Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Obama on Day One: awaiting God's orders

BoGardiner's picture

In the Warren forum, Obama reveals the viewpoint that I find perhaps the most dangerous of all among religionists. It provides a thin veil for conservative politics.

“And one of the things that I strongly believe is that we are not going to, as individuals, be able to erase evil from the world. That is God's task, but we can be soldiers in that process, and we can confront it when we see it.”

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0...

I don't want our government employees to view themselves as "soldiers" of God against evil.

I don't want my president defining evil within the framework of his Christian religion.

I don't want my president hesitating to reduce evil and suffering in the world because he thinks it's not his job, but God's.

Our secular government must be comfortable defining evil in secular terms, such as human suffering, and must feel fully empowered to reduce it without awaiting orders from a deity. There are secular definitions of evil that are universal to humanity that transcend religion, that we agree to as a society. A leader must facilitate and implement that agreement, not await voices in his head.

It is blindingly unconstitutional for our government to act as an army of soldiers of God using a religious sect's definition of evil.

It's becoming increasingly clear that the voices he intends to listen to are not ours.

Please don't tell me that these are "words, just words." Obama uses this language consistently and I think it should be taken at face value.

(I predict McCain will run out of money and steam, and agree to be Obama's VP. They'll be relieved to drop the pretense that they differ much.)

0
No votes yet

Comments

Submitted by lambert on

who, IIRC, wanted to "rid the world of evil," which seems even more megalomaniac now than it did then (a SOTU).

But not a whole lot better.

You know, I'd settle for a health care policy that wasn't broken. The rest is, as Obama says, "above my pay grade."

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

BoGardiner's picture
Submitted by BoGardiner on

We knew Bush meant it in Biblical terms and believed he was taking his orders directly from God.

I think the practical difference may be simply a matter of whether our president believes himself God's admiral or captain, and which Christian sect's God he's listening to. Simply different brands of megalomania and bigotry.

Submitted by lambert on

Then we could offer, online, pastors for women to consult with!

Henceforth, you may address me as The Extremely Reverend Lambert Strether. "Rise, my people!"

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

BoGardiner's picture
Submitted by BoGardiner on

Obama has made his disdain for the clearmindedness of women who may at times be "feeling down" or "feeling blue." It's no accident he is reaching out to bigots like Rick Warren instead of women.

Monkeyfister's picture
Submitted by Monkeyfister on

I gotta know RIGHT NOW before I might be religiously forced to vote for him by my Madrassa!

My Librul innerds are torn! Shadow Christianist??? Or Shadow Islamist???!

OH GOD! I MUST vote for Hillary Clinton! Write her in!

--mf

Submitted by lambert on

No.

He's just a normal politician who thinks it's necessary to teabag the Christianist leadership. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

But, was I the only one that didn't read any sarcasm or snark in Monkeyfister's post? Sounded almost dead-serious, to me. Tell me I'm wrong.

BTW, I don't find this religious talk, from him, exceptionally different than what I've heard from most mainstream candidates running for president. And, to be honest, I don't think he means much of anything he says, which would scare me more than anything else. Obama's been cynically aiming at and targeting and angling for Evangelicals from Day One, and it shows.

But, maybe I'm just cynical and naive. *snark* But, more seriously, we have to start raising our game, here. I see the board drifting towards a discouraging staleness and predictability. I'm starting to sympathize with Bringiton, and that scares me.

Submitted by lambert on

Here? What's your recommendation?

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

BoGardiner's picture
Submitted by BoGardiner on

There is in fact an increasing religiosity in mainstream political rhetoric and policy.

George W. Bush has established it as the new normal, which will be his most powerful legacy. For this reason he will grow in stature over time, with Democratic help, as his crimes fade in the public memory.

Just because Christianist pandering has shockingly become the new norm for all the 2008 candidates, we should not be blinded to that fact. It frightens me to see how quickly we allow ourselves to become jaded to dramatic erosion of our constitutional freedoms. It was obvious with the praise of Romney's religion speech during the primary that the media and both party's were applauding the new status quo, even as a few editorials nervously mumbled about how radically secular JFK's speeches would seem in contrast today.

The Democrats have until this year been the anchor preventing an uncontrolled swing toward religious bigotry, which is the only way to describe this level of Christianist pandering and exclusionism. Obama is promising to serve as the radiant symbol which ends the role of the Democratic party to guard our government's secularism.

It doesn't matter one whit if Obama personally feels his Christianity. He has stated loudly and plainly his intention to increase Christianist powerbrokers' influence on government policy. We can, like the OFB, project onto this our hopeful wishes for benign Christian goodwill all we want, but the reality is that this is an unconstitutional double-edged sword which threatens less benign policies that affect women, gays, the poor, and our planet. It is a tiger we are holding by the tail.

At a time when so few are speaking up about the shifts in our party and our government, our few voices become increasingly important.

Talking up fear of being forced into madrassas just promotes an inane and bigoted right-wing meme.

We are in fact witnessing the birth of a new, far more religious, politics. It's outrageous to submit to this unquestioningly as the new status quo.

I was a loud proponent in 2000 and 2004 that Democrats stop yielding the label of "values voters" to the GOP. We are, or were, the party of the most universal and important values. But the Dems are taking the shallowest, cheapest route with its glossy crucifix-embellished brochures. It is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Submitted by lambert on

... for megachurches as one consequence of Shock Doctrine policies.

After the corps got down hollowing out everything else, they're the only institution left standing. Ick.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.