It’s quite common to hear a politician offer a list of “all Americans” – Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. Obama’s inaugural speech is the first time I’ve noted a president including “Hindus and non-believers.” As both a Hindu and a non-believer, I’m delighted to finally be acknowledged as part of the diversity of America.
So glad someone finally mentioned this. Loved that ‘non-believers’ were mentioned, though my SO turned to me immediately after with a skeptical, ‘I guess atheist is still a dirty word, then?’
Yeah - my whole family thought that was way cool!
I wonder if many believers appreciate how unusual that was to be acknowledged in any non-critical manner in such a public forum?
Folks were all over this in the contemporaneous inaug threads.
My wife said she got an e-mail from one of the humainst groups she/we are associated with, suggesting there was some lobbying effort requesting that this be included. I’ll see if she still has is and will forward it to me.
Probably not the place to discuss at length, but Wikipedia’s series on Atheism includes the folowing concepts:
Nontheism
Antireligion · Antitheism
Secular humanism
Metaphysical naturalism
Weak and strong atheism
Implicit and explicit atheism
I appreciated the inclusion of non-believer rather than atheist as I consider myself to be apostate atheist.
Actually, I heard him say “unbelievers”, not “non-believers”.
His use of the former term struck me as I took it as proof that he’s firmly in the camp of devout Christians in whose company I’ve heard the word quite often.
As a Jewish atheist, I thought that was awesome!
No, it was pretty clearly “non-believers.”
I prefer non-believer myself. Actually I really prefer “secularists”, since atheism and non-believer are both defined by what you are not, whereas the other two have a more positive look.
But I was thrilled to hear Hindu and atheist too. There are a LOT of Hindus in the world yet we get forgotten a lot.
All the news sources are reporting “non-believers” and it is written that way in the full texts that have been released.
I must have mis-heard then. Sorry.
Once again, we Buddhists, Confucianists, Zoroastrians, Sikhs, Shintos, Baha’is, Scientologists, Neo-Pagans, and Primal-indigenousts get left in the dust. What a jerk this new guy is.
I wouldn’t use the word “firmly”; I think Obama has described himself, in one of his memoirs, as a pretty wobbly weak-kneed skeptical late-coming Christian.
I didn’t realize one could be both. Shows what I know.
I was downright gleeful to hear him say that. It’s incredible to hear a politician publicly acknowledge that not everyone believes in some flavor of theism.
I think in this instance his actions may speak louder than his written words.
I’ve heard many a secularist suggest that Obama is one of them. But as I walked into the room where the inaug was being televised and heard the entire fucking Lord’s Prayer . . .
He concluded with the whole “God Bless these United States.”
It seems like he is opening or closing every day lately with one religious service or prayer meeting of some kind or another.
He sure didn’t suggest any hint of nontheism in the Richard Wright brouhaha.
I could go on and on.
Nope. I think the brother is a phenomenal guy. Just about the only thing that disappoints me about him is that for whatever reason he seems pretty solid in his belief in some version of this particular bullshit.
Rev. Lovejoy: No, but He was working in the hearts of your friends and neighbors when they came to your aid. Be they Christian, Jew, or… miscellaneous.
Apu: Hindu! There are 700 million of us.
Rev. Lovejoy: Aw, that’s super.
Actually as a non-believer but agnostic and not atheist I am happy he chose the word he did. I think it was actually more inclusive.
I clearly heard “non-believers”. But I see this was already mentioned.
But if he was talking about Americans, Hindu is in with Unitarian Universalist; Pagan; Wiccan; Spiritualist; Native American; Baha’i; New Age; Sikh; Scientologist; Taoist; Deity; Druid; Eckankar; Santaria; Rastafarian at <.5 and >.3% of the population. What about them!?
That’s the first time I recall any prominent politician referring to non-believers in a positive way, and his simple inclusion of non-believers made me a bit watery-eyed.
Sure, they guy is a believer - guess what? So is 85+% of the population. Sure he had an invocation, and the Lord’s Prayer was read at his inauguration (even though I’m a pretty staunch atheist, I think that the Lord’s Prayer can be quite a moving testament of faith, especially when well-read. I don’t believe a word of it, but you can tell a lot about a Christian by how they recite it).
However, he seems to me to be guided by the best, most positive teachings of Christianity (which does have a lot of positive lessons to offer, outside the whole “you must believe in a mythical construct” mandate).
Two specific acts lead me to believe this: his statement in the inaugural address that “we’ll restore science to its rightful place” (clearly alluding to the stem cell controversies), and the fact that on the “Civil Rights Agenda” page of the whitehouse.gov site, there is an entire section devoted to LGBT rights. That affirms for me that he intends to keep his faith and his stewardship of American values separate.
That doesn’t work, because you can believe in God and be a secularist.