Barack Obama speaks about Religion...

[hey560]

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid353515028?bctid=416343938

He talks about his faith. Separation of church and state. Atheism. Amazing Speech, and truly insightful.

[killbotfactory]

1. When is this from?

Is it recent?

[hey560]

2. I'm not sure actually, I found the link on digg.com

[hey560]

7. Based on the transcript its from June 2006 checkout the link:

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/index.php

[Tat]

11. No

It's a few years old. It was picked up in my atheist circles.

The general idea is that is that it's a great speech. But, here and there it has some issues. It starts talking about how to reconcile secular society and religious society and then he goes on to give a lot of instructions to secular society but nothing for the religious to do. Also, the claim that Lincoln's or King's speeches would be undone without religion seems a lack of imagination.

All in all it's a great speech. Though, not something you'd give on the campaign trail.

[hey560]

13. I agree with you partially...

I think he does more instructing to seculars in this speech, but for good reason. He is a progressive democratic candidate, and I think, is trying to show progressives how to personally bridge the gap between them and the majority of Americans who are religious. He knows that Democrats cannot win any election without getting the religious vote. And I think he understands most religious people are reasonable. Progressives just have to be careful not to alienate those reasonable religious people. His example about that email he got from a Doctor regarding comments on his website about abortion is perfect at illustrating this point.

[hey560]

3. Text from a keynote he gave in the senate

(again taken from digg comment)

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/index.php

"For one, they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. Folks tend to forget that during our founding, it wasn't the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment. It was the persecuted minorities, it was Baptists like John Leland who didn't want the established churches to impose their views on folks who were getting happy out in the fields and teaching the scripture to slaves. It was the forbearers of the evangelicals who were the most adamant about not mingling government with religious, because they did not want state-sponsored religion hindering their ability to practice their faith as they understood it.

Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let's read our bibles. Folks haven't been reading their bibles.

This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all."

[LynzM]

4. Awesome.

That's fantastic. Thank you from those of us out here who wish to be governed on reason, proof, and science, and not faith.

[blogslut]

5. Thank you

This is amazing. And I became agnostic 30 years ago.

[hey560]

6. bumping this... its a long video but I would like to hear response to this from both athiests and

people of faith.

I think he brings up a great point about having your beliefs but having discussion with others in "fair minded words"

I like how he states that the Baptists were the ones who fought for separation of church years ago.

He is talking to a religious crowd but does not come off as a fanatic even to someone like me who has a "health dose of skepticism" about religion.

Anyways I hope I don't have to keep bumping this. I guess thats the problem with not posting flamebait threads... they die a very quick death :(. Lets have some intelligent discussion, any criticisms of this speech?

[Straight Shooter]

9. It's late, at least where I'm at. You might want to bump it again in the morning.

"I guess thats the problem with not posting flamebait threads... they die a very quick death."

CatnHat is lamenting the very same thing in another thread she/he started. The admins are looking to implement a 3-a-day or 5-a-day thread posting rule, which will probably make things a lot cleaner and give threads like yours a chance to thrive.

I've got to call it a night, but your subject matter looks interesting. I hope I can find it again in the morning. :)

[newmajority]

8. I'd say he summed up my feelings on church and state almost exactly

And I would say so even if he were not already my candidate.

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. A rather long listen, particularly for this time of night, but well worth it.

I am not merely skeptical, but am a full blown long-time atheist who has no use for religion, but, that said, that doesn't mean I can't get along with the religious. I figure they can do what they like so long as they don't cross that line, and don't try to impose their beliefs on me. I don't even have a problem with him making a political speech in a church - he was speaking to religious people (apparently a Soujorners audience) about religious themes. And he did make it clear that his belief was that faith should inform his politics, not dictate his politics.

I have pretty strict deliniations between what is or isn't a violation of the separation of church and state. A volunteer prayer group using school property after hours is no different than a chess group doing so. OTOH, I DO believe that 'Under God' should be removed from the pledge (which I also have issues with in general, but that's a different subject) and 'In God We Trust' should be removed from our currency. I think if politicians want to pray, that's their business. If they want to have Presidential Prayer Breakfasts, where the purpose is political networking, that is an abomination and a clear violation of the 1st Amendment.

While I disagree with him on some points, he has obviously given it a lot of thought and is willing to have a rational discussion about it.

[caseycoon]

12. K&R Very informative. Thanks n/t