This is a key point, and Obama says it over and over again. He calls on secular liberals not to dismiss the motivations of people of faith, but just as strongly says that legislation has to be justified by secular arguments, not religious ones (he uses abortion rights as an example).
He was the first president to, in his inaugural speech, make explicit (and welcoming) mention of atheists. I’m quite content with his representation of my views so far.
Utopianism fails because it is static, the ideal state, being achieved, will therefore be unchanging. Like Heaven. Like the “workers paradise” of classic Marxism.
Progressives offer a set of principles to promote change from within, and to cope with change from without. If, for example, cheap clean energy should become available tomorrow (from my keyboard to the Ears…), we would insist on sharing such technology, rather than exploiting it for the benefit of the few.
Progressivism is flexible, by its very nature. We strive for change, not for stasis. If we are wrong, and an ideal state becomes reality, a perfect state that does not require any further adjustment, well…I suppose we could accept that, if we must. If I find myself in Heaven, contrary to my own expectations and the expectations of those who know me well…I suppose I will learn to sing. Or I can offer cogent suggestions on how the situation might be improved…
All political rhetoric is utopian. Reagan used to bang on about his dipshit “shining city on a hill” which is not only utopian, but comes right out of the Sermon on the Mount.
Obama has never expressed any theocratic tendencies, though, and that’s all that matters. Striving for a utopian ideal is not sinister, it’s the whole point of a government.
Doc J:
You wait in vain, J. Sam will never acknowledge that he is wrong. Even after the Iraq debacle – even after publicly promising to admit that he had been duped if WMD was not found – Sam never publicly recanted.
I think the thing that gets me is the assumed sense of superiority. His posts reek of it. He cites Obama in order to prove – at least to himself – something along the lines of, “See? All you people who claim Palin is a religious wacko are just saying that because you interpret things through the filter of your own biases. Unlike me, the great Sam Stone, whose judgments are purely objective!” Beneath the surface of his post is, in fact, a deeply insulting indictment of all of his political opponents. He’s saying we’re too stupid to see things as they really are, but are trapped by our preconceptions. Luckily for the SDMB, Sam isn’t. (That last sentence is intended as sarcasm, just to be clear.) At the same time, he whistles blithely by the central point of his original argument, pretending like it hasn’t been thoroughly refuted. It’s all bait and switch, and utterly typical for Sam.
You can take this as the judgment of someone who can honestly claim to have wasted more time arguing with Sam Stone that nearly any other poster on these boards. I don’t know how he’s managed to rehabilitate his reputation here after the Iraq invasion, and in particular his squalid performance during the 2004 elections. People forget, I guess.
Big Svin! Hibernation season ended early this year? Out gorging on nuts and berries?
In a manner of speaking. Reading anything written by Sam Stone = gorging on nuts.
Aw, shucks.
Hey Mr. Svinlesha! Always a welcome sight to see a post from you.
I don’t know about you, but the malarky from the Sams of the board (and the world) doesn’t seem to have as much bite as it did back when it seemed to be working to make the world worse. Still, I can’t abide bullshit, and it’s probably better to keep it tamped down whenever and wherever it flares up again.
Hiya, Hentor!
Nice to see you again as well.
And as you probably already know, I concur wholeheartedly with your sentiment.
Does bullshit flare?
Welcome to the Straight Dope Message Board! You’ll probably like it here, after you’ve been here for a while. If we can do anything to make your stay more confortable, just let us know.
“And the bullshit’s red flaaaaaare!
The bums bursting with hair!..”
This is where I knew it was Obama. The quote doesn’t call for the separation of church and state, it takes is as a given and points out that the personal faith of lawmakers–most of whom are Christian–will influence their lawmaking. That’s something a liberal Christian politician would say, acknowledging separation while denying it completely excludes faith. A Christian Conservative would say something more like"…and it puts a lie to the notion that there is a separation of Church and State in this country…"
Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama do not constitute ALL political rhetoric. Utopianism frightens me and Ronald Reagan is a great example of why, he used his utopian vision to make a very cold capitalism in this nation.
I disagree with this religious sentiment completely. Government is about managing conflicting interests NOT about creating a Utopia. It is a religious sentiment that Government should be geared toward Utopia.
No, not creating a utopia – striving towards it as an ideal. Even using your standard for what a govrnment should be, all the utopian ideal is is the perfect management of conflicting interests.
And that’s not all governments are for anyway. They also exist to protect and provide for the common interest. You don’t build your own roads, or haul your own garbage do you? Do you inspect your own meat or deliver your own mail? Do you have your own private army? None of that has to do with conflicting interests, but common ones.
Obama opposes gay marriage on religious grounds. Does that count?
On the other hand, he also opposes outlawing gay marriage, as with California’s Proposition 8, which he spoke out against. So his stance on the matter isn’t exactly crystal clear.
Obama has alsp created a special office of Faith-Based Initiatives.
If they invent time travel, I’ll convert to Democrat. Though I’ll settle for 10 grade give or take