter what he does, people who think they’re worth listening to are going to do that no matter what, but less bat-loony people will settle for generic piety.
And I think James is right about the time of national mourning. I think he’s right that that’s not a time to exclude people. Maybe that’s why I’m being so obstinate. I was and am hugely upset about Tucson, because it smashes one of the best things we (and others) do. And that was a secular thing. In fact if it had been a churchy thing, I doubt that I would be complaining if Obama had talked of bending the knee. I would have shrugged it off. But this wasn’t a churchy thing! It was entirely secular. Safeway; the street; a Rep; a federal judge; some constituents. It was open, not closed the way churches and mosques are. It was inclusive. Exclusivist rhetoric is inappropriate in response to its destruction. It’s a bad fit.
I agree with your sentiment, Ophelia. I just don’t think it is politically wise at this point. I’m guessing his staff did a calculation on the wording. He is preparing for reelection. The rethugs will use a microscope to identify wording issues to attack him on.
Yes, I wish he were more congruent with my issues (and he may actually be), but he has to use broad strokes. And he has to move more to the center (most of the country prefers centrist presidents; 9/11 allowed Bush, unusally, to move to the right).
But unlike any other president in history, he has listened to non-believers. And if he gets reelected, he will have less to lose and can take more political risks. I know you have no reason to trust my sense on this, but I live in D.C. and have – how can I say this – more than the average person’s feel for this kind of real politic. I could be wrong, and I could be in some sort of epistemic bubble because I am immersed in “inside the beltway” chatter.
Which is why I pay attention to opinions by Brits and Aussies, who view US politics through a different optic.
One additonal point and then I’ll go away. I’m not sure if people outside of the US realze how events like this shooting and 9/11 affect the american consciousness.
I will recommend a beautifully written book by Susan Faludi – The Terror Dream – which explicates unerringly how the wild west mythology informs american reaction to attacks, especially on females. The shooting struck deeply, and Obama probably took the relgious feelings of the victims into account. Maybe you have already read it, and if so, forgive my presumptuousness. L7.
But you haven’t convinced me that he has to use explicitly goddy language instead of generic prophetic-type language. I’m not saying he doesn’t have to try to appeal to the center, I’m saying he could do that with quasi-churchy talk as opposed to fully-churchy talk. I see no reason to think that the center would hear solemn quasi-churchy talk and suspiciously think “Why isn’t he telling us to bend the knee?” I think it’s only people who wouldn’t vote for him anyway who would be that crazy.
I think that’s where the Dems often go wrong, too. They try to appeal to the farthest-out right wing, when that’s a lost cause.
Trust me, I am highly critical of Dems in congress, especially their timidity when confront rethug messaging. But I’m seeing a lot of criticism of Obama from the left – people saying they will not support him – and they do not realize what their legitimate alternative is. Romney? Palin? Because if the Dems run someone other than Obama he or she will not win as it will show weakness and party confusion.
And what has he accomplished in 2 freakin’ years? More in social progress issues than any other president in history, except maybe Lincoln and he was Republican. There is a saying, Perfection is the enemy of the good, which may apply with Obama. He is not perfect, but who would be better?
In my ideal scenario, Biden would step down and Hilary would be the VP, ensuring a win and setting her up for 2016 if she wants it. But that is just my fantasy.
‘I will recommend a beautifully written book by Susan Faludi – The Terror Dream – which explicates unerringly how the wild west mythology informs american reaction to attacks, especially on females.’
Its a bloody awful book written by someone who hasn’t seen a movie since The Searchers – and she didn’t even understand that.
I doubt she even owns a TV set.
Here is what someone I still respect, Gore Vidal, has to say about the Democrats and Religion:
http://duck.aramis.klodzko.pl/2011/01/19/gore-vidal-on-the-democrats-and-religion/
Still as lucid as ever at aged 85.
I was under the impression that anyone at all in US politics who made the slightest attempt to include non-beleivers would immediately be publicly denounced as “a closet Marxist trying to undermine our Constitution and way of life.”
Oh, wait a minute, didn’t they already say that about Obama?