Interview With Barack Obama

[IndianaGreen]

One of the charges that people have laid against your speech is that it was unnecessarily critical of the Democratic party.

A: Which I found misplaced - some of it that response had to do with people reading the AP story that came over the wire instead of reading the speech. If you look at the speech, I was far more critical of the religious right, and give a vigorous defense of the separation of church and state. What I simply say in the speech - I think it's hard to deny, and as the reaction to my speech confirmed- is that there are a lot of folks in the progressive community, there are a lot of folks on the left, who are very sensitive to the topic of religion and feel that to acknowledge the other side's point of view is to give aid to the theocrats and religious bullies that are out there. It would be hard to read through that speech and see a harsh condemnation of the Democrats.

Actually, what I said was, we've abandoned the field. I think there was one line in which I said there are some in the secular camp who dismiss religion. I don't think that's undeniable. (sic) I did not charge that to the entire Democratic party. So I think in some ways those characterizations of my speech were inaccurate.

Now, I understand people's sensitivities, because I have a number of friends who feel that they have been beaten down by the Jerry Falwells and the Pat Robertsons of the world, that they feel that they're always on the defensive if they don't proclaim allegiance to evangelical Christianity. Non-believers feel that they're the ones who are outnumbered, you know, intimidated. They feel frustrated if there's some suggestion that Christians are somehow oppressed, which was not my intention in the speech.

If I had more time in the speech, conceivably I could have fleshed out the degree to which people - I could have said very explicitly that this notion that's peddled by the religious right - that they are oppressed is not true. Sometimes it's a cynical ploy to move their agenda ahead. The classic example being that somehow secularists are trying to eliminate Christmas, which strikes me as some kind of manufactured controversy.

http://www.streetprophets.com/storyonly/2006/7/11/213428/301

[Cocoa]

1. thanks for posting this

one thing I don't think anyone can deny is that Obama is thinking this through, and that what he is speaking is the result of that thought. No one has to agree with him.

The last thing I want is our leaders only telling us what they think we want to hear.

[IndianaGreen]

2. I am one of those beaten by Jerry Falwells and the Pat Robertsons...

of the world, and after 6 years of fighting the Christian jihadists on the trenches it has gotten to the point that the mere mention of Jesus or Christianity is enough to elicit a Pavlovian response on my part.

[beam me up scottie]

4. What I want to know,

is why, if the number of "secularists" who don't want religion in "civic discourse" is SO minuscule, did he have to bring them up at all?

Why did he feed the meme?

If this speech was as well planned and delivered as we're supposed to believe, why did that particular straw man still get trotted out so that the Bill O'Reilly's of Amerikkka can parade him around until election day?

[IndianaGreen]

6. I think Democrats will lose everytime we try to compete with Republicans

in their own terms. Religion has become such a polarizing topic, primarily because of the Christian jihadists in America, that it is best to confine religion to the pulpit where it belongs.

[beam me up scottie]

7. I agree.

But who cares what the people who get thrown off the bus every election have to say?

grumble grumble piss n moan...

[blm]

3. This is why I try not to judge Dems based on corpmedia's version of what

was said or what corpmedia CHOSE to extract from the story or emphasize.

Corpmedia works to spin even good stories against us if they think they can keep Democrats off their game.

[IndianaGreen]

5. What Obama said in this interview is NOT what was reported by MSM

a lot of us have been on the warpath against Obama based on published reports of what he said. Perhaps it is better not to even bring up the topic of religion at all because it will be reported in a manner that will divide the anti-Bush forces rather than unite them.

[blm]

8. The sooner we all understand that the MSM is the pr branch of the GOP the

better organized we'll get to combat their lies instead of abetting them.

[salvorhardin]

9. There's a lot of hay made over liberal believers

who feel unable to discuss their religion in the public sphere. I don't see where this is true. Neither do I think the mythical values voter is the savior of the Democratic Party because they simply don't exist. At least according to a recently released report from the Center For American Progress.

According to the study, only 7 percent of Americans think that being a moral person requires "honoring religious tradition and faith," and only 20 percent approve of politicians "using the political system to turn religious beliefs in actions." Of course, many more probably consider church-going a good indicator of morality, even if it isn’t requisite. Progressive themes may resonate with voters, as the study’s authors contend—now we just need to get politicians who expound them to do the same.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2006/06/religion_in_the.html

So why are Democratic leaders still catering to voters based on religious themes when it seems they really want pols who promote progressive themes? And that's precisely why I was uncomfortable with Obama's speech and this "No, no, what I really said was..." interview. Obama wants us to start a discussion that very few people find important while not talking about those things that Americans do value -- well-paying jobs, healthcare, etc.