Obama: “We are…a Jewish nation…a Muslim nation...a Buddhist nation...a nation of non-believers...”

[jefferson_dem]

...

Whatever we once were, we're 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 non-believers. We should acknowledge this and realize that when we're formulating policies from the state house to the Senate floor to the White House, we've got to work to translate our reasoning into values that are accessible to every one of our citizens, not just members of our own faith community.

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/204017.aspx

[Ian David]

1. Fox News Headline: "Obama Says We Are a Muslim Nation." (Bet on it) n/t

[MannyGoldstein]

2. Minutes Later, Mrs. Clinton Trotted Out To Say

We are a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of non-believers, AND a nation of Zoroastrians.

Take that Obama, you irresponsible naif.

[madrchsod]

7. zoroastrians....

the foundation of the one god of the tribes of the middle east is all but extinct

[WCGreen]

59. ME and Zoro are like this man....

[SpiralHawk]

19. Hah - no one mentions Wakan Tanka, or Gitchee Manitou

The original conceptions of the PRIME FORCE for this great Turtle Island (North America).


In my view, the spiritual concepts denoted by those two terms are far superior in sophistication to the Mighty Man in the Clouds spiritual conceptions that have been imported.

[ezgoingrl]

3. That statement

is like music to my ears. GO OBAMA!!

[spooky3]

4. me too. This is a big improvement over some prior statements.

Very glad to read it.

[elizm]

27. Keep your ears open! :)

He has a message that needs to be heard!

[welshTerrier2]

5. The Treaty of Tripoli

Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli is often cited as an indication of whether the Founders intended the US to be a "Christian nation." The Treaty was initially drafted during the George Washington administration and was signed into law by John Adams. It was ratified unanimously by the full Senate and contains the following instructive language:

"As the Government of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS NOT, IN ANY SENSE, FOUNDED ON THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Note that "Mussulmen" refers to Muslims and "Mahometan" refers to Mohammed.

BTW, as an interesting aside, Al Gore made reference to this treaty in his remarkable book, The Assault on Reason but misquoted the language shown above. I believe the language Gore used in his book was derived from a website that referenced the above passage in error.

more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

[Forkboy]

6. I especially like that last part.

[shenmue]

8. Wow

Increases my respect for him. Good to hear someone talking about how America is for everybody.

:patriot:

[frazzled]

9. George Washington said it in 1790, in his letter to the Touro Synagogue ...

in Newport, Rhode Island. It is considered a cornerstone of religious (and non-religious) liberty in America, and of the separation of Church and State:

The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for giving to Mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy: a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection, should demean themselves as good citizens.

May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.

http://www.tourosynagogue.org/GWLetter1.php

[durrrty libby]

10. No one's "faith" should influence government policy

No thanks Mr Obama :puke: :puke: :puke:

[jefferson_dem]

13. Lovely.

You're not a big fan of inclusiveness are you?

[durrrty libby]

24. I'm a big fan of separation of church(all of them) and state.

[sandnsea]

32. That was his precise point, if you had clicked and read

"For my friends on the right, I think it would be helpful to remember the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy but also 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 Evangelicals who were the most adamant about not mingling government with religious, because they didn't want state-sponsored religion hindering their ability to practice their faith as they understood it. Given this fact, I think that the right might worry a bit more about the dangers of sectarianism."

[dugggy]

40. And so am I......religion should NEVER even come up in political

dialogue. Religion is strictly a PRIVATE matter.
I am against all these prayers before sessions get started.
Pray at your home! Not in a public forum.

[dionysus]

45. he also said non-believers. you ignored that purposely

[dugggy]

61. Don't care what he said if it had to do with religion...it is private &

matter of personal faith. The framers had the foresight
to include in the constitution that the state can not
impose any religious matters on the citizens.

[jefferson_dem]

70. No worries. If you actually read it, he's saying (basically) what you are saying.

n/t

[sandnsea]

75. But half the country IS mixing religion & politics

We've tried ignoring it. That hasn't worked. So now we've got someone who is directly confronting all the wrongness of right wing "Christianity", and all he's asking you to do is recognize that religious groups have done some good on occasion. Can't you do that much to try and wrest this country away from the craziness of the right?

[Odin2005]

80. IMO too many of my fellow atheists attack things just because they have a religous inspiration.

I don't care about what inspired an idea or political position, I care solely about the merits of it.

[sandnsea]

84. Some of the religiously inspired

Are sick and tired of their beliefs being warped by these right wing radicals as well. I think this represents what Obama said a week or so ago - try to gain compromise, but if you can't convince them, well then you have to beat them. Let's get our constitution and religious philosophies back on track - but those who don't want to are going to get challenged, for a change. I'm not a religious person at all, but that's exactly what needs to happen. I sincerely admire his guts on the matter. I can see why he wins. He doesn't pander to anybody.

[Odin2005]

79. A lot of people's inspiration comes from thier religious beliefs.

I'm an Atheist, but that doesn't mean I respect Martin Luther King Jr. and Mohandas Gandhi any less just because their political activism was inspired by thier religious belief. I care about the merits of an idea, not the source of the idea.

[dugggy]

85. Can you just inspire privately and then I won't have to perspire publicly

trying to stop the religion in your face types.

[Skittles]

87. I hear you dugggy

I am so f***ing tired of religious crap

[jefferson_dem]

88. No need to be so sensitive.

Fact is, religion is quite a big deal to quite a few people.

Should they not be "public" about their personal faith because it offends you?

[Skittles]

89. I am SICK of it being shoved in my face

is there any reason why people need to show up on my doorstep to talk to me about that crap???

[PurityOfEssence]

90. We are but guests in the land of the fantasists

All we can do is fight a rearguard action to keep it from spreading too much, but the forces of certainty are definitely on the march.

At least he's trying to be inclusive, but as I point out in other posts in this thread, there's something a bit amiss with the references, and the general sweep of the approach seems to be that "we" are people who believe, even if some of our junior partners don't.

It annoys the hell out of me, too, and you and I not alone in this. It's important to bear in mind that christianity is a proselytizing religion, and as such, far too many of its adherents not only don't think that their insistent chorusing about the joyous "word" is abrasive and intrusive, they think that it's their right by some kind of statistical advantage and cosmic privilege. (They are, after all, "better", and thus entitled to greater rights.) Many simply don't think it's an intrusion, and many of them resent any attempts to tamp it down as oppression.

Let's look at two quick points:

1) There's nothing that needs to be done politically and socially that can't be expressed, justified or implemented without any reference to supernatural assumptions or affiliations.

2) There are three approaches to religion in the social realm: pro-religion (those who feel every right and often the need to spew godspeak), religion-neutral (those who don't want any mention about belief or lack of it) and anti-religion (those who have the need to rant that there is no god and that the concept's silly). You find the first group EVERYWHERE. The second group encompasses people like Newdow, O'Hair and virtually everybody else who tries to legally limit theocratic dominators. The third group is very small and they're on the extreme fringe. The big problem is that those who demand to shove religion down our throats with the help of government (which is ILLEGAL) and those who want to shove it down our throats otherwise (which is just tiresome) seem to constantly equate religion-neutral with anti-religion. The opposite of having the Ten Commandments in a courthouse isn't having a nice piece of non-religious artwork, it would be having a big crucifix surrounded by a red circle and with a diagonal red line through it. To my knowledge, nobody's asking for that.

You have every right to be bugged about this, and the smugness of posters who remind you that so very many people do believe is an affront: it's blythe dismissal of the feelings of others justified by some kind of self-proclaimed inner beauty that damned outcasts and lunkheads like us couldn't understand even if we weren't spiritually inferior.

People who use religion for political leverage are playing with fire. If the intent and the action is simply to check reactionary zealots, that's one thing, but it's a very fine line between that and using the big sky chief's endorsement for one's own agendum, regardless of how "noble" it may be. Stopping others from using it is one thing, but using it actively oneself is quite another.

Playing the god card for political gain is, to mix a metaphor, dirty pool.

[eridani]

42. He included non-believers--good for him

Ok, now. How about Wicca and Native American traditions?

[LBJDemocrat]

14. Uh, what?

He's saying the opposite. Is it because he's open about his Christian-ness? Are you really that full of hate?

[durrrty libby]

20. Because I don't want religion influencing policy, I hate?

That's rich. because all the hate on DU originates from the Obama supporters and spewed at Senator Clinton

I surely do not hate Obama. He is just a generic politician. He is not special enough
to get worked up over

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[durrrty libby]

33. I support Hillary so I must be a Republican? What a pathetic clown

[ripple]

51. Selective reader, aren't you? n/t

[Tellurian]

15. exactly, what is the benefit of replacing one religion with another?

Or for that matter forcing religion down everyone's throats..Obama speeches always intertwine religion and politics...
I'm all for the separation of Church and State, as the Founding Fathers intended.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[elizm]

28. You can always count on Tellurian. nt

[elizm]

30. Hillary...."This is the day the Lord has made"...

Hillary on the 42nd Anniversary of Bloody Sunday in Selma....This is the day the Lord has made. Let us rejoice and be glad in it. And I want to begin by giving praise to the Almighty for the blessings he has bestowed upon us as a congregation, as a people, and as a nation.

[jefferson_dem]

38. Ruh Roh... Hillary claims to be a believer!

Tell says, "Does. Not. Compute. Does. Not. Compute."

Clinton Dwells on Faith as a Central Part of Her Life
By MICHAEL LUO
Published: July 6, 2007

In the interview and a subsequent telephone conversation, she described her spiritual habits — she carries a Bible on her campaign travels, reads commentaries on Scripture and other people’s “faith journeys“ and spoke of experiencing “the presence of the Holy Spirit on many occasions.“

And she talked of forgiveness. Mrs. Clinton volunteered that she was moved by apologies in recent years from David Kuo, a Republican speechwriter and evangelical Christian who later worked in the Bush administration, and Senator Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican who confessed to harboring hateful thoughts of her. She spoke of her own shortcomings — “it’s a challenge every single day” — in leading a moral life and of turning to Christian writers for solace after her husband’s infidelity.

“It is both hard to forgive and ask for forgiveness,” she said. “There’s a reason it is talked about in the Bible. It is really hard. It is hard for people to let go of legitimate hurts and slights and disappointments.”


http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/06/us/politics/06cnd-clinton.html?ex=1341374400&en=38d8b8039e1a5e50&ei=5088

[dionysus]

46. he also said non-believers. you ignored that purposely

low

[never cry wolf]

50. where has hillary EVER has such a grreat statement?

be at peace, that is the point, non?

[never cry wolf]

54. WTF are you talikng about????

replacing one religion with another? forcing religion down everyone's throat when he acknowledged atheists rights to be the same as all citizens???

methinks telurion has obama envy...

[never cry wolf]

16. Whaaaa?????

we've got to work to translate our reasoning into values that are accessible to every one of our citizens, not just members of our own faith community....

What is it you don't get?

[durrrty libby]

23. Separation of church and state. What is is YOU don't get?

[jefferson_dem]

26. Yeah, we all support that. What's YOUR point?

Specifically, where do you see any suggestion that the principle of separation of church and state would not be upheld by Obama?

How do you object to this?

"...we've got to work to translate our reasoning into values that are accessible to every one of our citizens, not just members of our own faith community."

[NYCGirl]

34. An interview with the CHRISTIAN Broadcasting Network. What is it you don't get?

You're dissing him for talking about religion to the CHRISTIAN BROADCASTING NETWORK?

[jefferson_dem]

39. No. The poster is dissing him because he's Obama.

That's all.

[dionysus]

47. he also said non-believers. you ignored that purposely

[never cry wolf]

48. what he said

Obama says he is all inclusive, even to non believers... what is it you do not understand?

[never cry wolf]

52. In this statement Obama is coming out BIG time fpr separation of churche and state

What are you missing?

[RaleighNCDUer]

21. That should read "no ONE'S faith..."

Every person is responsible to his own ethical code - that the vast majority of the population base their moral codes on their faith doesn't bother me - as long as they recognise that it is only THEIR faith, and it doesn't even match the faith of the person in the pew next to them, much less someone from an entirely different faith, or no faith at all. The individual does not impose his belief on others, and allows for others to believe or not believe as they will.

That is why political decisions must be made on a secular basis, because no religious decisions can be true to all religions, but a secular decision can apply to people, as people, no matter their faith.

As a long time atheist, I have no problems with politicians being informed by their faith - only with them being decided by their faith.

[jefferson_dem]

22. Thanks for your post.

Spoken as one who is not affiliated with any religious doctrine, yet adamantly tolerant of (almost) all, I have trouble understanding how anyone can take issue with Obama's position as stated here.

"...we've got to work to translate our reasoning into values that are accessible to every one of our citizens, not just members of our own faith community."

[goclark]

41. Well said,Obama is on the mark IMO

He is saying America is not about just Christianity, it is about freedom to worship, or not worship, as you desire.

Finally, someone is saying what needs to happen.

Jerry Farwell and his companions don't own the cross.

I am a Christian but I don't believe that Christians should own this country or the world.

A huge part of the reason we are in this war today is because we have forced our values on everyone and they hate us!

[dionysus]

43. he also said non-believers. you ignore that purposely

:puke: back atcha

[BeyondGeography]

11. So much for, "Whatever happened to the politics of hope?"

:patriot:

[Cha]

12. Oh, I BELIEVE!~ I just don't

cotton to any of the above or Christian :)

[jillan]

17. Great stump speech Obama

Can you please tell me how you are going to accomplish this?
In a nation where Democrats and Repugs can't even get along??

[sandnsea]

31. It's not a speech

It's remarks to the Christian Broadcasting Network, where he also takes on the religious right hate speech. Click it and read it. It's excellent stuff. Don't get so stuck on Biden that you miss the very excellent work being done by some of the rest of the field. This is GOOD STUFF. You will wish Kerry had said it.

[jillan]

63. It has nothing to do with Biden, it's just everytime I hear Obama speak

He makes all of these grand statements -
We can change the world - we can end the war - we can do this, we can do that.....

and he never says how!

I watched him on Cspan tonite. Same thing.

Obama was my candidate. When he was here last October, I kept my daughter out of school to see him with me.
But I am tired of waiting to hear what his plans are. He reminds me of Robert Redford in the Candidate.
All cheerleading, no substance.

[bling bling]

64. I've never heard him make any of those statements.

Why don't you quote *actual* statements so that I can help you determine whether he DOES say how he'll do it. I can't help you if you are just making things up.

[Dawgs]

69. "and he never says how"

Why is this always the last best argument Obama haters have against him? Obama has proposed plans to end the war, for solving our healthcare problems, for fixing our energy crisis (which I disgree with), and many other things, yet when a non-Obama supporter has nothing left to argue with they always come back to 'he has no plans'.

It's really getting old and pathetic. Especially when you see it on such a hopefull and promising thread as this one.

Either they are not paying attention (probably on purpose), or they just use it because they think other people aren't paying attention. Either way they are wrong.

[sandnsea]

74. Because it's not being reported

I was getting discouraged with Obama myself, until I got mad at one DUer and went to find a rebuttal, and stumbled across the very impressive Urban Poverty proposal. Then I decided to start getting more of the details together to have them handy, and found even more that he had done and is proposing. The campaign is not doing enough to get his proposals out there, it's true. It's why his numbers dropped.

[sandnsea]

73. Here

Start here
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/corruption/

then here
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/07/18/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_19.php

End with just a little of what he accomplished in Illinois
http://www.obama-mamas.com/blog/?page_id=5/

I hear what you're saying about details, it doesn't come through the media. Like another candidate, you have to go find the meat because nobody on television is ever going to give you the details.

:hi:

[bling bling]

29. Beautiful.

The Republicans use religion against the Democrats.
The Democrats use their personal religion as a shield to "prove" they aren't the Christian-haters the GOP accuses them of being. But then they walk a fine and uncomfortable line because their own base have them on a short leash when it comes to talking about Religion.

Obama's not afraid to talk about it, and to say what he means and mean what he says. Too bad if the Republicans don't like it. Too bad if some of the Democrats don't like it either. He's a politician of the people. And lots of people are religious. And lots of them aren't. And he speaks to them all. But he speaks the truth. He doesn't pander and he doesn't grandstand. And yet he doesn't judge. So people want to listen to him. And that's why he will make such a great leader.

Obama is like the Tao.

[ProudDad]

35. Someday, it would be really nice

if no trace of religion were evident in the political realm...

I'd also like to see an Actual Non-Theist in the WH...but I'm not holding my breath...

[never cry wolf]

57. imagine

Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

[More Than A Feeling]

67. Well, we've got our first open non-theist congressman, that's something!

I was thrilled when Congressman Pete Stark came out as a non-theistic Unitarian. There are five or six congresspersons who list no religion in their biographies, too.

[YankeyMCC]

36. Well it's nice to be included for once, thanx Mr Obama nt

[PurityOfEssence]

37. Okay, I was with ya until this point:

"For example, I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manufacturers' lobby. But I also believe that when a gang-banger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels somebody disrespected him, we've got a moral problem. There's a hole in that young man's heart - a hole that the government alone cannot fix. So solving these problems will require changes in government policy, but it will also require changes in hearts and a change in minds. I think progressives would do well to take this to heart."

So what IS going to patch up that hole in little Johnny Gangsta's heart? Sounds like a job for jumbo-sized god-pads, butterfly-fish closures and a big glob of holy balm, but then that's just me again...

This still smacks of some kind of pro-faith bias here, or at least of appeasing the faith-obsessed of its necessity.

The start of the statement, "whatever we once were", also sort of begs the question, but there's something about it that has a whiff of agreement with the dangerous assumption that this country somehow grew out of religion.

It IS very good that he includes non-believers in his rhetoric here, but Junior's done that on at least a couple of occasions I've heard, too, and we know where he stands.

The final summation of making sure that our policies satisfy the values of everyone and not just those of our own faith community is good at first glance, but he's still talking from the point that "we" have a faith community. The rest of us free agents are still tacitly on the outside. The grammatical construction is that he's talking from the point of view of a generic American, and in this voice, the generic American obviously has a faith community. Those without aren't full members.

Sure, this is paranoid nit-picking, but it's important.

Still, it's easy for those of the dominant belief system in a country to just presume his or her assumptions to be the default assumptions, but it shouldn't be ignored that this is a form of prejudice.

(My sister and I have a long-standing deal that we won't talk about belief or send religious literature to each other's kids. I'm very careful about this, especially since her kids are older and very liberal, and so is she. Her kids and I talk about politics all the time, but I stop the subject when it strays into religion. When she sent me a baby book with some god passages in it, I didn't take offense; I presumed that this was just such a part of her life that she didn't even notice it. That happens when one is part of the majority belief system, and perhaps this is just what's happening with him here. Still...)

Then again, kudos to him for expressing it at least to this degree, and it sounds sincere.

I just wish all the godcrap would simply go away; it REALLY IS possible to talk about actual mortal issues on the basis of right-and-wrong and WORKABILITY without bringing up the big whosiewhatzit all the time. It also reinforces a prejudice I have that religion works against the formation of a true moral code from within: the only way for many to address the issues of right and wrong seems to be to ask what the big puppeteer wants us to do--or what we can get away with--instead of defining what right and wrong are on the basis of coexistence and personal responsibility to the rest of the universe.

Hey, he's trying; much as the bias shows through and I wish he wouldn't bring it up so much, and for that, he deserves a few points.

[never cry wolf]

56. Johnny gangsta is reprehensible to all

Obama is stating that there is a universal aversion to assholes, in all religions and as well to agnostics and atheists... and Xtians, and muslims and Hindis and Budhists and everyone in between. He is saying it is against HUMAN nature, no matter the religion or lack thereof...

[PurityOfEssence]

60. I don't think he's saying that at all, and it would be "unchristian" if he did

I'm using the christian-proclaimed view of what being "christian" is: that one should be forgiving, tolerant and engaged. Regardless of what I think of his views of the necessity or the justified place of religion in political dialogue, I think the guy's as deeply sincere about this as Jimmy Carter is, and that's saying a lot.

It would be really interesting to hear what he meant by this passage, but I'm pretty certain he didn't mean that that this hypothetical thug is simply an asshole to be reviled and dismissed. He's saying that there's something within this person that's unfulfilled and crying out for some kind of a missing social or spiritual nourishment.

I'm not quite sure what he's getting at here, but I'm hoping he's saying that politicians need to be more engaged in the nurturing of the disenfranchised in this society so they don't ache with needs that manifest themselves in unfocused violence to vast groups of others. What I fear he's saying is that there's a need for some kind of spiritual element to the political discourse, and that's where my antennae start buzzing in a big way.

To me, there's nothing needed by human society that can't be provided in a secular way, and I have enough optimism about the checkered mixed-bag that is the human being that there will be enough decent sorts in a stable society to provide such an environment.

Re-read the whole paragraph. He's certainly not saying that this archetypal ruffian's a scourge to be marginalized, but just what the hell is he advocating?

A man without religion is like a fish without a bicycle. (It's not my adage, but it's a good one, and I wish more people agreed.)

He's NOT saying that believers of all stripes and disbelievers all agree that this guy's an asshole to be marginalized or hated, and I don't think he's saying it's against human nature. To Obama's credit, I think he's using the old nurture approach so beloved by the left since Rousseau: it's VERY MUCH human nature to snap and go bad in the presence of bad influences and in the absence of good. My problem is what degree of necessity he claims the supernatural has, and once again about this person: his communication starts off with lots of promise, but devolves into being either wonky, or in this case, extremely muddled and open to question.

Anyone else care to chime in here?

(edited to de-crappify some grammar)

[Colobo]

44. President Obama: A Leader for All Americans.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

49. Kudos to Obama. He is exactly right nt

[jefferson_dem]

53. Cheers, D_M_C!

It's always nice to find some common ground... :toast:

Now ... :dilemma: >WHERE WERE WE< ...

[draft_mario_cuomo]

55. Hey, we are all on the same team!

:toast:

[amandabeech]

58. Sounds good to most around here,

but how will this play to swing voters? The ones I know aren't really ready for this speech yet.

[OneBlueSky]

62. reminds me of an old Woody Guthrie story . . .

upon being admitted to a hospital, Woody was being interviewed by the admitting clerk, who was asking the requisite questions . . . one of the questions was "Religion?" . . . to which Woody replied "All" . . . "Oh, Mr. Guthrie, I can't put 'All' on the form!" exclaimed the clerk, obviously taken aback . . . "Then just put 'None'," Woody replied . . . I like that . . . :)

[jefferson_dem]

71. Woody and I think alike, in this instance and otherwise.

A true American patriot!

[JDPriestly]

65. Obama finally said it.

Now if he can just get on the right side about Social Security, I'll trust him a lot more.

This explanation of his stance on religion is great. I agree with him 100% on this. "Non-believers" do not have faith in God, but usually have faith in moral or social values. It is time for people to understand and acknowledge that fact.

[Hekate]

66. I really like this guy. nt

[More Than A Feeling]

68. Someday, I hope this goes without saying.

[qb]

72. Gore/Obama 2008

When it is so easy to pretend we don't exist these two showed true inclusiveness.

[MiserableFailure]

76. I really HATE the term non-believers!

I wish people would stop using it, and also saying the phrase "people who believe in nothing". Those bug me but the term "non-belivers" really bugs me.

I'm an atheist and I believe in plenty of things. Myself, my family, my fellow brothers in blue. I believe in the decency of the human spirit. I just really object to saying that anyone who doesn't believe in god is a non-believer. Poor choice of words by Obama imo, and I do like him a lot and am supporting him.

[jefferson_dem]

77. I appreciate the distinction.

I think it's pretty well clear that the pivot point is regarding belief in a particular religious faith tradition and and not belief in something, anything, that we hold dear. In my view, the term "non-believer" includes self-described "atheists" but also those who are agnostic, or simply un-affiliated. Works for me.

[MiserableFailure]

78. May be clear but still offensive imo

Lot more atheist cops out there than people think. When you see so much crap every day, it makes it very hard to believe in one.

[eweaver155]

82. What is the correct term to use?

[MiserableFailure]

83. non-religious

nt

[eweaver155]

86. Thank You

[eweaver155]

81. He is absolutely correct,

One religion does not trump the other. America is the melting pot of the world and with that a multitude of religious faith as well as non-believers, comes along with it. All americans, no matter who you are, need to embrace and accepts other's religious belief the same way you want yours to be embraced and if you don't believe, that's fine too. The President works for all americans, not for some. Bottom line is we are all americans.