Obama breaks the bigotry barrier

[Thats my opinion]

Those who know him best tell us that Obama has supported Gay rights for a long time. For a while he, like many others, had assumed the issue could be resolved through some sort of legal domestic partnerships. But as his thinking developed, not as to basic beliefs but as to strategic ways to get there, he realized the inadequacy of that position.

For many of us the question arises as to the part religion has played in the ethical progression of millions of Americans who now favor marriage equality. Let there be no mistake, for the most part religion in this nation has played a negative and destructive role. Even among many liberal churches the change has been too slow in coming—just as it has throughout American society. For the most part, the religious community has been more part of the problem than it has been part of the answer.
That dismal record granted, it is not the whole story. There are thousands of churches which are not only open to GLBT people, but also actively involved in the movement to about marriage equality.

www.gaychurch.org/find_a_church/find_a_church.htm

Here is a listing of hundreds of US congregations that are open and affirming. You can check out specific congregations in your State or City, in his nation or around the world. In addition, there are several denominations which have taken a clear stand for human rights for GLBT people. Among them is the United Church of Christ, which has been on record for a couple of decades. For most of his adult years Obama had been a member of that denomination and one of its progressive churches. While it would be overreaching to say that he got his ethic in this manner from that relationship alone, it is fair to say that the church and the denomination played an important role in the formation of his ethical posture. While he and this church may still constitute a religious minority, the religious community is on the move. Every year there are more denominations, ecumenical bodies and congregations which are taking a clear active position on this issue. The false notion that religion is totally on the wrong side is to misread what is happening among believers. As religion continues to evolve and mature, many millions of us are facing the imperative of a faith committed to equality before the law and before God.


If you are curious about what is happening at the local level, I invite you to check out the congregations in your area whose names appear in the above list. You may be surprised.

[dimbear]

1. There's a wide, wide gap between the candidates. Bishop Romney belongs to

a church with a long and atrocious record of abuse against gays. He has not to my knowledge denied contributing 10,000 dollars to Proposition 8, or 'Proposition Hate' as we called it, designed to take away marriage equality from gays in California. That campaign was largely sponsored by the LDS church.

That's some bullying, my friends. I'm not forgetting that one soon.

[xfundy]

2. Why go to, or join, a church?

They are demonstrably all about creating, then fleecing, "sheep."

I've noticed your postings since the first time you came here, always about religion, usually negative against others who don't buy into any of them.

Much more productive to join in gardening activities, IMO. At least they actually produce something, as opposed to "guaranteeing" something in the "afterlife."

[Thats my opinion]

11. If that has anything to do with this string, I guess I don't see it.

Or is it just another opportunity to take a shot?

[Thats my opinion]

12. Oh my! All about religion? This is a group titled "religion."

And does your post have anything to do with this string? If so, what?

[2ndAmForComputers]

17. I know a handful of gay people who insist on being religious, believing, and attending church.

All of them, without exception, suffer needlessly because of it. In those cases I wish they became atheists, not because I think it's the factually correct choice, but because it'd be a huge relief for them.

Sad.

[cbayer]

23. This is so insulting, I don't even know where to start.

You are referring to adults, right? Adults that have religious beliefs and choose to attend a church?

What kind of suffering do they endure due to this choice?

Seriously, your *pity* is incredibly condescending.

[2ndAmForComputers]

24. It's (1) my personal experience, so I don't claim it represents the totality, and (2) true.

So, if you feel insulted, you are being insulted by facts. Sorry.

[cbayer]

26. So, what kind of suffering do you think they endure?

[2ndAmForComputers]

28. Only what they say they do. I'm no telepath.

[cbayer]

32. So, let me get this straight.

You have GLBT friends who attend church voluntarily, yet they tell you they are suffering by making this decision?

Again, I ask, what kind of suffering do they tell you they are enduring?

[2ndAmForComputers]

33. I could give you exact quotes from online postings, but that could out them.

And I won't do that.

I say no more than "I saw X." And that's it. This conversation is over.

[Thats my opinion]

30. Your "personal experience" hardly qualifies as "facts" sufficient to make a judgement. nt

[Goblinmonger]

31. Yet you frequently want to make your personal experience

with theology representative of Christianity.

[Thats my opinion]

25. I know far more than a handful of GLBT people

who are happy, relieved and turned-on because they have found in their open and affirming churches acceptance and support--and a community of people with whom they can celebrate who they are.

[2ndAmForComputers]

29. See post 24.

[skepticscott]

3. Uh, no...sorry

It's not true that "For many of us the question arises as to the part religion has played in the ethical progression of millions of Americans who now favor marriage equality." It would be more accurate to say that the question arose for YOU of how to grab some credit for religion in motivating this change of public stance by Obama, when he inconveniently (for you) failed to make any such profession of how his "faith" led him to this.

Tell you what...when churches no longer NEED to put a sign out front with cowardly code words like "open door policy" or "open minds", when it's simply understood that anything that would presume to call itself a church would be accepting of anyone, come back and talk to us. In the meantime, the puffery and self-promotion is not justified.

[trotsky]

4. Hmmm...

"it is fair to say that the church and the denomination played an important role in the formation of his ethical posture"

Did he himself say that? Or are you assuming?

[mr blur]

5. Really?

"For many of us the question arises as to the part religion has played in the ethical progression of millions of Americans who now favor marriage equality."

You're really going to try to claim that religion has brought about progress in the acceptance of gay marriage?

Is this going to be like your Without religion there would be no civil rights for Americans?

[Goblinmonger]

6. I find it humorous that the more religion gets in line with secular values

the more the religious talk about how the secular values wouldn't be here without religion.

[trotsky]

7. C'mon, GM, you know very well that...

"None of us would want to live in a society without some sort of an ethical sensitivity based on solid religious faith."

Right?

[Goblinmonger]

9. Yep, I forgot that.

Silly me.

[edhopper]

8. Well

"it is fair to say that the church and the denomination played an important role in the formation of his ethical posture. While he and this church may still constitute a religious minority, the religious community is on the move. Every year there are more denominations, ecumenical bodies and congregations which are taking a clear active position on this issue. The false notion that religion is totally on the wrong side is to misread what is happening among believers. As religion continues to evolve and mature, many millions of us are facing the imperative of a faith committed to equality before the law and before God."

I don't think it is far to say that. I don't see any evidence that this decision was shaped in any large way by religion.
And if religion is maturing and evolving to accept Gay Rights, that means religion's beliefs in what God wants has been wrong for thousands of years. And if religion can be wrong about what God wants, why should we accept what any religion says about anything, since it can be so demonstrably wrong? Sounds more like religion catching up to the ethics of the secularists.

[laconicsax]

10. So when Obama said that his religious beliefs were what prevented him from supporting equality...

[daaron]

13. Ouch. It's fair to say this destroys the OP's thesis. nt

[edcantor]

14. GREAT Observation!!!

Can we use the word "PWNED" here? I hope people know what that means.

Because your observation did it to the OP !!!

And we must admit the reality, many black churches stand in the way of equality for gay folks by their religious insistence that equality for blacks is different than equality for gay folks, because it's in the Bible.

[eqfan592]

15. PWNED!

[trotsky]

21. No fair, that's a "gotcha" question.

And not a thoughtful response, either.

[opiate69]

27. *chirp*

[Fix The Stupid]

35. Lol. Perfect. Would love to see a reply from OP. n/t.

[laconicsax]

36. That'll never happen.

As trotsky pointed out, it's an unfair, "gotcha" question and the OP doesn't respond to those.

[edcantor]

16. Will this thread be the last thread where someone claims that...

religion is responsible for progressive politics and for the fight for equality for every human being?

I would certainly hope so, given the documented and self-admitted history of Obama's "evolving", despite his previous religious beliefs.

[skepticscott]

34. Of course not

the OP will pop up like toadstools, touting the same discredited crap over and over and over and over, hoping that everyone here is an idiot and remembers none of this. Or any of the previous threads where the same idiotic argument was disemboweled. It really is insulting.

[2ndAmForComputers]

18. What if Obama was not a believer?

Would he have taken less time, more time, or the same to reach the pro-equality opinion he reached?

[laconicsax]

19. You can be fairly sure that four years ago...

He wouldn't have cited his religious beliefs as the source of his opposition to marriage equality.

[mr blur]

20. Who can tell? Depends how much it was personal,

and how much was political.

[daaron]

22. If he was a non-believer? Less time. Without question.

I've never met a racist or homophobic atheist (sexist, yes). Don't mean they don't exist - I suppose there's some true Ayn Rand libertard out there who fits the profile - but I haven't met them.

Historic injustices perpetrated by the True Believers of the world are among the big motivating factors in my own atheistic lurches. Indeed, it was only by deciding to take a historical approach to Christianity that I have been able to salvage some semblance of my own faith in the face of the destructive influence of religious-based bigotry over the course of the last couple hundred years - up to and including today. (I doubt many fellow Christians, even liberal ones, would recognize my resultant belief system as Christian.)

The keen sense of justice that feeds the outrage of many atheists would've compelled Obama to act sooner rather than later, had he been among their number. Religion gave him the excuse he needed to equivocate.

Of course, if he was a non-believer, he wouldn't be POTUS.