The primary distinction between the birthers and myself, as I see it, is the birthers have a specific incredulity about Obama because he’s brown, his name is funny and there are Muslims in his family. This is not a generalized suspicion that politicians fake religion to get elected. Mine is. They don’t seem to question anyone’s religious faith but his.
This rather nicely encapsulates the whole issue for me, too.
Excellent point, MOL - I agree entirely. But I suspect John Mace would point out that there is a bit of a parallel, in that both sides WISH OBAMA WERE SOMETHING HE (maybe, in the case of Christian) ISN’T, and they do it because their previously-formed idea of him DOESN’T SIT WELL WITH THE (probable, in the case of Christian) FACTS.
But that’s where the parallel ends. The motives for those two different previously-formed ideas could hardly be more different: for the birthers, it’s a diffuse, inchoate fear of what is perceived as “other”*; for the lefties, it’s mainly our own life experiences, where a lack of religiosity fits logically into an appreciation for other cultures, an openness to scientific inquiry, and other stuff we associate with the Obama agenda, for lack of a better word.
The latter link (between non-belief and lefty stuff) has its problems, sure – each of those priorities does not completely arise from the others. But it’s harmless. The former link (between fear of the other, and loudly-voiced doubts about some piece of paper) is simply pathetic, and rather harmful.*
And I should mention that non-religious lefties are at least as baffled by religious lefties as they are baffled by religious righties (and we’re downright fascinated by the John Mace types who cluster in that tiny fourth quadrant!).
*I hesitate to say “racist”, but it’s darned close, much of the time. Marley 23, IMHO, expressed the basic idea well – in this case, not about birthers, but about “Obama’s a Muslim” folks (the former must be almost entirely a subset of the latter):
"We’re not discussing Republicans, we’re discussing that small but confusingly persistent group of people who think Obama is a Muslim. And yes, it’s because he’s a black guy with a foreign name. It’s not a hatred thing, it’s about their discomfort with someone who doesn’t feel like one of them because he looks different. It makes them more prone to accepting the notion that he’s a Muslim even though there’s no reason to think he is one.
There are people who go overboard with the accusations of racism, but most people don’t. There is unquestionably some serious racism out there. The part that remains debatable is how much of the free floating, weird, almost unexplained anger out there is related to racism.
By the way, Chessic Sense, my point was not that everybody thinks black people are Muslims or Muslims are black. The point is that some idiots think Obama is a Muslim because he’s black. Because, like I said in that other post, he’s just not like them. He doesn’t look like them and his name is foreign, so it’s easy for them to believe something about him that is moronic. They don’t just think he’s a Muslim, remember. They think he’s a secret Muslim who is pretending to be a Christian. There can’t be too many people who never heard about his pastor, not to mention the other times he’s dealt with this issue. That’s a whole different kind of nutty. This isn’t about opposition to his policies. There are legit reasons to oppose probably everything he’s done. This is an irrational thing that borders on being a phobia."
Works for me, thanks. 
Just kidding. You’re a reasonable guy and not one of the ones I had in mind when I made my comments above.
Basically, my gripe is with the hypocrisy involved in the large number of atheist liberals around here who use the Christian beliefs of conservatives to lambaste and make fun of them but then become conspicuously quiet when a Christian liberal becomes president.
I hear you. Dio exaggerated when he said that it never happens – it does. We ARE rather uncomfortable contemplating Democrats in church; we DO sense a whiff of cognitive dissonace between the Kennedys’ political accomplishments and their apparent religiosity. We could designate next Wednesday, say, as a day when we’ll fill up these boards with threads and posts on the subject, just to even things out a bit.
You’re assuming a bit, there; lots of the liberals here who espouse secular politics are not actually atheists.
ETA: that was directed to SA.
Well, that gets back to what I said before, about the difference between being a “quiet believer” (which liberal atheists appreciate, but still see as a bit deluded; while liberal believers simply appreciate), and a “noisy believer”* (which liberal atheists dislike, and liberal believers of the type you mention dislike as well).
*To recap, “1. Believing politicians (or anyone) try to tell others how to think, or 2. Believing politicians let their religiosity specifically guide major policy decisions, or 3. Believing politicians (or anyone) let the emotional reactiveness primed by their beliefs cloud their opinions on a matter such as the formerly-known-as-Cordoba-House issue.”
There’s a difference between being a Christian and believing yourself to be one half of the Blues Brothers.
The difference being, the Christian liberal who became president doesn’t use his religious beliefs as props in his routines. He never says “I want to do this, because it’s the Christian thing to do”, doesn’t harp that American laws are or should be based on the Ten Commandments, doesn’t say his Sky Pixie of choice is talking back to him, etc…
It’s unfair (and borderline dishonest) to say the board mocks right wing politicians for having religion. We mock them for using religion or the appearance thereof to further their own political ends. Often hypocritically, too - cue the countless “candidate of Christian morality” caught cheating on their wives, seeing hookers, sexing dudes etc… Now that’s funny.
It occurs to me that there ARE “noisy liberal believers” out there, too, of a sort – mainly New Agers, Buddhists, etc., but also some William Sloane Coffin-style anti-war Episcopalians and Catholicts, etc. Oh, yeah, and liberal Jews, too. Liberal non-believers like myself tend to shy away from criticizing such kindly folks, and to the small degree that we do criticize religious righties simply for their beliefs, then there is some hypocrisy there on the part of folks such as myself.
But not much. Because, you see, often there are big differences in the details of the religious beliefs. Many Buddhists, etc., and most William Sloane Coffin-types, and liberal Jews, aren’t really big on Biblical literalism (Jesus arose from the dead, the world is six thousand years old, etc.), but rather emphasize the community aspects and rituals of their congregations, and the general moral lessons of great teachers (including Jesus). Plus the practical advice and observations of, say, the Buddha.
So, it’s not hypocritical for us to go easy on folks like this. (Remember that awesome priest in the Bill Maher documentary, the one he met in St. Peters piazza?). If we were hard on them, then you could criticize us for celebrating Christmas, or many other things we do which have religious roots but don’t mean we believe in sky fairies.
I should have added the most important part: Such folks tend NOT to think their religion is the only true religion in the world (nor do they think atheists will burn in a fiery pit). They get that it’s just by pure chance that some dude in the Roman Empire-era Levant’s ideas caught on and made their way to the shores of the New World and, for example, parts of southern India (Mrs. Map is descended from Tamil-speaking Catholics, thanks to Portuguese traders), but not so much in, say, other parts of southern India. They get this.
Yes, it’s the filtering of facts through a political prism. And the fact that there would have to be some decades long conspiracy by lots of people to prop up the fiction.
Can’t disagree, but I don’t see how that makes a whole lot of difference. It’s not a perfect analogy, but none are. What I suspect might be a key difference is that it would not take too much to convince you that Obama really is religious, whereas the hardcore birthers would never be convinced he was born in the US.
I voted for Obama. I don’t consider myself either left or right. I’m more issue driven, with a tendency to lean libertarian. I don’t really care for either party, but I’d have to say the Democrats get more of my support these days. But I’m definitely non-religious-- been that way since at least my teen years.
True dat.
Ignorance fought – thanks.
I agree, it’s pure wishful thinking. Which is kinda ironic, since so many non-believers, myself included, believe religion itself to be largely wishful thinking.
Pure wishful thinking? I think a lot of people don’t believe a lot of politicians don’t hold the religious convictions they say they do. Is that skepticism “pure wishful thinking,” or is that the case only when it comes to Obama?
I agree that many politicians exagerate their religious convictions. Obama, however, has had pretty strong religious convictions starting well before he became a politician. So, in his case, I would say it’s wishful thinking.
Yeah, what he said. There’s simply no evidence (that I’m aware of) to support the idea.
You are not the only person in this thread to miss the point. It isn’t that so many Dopers assailed George Bush’s religious beliefs; it’s that they assail everyone’s religious beliefs, especially when it comes to conservatives. But then once a leftie - one of their own - becomes President and stresses his religious beliefs and connections, nary a peep of scorn is heard
Again, it’s the hypocrisy. Either you think people who believe in God are unbelievably stupid - as is the frequent claim around here - or you don’t. Plenty around here do, and they’ve been quite vocal about the neanderthal stupidity of belief in God, especially when it comes to conservatives. So, given that Obama not only openly states a belief in God but goes so far as to say that he prays daily, talks to his religious advisor daily, and consults with a group of pastors, where is the ridicule for Obama?
I think we all know the answer, and the answer - as in the case of feminist silence regarding Bill Clinton’s atrocious behavior toward women, which included not only the blatantly sexual behavior he subjected them to, but attempts to destroy their character after the fact as well- is, as Shodan said in the early stages of the thread: “IOKIADDI”.
Is it possible that he’s drawing some sort of bad comparison, or getting mixed up with Judasim?
Isn’t one a Jew if ones mother is Jewish? (Ethnic rather than religious though IIRC).
Sorry, folks, I just need to bring this up again.
HOW IS THIS NOT TOTAL BULLSHIT?
I recall second grade, for example. We moved from Boulder to Hilo, and I learned that some schools suck compared to others. Hilo had better toy stores, but not so much with the books. But we did a killer version of “Pula Na Manu.”
Also, when we got back to the mainland, there was the whole babysitter living across the street that was really into my dick.
There are already so many reasons to hate the Star Wars Holiday Special, so Goddamn it, Dio, just admit that was a fucking stupid thing to say.
I learned a few languages, had too much sex, read Heinlein, and bought my own Casio watch…
Then there was third grade.
6-10 is freaking EVERYTHING! What language do you use in your head? What sex are you in to? Who’s your favorite Doctor Who?