NoGodBlog.com

You can't get elected president in this country without pandering to the theists.

I read through the brochure and I couldn't find a particular passage that linked "faith and morals" - particularly not in a way that linked "lack of faith" with "immorality". Can you point out where that is? Did "Faith and Morals" come from Obama or was it tagged onto the TV screen by the news broadcaster?

cjn

All the more reason to believe virtually nothing a politician says, especially during an election year.

Having said tht, I should add that I'm gonna vote Democratic in the next election, even if they (literally) field a jackass.

Ant to think; I was once a registered Republican.

- sigh -

Here is a picture of Obama campaign material in Kentucky. Tacky.

http://race42008.com/2008/05/12/barack-obamas-pitch-in-kentucky/

Is it possible that when Obama touts "Faith and Morals" he is not implying that they are causally linked. Rather, what he may be saying is that if you are going to be one of the faithful then don't forget that you are going to need to work on your morality as well because they are anything but causally linked.

It is my guess that at least some politicians perpetuate the myth while being at least agnostic....

I will vote for Obama, I think he will not appoint the myths into the Supreme Court....

Obama's got a lot of good things going for him, but I'd think he would have learned by now to PLAY DOWN the religion thing. He made himself a sitting duck for those ridiculous Rev. Wright attacks. If he hadn't played up the religious side earlier, the role of his pastor's ideas in Obama's political life would have seemed insignificant.

I saw this coming a while back when Obama's wife was speaking at a conference on Book TV (I think that's what the TV programm is called). Hmmm, it sounds like AA needs to do some serious broadcasting on TV some time soon to counter this. AA needs some serious PR work if its position will ever be considered by the Christian majority.

Or maybe this jewel of a website would serve AA well link to .... http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Category:Videos

QF's Blog: http://irrationaltheorist.blogspot.com/

mdetrano,

How right you are. Unfortunately, the candidates apparently feel compelled to go into great detail about their religious beliefs and background. For all that, there are still plenty of people out there who are absolutely convinced that Obama is a Muslim, so talking about his xian nonsense didn't help him anyway.

The document posted also specifically recognizes nonbelievers. OK, so Obama isn't the atheist candidate. He's the only candidate to acknowledge in his campaign materials that nonbelievers have a place at the table.

That's been my feeling about Obama since the day I made my choice in the Dem race -- everyone has a place at his table. (No, that's not meant to be a Last Supper metaphor.) Obama is an inclusionist. That includes all those theistic people -- but it also includes nontheistic people like me.

great point romulusnr...will there ever be no enemies....

the only thing that really devides us are dumb ideas....and phreedm certainly has many of those....

HUGE vistory for marriage equality today! CA overturns ban on gay marriage:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24649689/

The most populous US state just took a stand for equality which will hopefull cause other states to follow. YEAH!!!

Alex

A blow struck for equality!

Atheists next, OK?

a candidate pandering to the religious and carping their own religion virtue, while distasteful to me, is not an automatic reason not to vote for someone. so if two candidates are "of similar ideology" in most respects i will always opt for the one least religiously incline.

however, since i constantly berate xtians for voting for or against someone solely based on their stand on abortion, it would be hypocritical of me to do the same in regard to religion.

that having been said, i would not vote for a religious freak (like our current failure) under any circumstances.

dave, you're re-acting too sensitively to all this. obama is our best current hope for the near future. he has enough personal diversity of thought for the times both here and abroad. he may not be the brightest or have the most political experience, but i feel that has the best grasp on thinking in the other guys shoes. if we had more of that with world leaders, we would be better off in the long term.

WOW...WHAT HYPOCRICY...!!!

Hickabee: Whore for Jesus

Comment from: karen

but there's no rule saying he can't advertise his faith in his campaign. The irony is, jeebus wouldn't approve.

Comment from: Charlie

Phreedm's idea of constitutional rights is the right for all to have a cross shoved up their asses in the form of

Comment from: Charlie

its horrible to think jesus is running for the white house.....

Huck is certainly carrying the cross through his campaign....whats next....a sacrifice....

Comment from: karen

brad

As I said before, I am of the opinion that Huck is an accessory to rape and murder. Therefore, he is not an eligible candidate worth considering.

Comment from: rna2dna

Placing christian death crosses in political advertisements is consistent with a lack of values, which is common among the christian.

At a minimum Huckabee is demonstrating a lack of good judgment, which the christian generally views positively.

So much for standing up to what you believe in...it's fascinating to see the mental gymnastics being performed to make Obama a viable candidate....

Comment from: mdetrano

Obama's got a lot of good things going for him

Such as...?

Obama is not really a christian. He's actually a unitarian.

Just wondering why you are so concerned about what a person's faith base is, be a real free thinker and understand that we are all allowed to believe what we want. If you don't like his view don't vote for him. Sounds kind of simple to me.

Alex,

You miss the point...

California voted on marriage. By an overwhelming majority, 61% to 39%, the citizens of California stated marriage is between one man and one woman.

The court found this ruling unconstitutional. Where in the California constitution can this right be found?

Or is this issue like the "myth"? The shredding of the constitution is a one way street...

California voted on marriage. By an overwhelming majority, 61% to 39%, the citizens of California stated marriage is between one man and one woman.

So if the majority of Californians voted to enslave blacks again, then by your own logic, slavery should be legal?

The court found this ruling unconstitutional. Where in the California constitution can this right be found?

I believe it is called the equal-protection-under-the-law-clause.

http://www.webfoot.com/blog/2008/05/15/california-supreme-court-words-matter/

Who else would you discriminate against? Oh right. Atheists.

So much for:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...

I think you are confusing Democracy with Mob Rules. The Constitution does not protect the rights of the majority from the minority; it protects the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

there is a place at the obama table for everyone except us whites.wake up people barack and his wife hate whites.
and no one has proved he isn't a muslim stalking horse, muslims like jews are permitted by their religion to lie to nonbelievers.
they day he is sworn in is the day the army should send in the tanks.

Ren
all men are created equal is bullshit.jefferson was a traitor and rebel to his king and country.he even wouldn't pay his debts.what a role model.

if its okay for men to marry men then i guess some of you think its okay for 50 yr old mormans to marry 14 yr old girls.

Today the state of CA stood up for equality and sent a strong message that gays are equal to straights under the law and hopefully this will reverberate with other states who will follow CA's example. Same sex marriages could start in as little as a month ou there and without a residency requirement out of state gays could marry there as well and then challenge their home states for recognition of their marriage. What a great day!

reason,
Are you drunk or something?

After reading Obama on Faith I am convinced that Obama is a liberal Christian who will be congenial to nonbelievers.

alex
i wish gay people well.and no not drunk or something.i just don't see gay people getting married as end of world stuff on the other hand radical loving white hating obama will be the end of america.

mccain is just as bad as obama and clinton.no matter which one wins america loses.

I said we are all human and we all have an asshole....

reason,

Personally, I beleive that if all men were truly created equal, we would all be born perfectly healthy little Einsteins. Since that is not the case, I guess all men are NOT created equal. But hey, I didn't write the Declaration of Independence!

Of course, any idiot knows that the intent of declaring "all men are created equal" is more at "all men should be treated equally". Well, I guess not ANY idiot.

I guess I don't see Obama as particularly white hating -- in what he's said, done, or otherwise. And well, his mother's white. And he's half white. Or half black. Depends on your prejudices, eh? Sort of a glass half full, glass half empty thing, only which is which depends on which prejudice you have.

And anyone who feels the need to try to determine which label is more appropriate at all might consider what labels might apply to them.

As for the original topic, if a politician were going out of his way to pander to athiests, he'd be just as "bad", right? It's not who you pander to in politics -- you pander to anyone, everyone who might influence your chances of winning. It's whether your policies and initiatives serve everyone that matters.

That's what sets Bush apart, right? He wants to punish some in favor of those he panders. I don't see Obama -- or Clinton for that matter -- suggesting that should happen, so why lump them into that group?

Can anyone explain to me why phreedm quote mined two things I said-one about Huckabee and one about Obama and linked them to hypocrisy? I haven't even commented on this thread yet. O.o
I just got home from a pleasant evening out with friends and found the phreek calling me a hypocrite. Or he's calling Dave one, but that doesn't make sense either, since Dave didn't say what I did, and I didn't say what Dave did.

Comment from: Ren

So if the majority of Californians voted to enslave blacks again, then by your own logic, slavery should be legal?

Nice try Ren...try again. You've obviously missed the point also...

I believe it is called the equal-protection-under-the-law-clause.

I see you didn't actually read the California Constitution but took information from a 3rd party...

Yep...great DD.

Comment from: Cynic

He wants to punish some in favor of those he panders. I don't see Obama -- or Clinton for that matter -- suggesting that should happen

You have chosen not to see it...

Look up Obama's comments about raising the Capital Gains tax...

Fair enough Karen. I did group it together...

My apologies...

Poor, poor rich people.

phreedm

OK. Apology accepted. Thanks.

You miss the point...

You've obviously missed the point also...

The "missing the point" phrase is usually used by folks that have trouble making one.
It's a bit like the phrase "Well frankly". What usual follows is anything but frank.

phreedumb:

Nice try Ren...try again. You've obviously missed the point also...

YAAFM, phreedumb, YAAFM. Your own words:

California voted on marriage. By an overwhelming majority, 61% to 39%, the citizens of California stated marriage is between one man and one woman.

So, let's see how it looks with a few minor alterations:

California voted on slavery. By an overwhelming majority, 61% to 39%, the citizens of California stated black men could be owned by white.

Or, if you've somehow limited it only to the issue of marriage, here's an alternative:

California voted on marriage. By an overwhelming majority, 61% to 39%, the citizens of California stated marriage is between a white man and a white woman.

Ofcourse, we're "missing the point" because the "point" you're agruing is a set of morals currently contested in the change of today's zeitgeist, whereas the slavery or racial discrimination has long since been "morally dumped" with the majority of christian "God given" Bible morals, and you have to at least give lip service to that.

It's all perfectly reasonable. Hell, even the most depraved must keep up the charade of morality. So, don't worry, you're in good company of your co-religionists.

http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Mike_Gravel

OK...Let me spell it out for those who are incapable of intelligent thought...

We are discussing "rights"...period.

Slavery isn't a "right"...

Weak...very weak.

Concerning the Obama pandering to christians. I really hate defending Obama, but you have to realize that there are individuals out there that still think Obama is really a muslim. An ad like this was needed to show those individuals that he is a christian, imo to mainly just prove he is not a muslim.

As to the Homesexual marige topic, I've always found it funny that the issues is considered a rights issue. First off groups do not have rights, individuals do. Secondly everyone in this country has the same right, to marry someone from the opposite sex. A straight can't marry another man , just as a gay man could not. Nobody has the right to marry someone you love only to marry the opposite sex, if you happen to love that individual than great.

That being said I still feel gay marriage being illegal is asinine.

Tell me why it would be wrong for the California Supreme Court to rule that age restrictions on marriage are unconstitutional?

Why is it wrong for a 35 year old man to marry a 13 year old girl? It wouldn't matter that the majority of the state voted for age limitations to marriage. Four individuals could overturn the law as unconstitutional...

Shut up, thumpers.

Apparently someone on this blog doesn't realize the folly of equating homosexualiity with pedophilia.

I'd rather have a gay person watch over my children (if I had some) than a jeebus freak.

Go CA! I applaud the CA supreme court.

Oh yeah, Obama is just trying to get votes. Unfortunately Jeebus freaks vote too.

phred,
Why are you being so fucking dense? 13 year old = not old enough for consent = can't enter into a legal contract. If you wish to debate that particular age, do it & quit pu$$y footing around.

I've knocked down the rest of your bullshit already, 4 or 5 times. They're called unenumerated rights. Why, oh why can't you frigging understand?

Comment from: Charlie

great point romulusnr...will there ever be no enemies....

the only thing that really devides us are dumb ideas....and phreedm certainly has many of those....

05/15/08 @ 18:12

You had to do it, Charlie, didn't you?

Much like Voldemort in the Harry Potter books, it appears that invoking this name in an atheist blog's comments section causes this accursed individual to instantly know that you've referred to it. and then it flits over to that blog's comments section to pollute the discourse with its' own special brand of religiously insane hypocrisy.

Isn't it funny how this troll looks at the results of the homophobic referendum, and completely ignores the state legislature trying to enact the will of the people by passing bills (that were vetoed by the Gropenfuhrer) legalizing same-sex marriage in Cally-Fornia? And then it bleats about hypocrisy in others while ignoring the mote in its' beady little eyes? Then again, it seems to be pretty good in ignoring calls to provide some factual basis in reality for the occult superstitionist fables it endlessly carps about around here.

Suck it, jeebus phreak!

Comment from: mxracer652

I've knocked down the rest of your bullshit already, 4 or 5 times. They're called unenumerated rights. Why, oh why can't you frigging understand?

This troll appears to be willfully, spitefully, and hypocritically ignorant.

To quote a Big Book of Christian Fairy Tales:

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

This has been another edition of ridiculously easy answers to rhetorical questions about the religiously insane

I see the usual suspect has derailed the thread... with his own brand of ignorance...

Must have spent all night quote-mining old comment threads on the site... just to cry "hypocricy [sic]!"...

Sad, when you think about it... what an empty life he must lead...

Since this thread has gone off topic here is a bit of other news that made me happy today:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080516/ap_on_sp_ol/oly_run_cas_pistorius;_ylt=AoYGqTp6QAy.xFWCE2qx6USs0NUE

Slavery isn't a "right"...

That's not what the bible says.

Quotations by learned men from the 19th century:
"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America. 1,2
"There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral." Rev. Alexander Campbell
"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina
"The hope of civilization itself hangs on the defeat of Negro suffrage." A statement by a prominent 19th-century southern Presbyterian pastor, cited by Rev. Jack Rogers, moderator of the Presbyterian Church (USA).
"The doom of Ham has been branded on the form and features of his African descendants. The hand of fate has united his color and destiny. Man cannot separate what God hath joined." United States Senator James Henry Hammond. 3

And...

Biblical passages recognized, controlled, and regulated the practice.
The Bible permitted owners to beat their slaves severely, even to the point of killing them. However, as long as the slave lingered longer than 24 hours before dying of the abuse, the owner was not regarded as having committed a crime, because -- after all -- the slave was his property. 4
Paul had every opportunity to write in one of his Epistles that human slavery -- the owning of one person as a piece of property by another -- is profoundly evil. His letter to Philemon would have been an ideal opportunity to vilify slavery. But he wrote not one word of criticism.
Jesus could have condemned the practice. He might have done so. But there is no record of him having said anything negative about the institution.

If we are TRULY a Christian Nation, then slavery is, in fact, a right given by our creator. Our creator... that IS where our rights come from, right? Not the Constitution?

Rusty-
Talk about hypocrisy- the religious freaks are up in arms about this recent gay marriage ruling in CA, but why are they (most) against things like slavery, incest, polygamy and murder, when their so-called good book approves (and even teaches) of these things?

Could you imagine how truly awful this world would be if we went back to biblical law?

We don't have to imagine -- we have the middle east.

and Pat Robertson

What gets me is that jesus spoke out against adultery and divorce but never once mentions homosexuality yet American xians dont have an organised campaign to outlaw premarital sex or divorce. Their desired application of scriptural law just isn't consistent.

Alex

It is difficult to make the claim that Jesus actually spoke about something because it is difficult to make the case that he actually existed. If you are referring to the story book character in the Buybull, well OK then.

phreedumb:

We are discussing "rights"...period.

Slavery isn't a "right"...

Take your head out of your Biblical ass (and, no, I don't mean the donkey).

You'll hardly find any basis for differential treatment of slavery and marriage in any human rights document. Even worse, you'll hardly find any basis for differential treatment of marriage and racial marriage. Because, what, all of them claim equal treatment under the law for all.

Hell, let's try it, for a demonstration?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights
Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
-Everyone has the right to live, have liberty, and security of person.
-All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

So, you tell me how you can read, for instance, this document and say that it forbids slavery, but doesn't forbid discrimination when it comes to civil marriages?

Yeah, I know your and other death-cults (read: religions) are opposed to same-sex marriages, but who gives a damn about them? The rights given in marriage aren't given by the church but by the civil state.

phreedumb again:

Why is it wrong for a 35 year old man to marry a 13 year old girl?

Same reason why it's "wrong" for a 13 year old to drive, buy alcohol, form a binding contract, get a full time job or form a company (or any of the myriad other things associated with attaining adulthood).

If this is still not good enough of an answer, then I have to direct you to the wall left of you. Try asking it for clarification, I bet you two will have an intelectual discussion.

Rusty Shackleford:

I see the usual suspect has derailed the thread... with his own brand of ignorance...

Must have spent all night quote-mining old comment threads on the site... just to cry "hypocricy [sic]!"...

Sad, when you think about it... what an empty life he must lead...

Meh, let him. I mean, derailing a thread isn't the worst thing that can happen. Been there, done that, still no scars. In this case, what's the worst that can happen? We won't discuss a politician's choice of target audience? Boo-hoo. I mean, really, what is the difference in a politicial pandering to theists, atheists, football (mind you, european kind :P) fans, movie fans, jews, homosexuals or foot fet1shists (or, indeed, magic-undewear wearing people)? It's his chosen target audience that he aims at for help in winning, and as long as we can see the point is in pandering I hardly see a cause for alarm. Sure, if Obama, or any other politician (here's lookin' at you, Huck and Romney) associates with a given group based on his own non-pandering beliefs, that would be a case for concern. So the first question we have to ask is wether Obama's pandering or is he sitting firmly in the Jesus Camp (pun intended)?

As for phreedumb's quote-mining, let him. We all know we can field better arguments then him even without the age-old theistic tradition of quote-mining, so why bother? Let him quote-mine for hours, assemble a reply in 20 minutes, and let him resume quote-mining for hours more. It's a win-win situation. :D

Alexatheist:

Since this thread has gone off topic here is a bit of other news that made me happy today:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080516/ap_on_sp_ol/oly_run_cas_pistorius;_ylt=AoYGqTp6QAy.xFWCE2qx6USs0NUE

Wow, this really is "a good thing"(tm). On a personal level, it's a practical argument to the position that I've held for as long as I can remember: that various different competition criteria is nothing but plain old discrimination. Again, on a personal level, I know of a female football (soccer, for you yanks ;) ) player that could easily compete with the best of male footballers. Yet, she's limited to a female league, where she wins the MVPs regularly, but it feels like stealing candy from a baby (according to her own comment).

I do think that discrimination in sport, wether based on physical disability, sex or any other non-performing criteria, is nothing but the plain old discrimination. I think that athletes should either have the option to compete in the better performing category, or have the whole thing redone into one category, and let the performance be the only criteria.

alexatheist:

What gets me is that jesus spoke out against adultery and divorce but never once mentions homosexuality yet American xians dont have an organised campaign to outlaw premarital sex or divorce. Their desired application of scriptural law just isn't consistent.

Actually, this could be reworded without even once mentioning Jeebus or other mythical creatures. I mean, all you have to do is sum up the people active in the campaign to stop same-sex marriage and compare it with people active in the campaign to make adultery and divorce illegal.

Wait, what? There's no such campaign? Oh, well, that about says is all about the "sanctity of marriage", doesn't it? ;)

The US should held elections at the nearest hospital for mental disorders and instead of the electoral college, should have professional doctors determining who is less crazy.
Gods and goblins.. what a joke.

Comment from: mxracer652

They're called unenumerated rights. Why, oh why can't you frigging understand?

Hmmm...how many ways are there to be blind?

Tell me...what unenumerated rights are we discussing?