(no subject)

[superl99]

Comments

[chiv.livejournal.com]

Let the muck flinging begin.

[superl99.livejournal.com]

Why?

[chiv.livejournal.com]

"We are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhistnation, a Hindu nation and a nation of nonbelievers"
This was meant to promote community and cohesion between faiths, or lack thereof.
This propoganda piece is ignoring that intention to promote the cause of atheism and turn it into something divisive.

[superl99.livejournal.com]

No, it isn't. It is a reminder by the American Humanist Association to America that a religious upbringing is not necessary to good character and that non-believers are equally as American as people of faith. The first president Bush actually stated publicly that he felt atheists shouldn't be US citizens, while Obama is acknowledging non-believers on an equal plane. That shows good character, and oh look, he was actually raised without religion, so you see, America, it is possible to be a tolerant, accepting, inclusive, unifying and good person without religion. Why automatically assume a negative and divisive reason behind this?

[superl99.livejournal.com]

Oh, and you want divisive? How about this guy who was protesting the inauguration:

[lyndagb.livejournal.com]

Divisive? Man, this is just funny.

But then I'm British, and although I think the original poster is missing one critical word (can build...), I'm also aware that we have a totally different general atmosphere over here and so of course such posters seem odd to us. No one's saying, as you point out, that atheism is anti-British.

[oscuridad.livejournal.com]

gah. one more point against bush (like there weren't enough already...). What a terrible thing to say!

[chiv.livejournal.com]

By it's nature propoganda, the support of one cause against another, is divisive. Regardless of whether or not the statement is intended to be defensive or aggressive.

Now I'm going to interpret this particular piece as defensive, basically saying that here's a president who has acknowledged our right to exist and we can and will fall back on this statement the next time we are criticised for our lack of faith.
The purpose of this piece was to bolster their own side of the faith/non-faith arguement.

On the other hand, someone of faith is going to see this message and see it as taking an aggressive stance. It's a declaration that religion isn't necessary, that their way of life is superfluous to modern requirement.
The AHA may not have intended it to be a direct attack on faith but it will be read as such and no one is naive enough to believe that they didn't think it would upset someone.

[chiv.livejournal.com]

It demonstrates that the AHA is more mature, subtle and less inflammatory about their side of the arguement. It doesn't mean that the pamphlet is any less divisive.

[superl99.livejournal.com]

The very acknowledgement that non-believers exist is offensive to some, and any statement made by non-believers on the topic of religion is seen as aggressive by some people of faith. I'm not going to let that stop me from exerting my right to state my position. Completely avoiding taking or declaring any stance so as never to offend anyone is a pathetic and pansy-ass way to live one's life.

[chiv.livejournal.com]

In which case I'll firmly take my stance as "Hippy-in-the-middle", 'pansy-ass' though it may be, defending the people caught in the crossfire and being used as tools.
In this case I think Obama is going to be a little pissed that one day in his words are being taken out of context and his image is being used to endorse a message that he himself doesn't. By the nature of his office, he too has to sit on the fence in this one.

[gpolitical.livejournal.com]

'Non-believers are welcome in Obama's America! This phrase from his speech struck me as a rather pointed effort to include a group of Americans - those who are not blessed by God - in the general mood. This was it: "A nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and
Hindus - and nonbelievers."

Not in itself a dramatic move away from faith - and he certainly was not referring to himself - but a shuffle at least away from the religiosity of the Bush years. It will be these tonal changes that make Obama's America much more palatable to Europeans. Freethinking, in the old-fashioned sense of not professing a religion, is about to become acceptable in polite American society in a way it has not been since Richard Nixon first began the tradition of invoking the Lord whenever possible.'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/justinwebb/

I would argue that the poster is correct. Living outside of a dogmatic system and encouraging free thinking is a better way to build character than to float along with Christian youth camps, church services, bible quotations at home and morals phrased in religious dogma.

[superl99.livejournal.com]

The advert is mostly composed of a quotation from his book in which he states that sectarianism is dangerous and that he was raised to have a good character despite his mother not being religious. I don't see how any of that context is lost or twisted in this advert, nor that it is a message he does not endorse. He has stated that he believes good character is possible without religious upbringing and uses himself as an example in his published words. In Britain this is not at all unusual, but in America it is, and you really can't judge this advert by British cultural standards.

By the nature of his office, he too has to sit on the fence in this one.
He doesn't sit on the fence, he is a Christian and has declared that in public repeatedly. In Bush America, one side of the fence was that non-believers are evil, wrong, amoral and un-American; Obama has landed on the other side of the fence, which says non-believers can be just as good and moral or evil and amoral as any religious person and should be judged by their actions, not their faith or lack of, and that non-believers are just as American as any religious person. Sitting on the fence would be to just ignore non-believers.

[superl99.livejournal.com]

Oh, and pansy-ass is not taking a stance. You seem to have one.

[gpolitical.livejournal.com]

‘…the support of one cause against another, is divisive.’

Yes, it is. That’s politics. You point is? In this case it’s purely a case of, ‘Yay! Someone is in the Whitehouse who at least in his inauguration speech recognised that people of no religion are as valid citizens as those who do have a religion’.

All the poster does is make the point that those people without religion, or those that believe that religion should be a personal, non educational choice, are no longer seen as social outcasts. That has not been the case. The families of atheist servicemen killed in the service of the US had to fight tooth and nail not to have their sons graves covered with a cross they did not believe in, how is this in anyway defensible or right? Atheists are as relevant as everyone else, as are their views. I think the poster is correct as well, but that’s my opinion, last I saw we are still allowed to have them.

‘Oh noes! We cannot say anything because it might offend someone!’ If that’s the case you’re just as bad, because by arguing, you’re being divisive!

[stockinged-one.livejournal.com]

I noticed he mentioned "non-believers" in his inauguration speech, and while it's one little mention (and much safer than saying atheist), it's the way Obama works... he pushes the envelope ever so slowly, a word here, a word there... and that's how he gets attitudes to change.

I also noticed in his acceptance speech the night of his win, he mentioned gays... again, one little word but its progress inching forward quietly and subtly.