Enough. Your posts on this topic are getting insulting and out of line for this forum. Stick to the argument without commenting on the intelligence and reading ability of other posters.
I realize this is a debate about religion and that includes how religion affects elections and politicians, but this debate about the purported stupidity of religion is off-topic. This thread isn’t debating religion itself.
Excuse me?*** I*** started a debate about the purported stupidity of religions?
I was responding to the attack on the intelligence of religious people! If that’s not seen as insulting, I clearly don’t get the rules around here.
And if someone is going to put words in my mouth and make inflammatory statements, then I’m either going to question one’s literacy levels or one’s integrity.
Nothing insulting being said here, folks. Move along. :rolleyes:
I said nothing of the kind. That’s why it’s in a separate paragraph. The part about inappropriate comments was addressed to you. The ‘stupidity of religion’ stuff probably started around post #15, and it does not belong in this thread. It certainly did not originate with you, but it’s time for everybody to let the topic go.
Then do it in the BBQ Pit. Like I said, personal insults are not allowed in this forum, and if you break those rules, you’ll be warned and it can affect your ability to post here. You’re new here and there is no reason for it to get to that point.
Your comment looked as though it were directed at me and no one else since I was the only one quoted…so it’s natural I’d take it that way.
So someone makes statements about ancient text they can’t read or purposely misconstrues things…or makes me repeat myself 10 times over? Nevermind. I’ll just not take the “your religion is stupid” and “if you just let go you’d be free” comments personally.
(While I do find it mildly insulting, I can’t take it personally. I’m not the one with the hangup.:o)
That would be the way to go. And there’s nothing wrong with having that argument (we’ve had it countless times on this site), but I think it’s a distraction in this thread and that it’s taking attention away from the original topic.
A former co-worker–whom I adored and even dated for a while–said she liked Sarah Palin because “at least I know she’s Godly.” (This co-worker was/is a Republican, a wildly enthusiastic Protestant, and a stone fox, i.e. my opposite number). I replied that the Godliest president we’ve had in my lifetime was Jimmy Carter. She quietly let the matter drop.
The convo is about presidents who believe in God. According to some of these Dopers, those presidents lacked critical thinking skills! I was just trying to add to the conversation by stating that religion is a type of philosophy.
I didn’t like where it was going, either, but it is hard to not respond to that kind of attack. I get tired of stereotypes of religious Jews, like oh, yeah, they’re just stuck in Biblical times and have nothing to contribute to science, law, politics, or the betterment of humanity! What morons!
-joyann
Getting back to the OP, I’ve been convinced of Obama’s sincerity of belief since reading an excerpt from one of his books where he talks about his conversion experience, and another excerpt where he discusses he views on abortion (which I disagree with, but remain convinced of his faith).
I think of our recent Presidents, Reagan was probably the least religious, although nominally Christian. I’m not sure about Nixon or GHW Bush either. But I try to avoid judging the quality of other people’s faiths beyond their own claims so it’s hard to judge, since no one who wants to be elected President is going to claim to be anything other than a Christian.
I would agree that being American President and being intelligent are not necessarily mutually inclusive, Bush II being the prime example, although he was obviously an exception. For my part, I find it difficult to believe that Obama is religious given his levels of intelligence and academic learning. Interestingly, high level politicians here in the UK are only just beginning to describe themselves as ‘not religious’ although I think most tend to avoid ‘atheist’.
You’d rather believe that Obama was a bald-faced liar, and so manipulative that he would attend church for years to foster a false image of religiosity, rather than believe he is actually religious?
If he were going to be that calculating about it, you’d think he would have chosen a less controversial church to cultivate his Christian credentials at.
You could be right but I don’t think it is as black and white as what you’re describing. Attending church is a much wider experience than just praying to god. It is a communal activity where you come into contact with those living around you and I get the impression that in the States it also serves as a base for wider community action and organisation, something which the Obamas are obviously very active in. I myself was raised a Catholic but now consider myself atheist however I sometimes attend church just to keep people happy and have no problem taking part in wider ecumenical/church based activity. I just can’t square my impression of Obama with someone who is devoutly religious, when in my own opinion, it takes very little critical thinking or wider reading to discover that it is in fact all a load of rubbish.
…and the image of religiosity which you talk about is absolutely critical in American politics, so anyone who wants to be in involved in high-end politics must also appear religious, which would exclude a shit-load of intelligent and able people, so yes is my answer to your question.
I was going to comment on this before you made this post because it’s a really unfortunate attitude. There’s not much evidence for anybody’s internal religious beliefs in the grand scheme of things. Obama wrote that he joined his church in Chicago mostly for work-related reasons; he wanted to be someplace where he could connect with the people he dealt with as a community organizer*. He says he had a genuine religious conversion while he was there and he has not wavered in those statements for about 15 years. You can believe or disbelieve him as you please - you could come up with excuses for most of his public religiosity if you were so inclined, since he is a politician - but the idea that he’s too smart for it is just embarrassing, condescending, and bad for atheists all around. There are plenty of religious people with Obama’s level of education or higher.
*In the vernacular, a Commie Satanist.
Hey, watch out. The Pastafarians will be all over you like white on rice for that!
That’s fine. This is why I was careful to use phrases such as ‘for my part’ and ‘in my opinion’, I am not making any universal claims or trying to present an opinion as fact. I am simply stating my opinion which is that I find belief in any kind of omnipotent deity and high standards of academic learning incompatible simply because ‘There’s not much evidence for anybody’s internal religious beliefs in the grand scheme of things’.
Exactly right. I’ve shared church pews with plenty of doctors and university professors (non-religious schools like Northwestern and Vanderbilt). One teaches my son’s Sunday School class. One of the most godly women I know at my church is a justice on the US Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, appointed by Obama. She wasn’t chosen for her lack of critical thinking skills.
Again, that’s fine. But having god-fearing supreme court judges doesn’t prove the existence of a god, indeed it says more about American society than anything else. As someone has already mentioned, there has to be a certain amount of compartmentalisation on the part of these people, the deliberate ignoring of the lack of empirical evidence, the fact that you are basing your faith on a book made up of hearsay and allegorical tales, the fact that there are umpteen other religions whose adherents are equally convinced of the validity of their own belief in direct opposition to your own etc etc which are totally incompatible with academia and high levels of learning where you are taught to question everything and base your assumptions on empirical evidence and fact. Totally incompatible. Again, this is my own opinion and I am not attacking the religious views of others.
I’m not arguing that it proves the existence of God at all; I’m just pointing out that plenty of religious people are well-educated and intelligent, so the fact that we have a smart and accomplished president is no reason to question his own testimony concerning his religious faith. Especially since he’s admitted that he first joined the church for social/political networking and then found faith later.
Well in my opinion, added to the fact that he is an American president, it is exactly why we should question his religious faith.