There are loads of rabid “fundies” who insist that, despite his public proclamations that he’s a Christian, Barack Obama is a fraud who DOESN’T really believe in the faith he professes.
SDMB regulars usually mock those folks.
Well, here’s another very prominent person stating categorically that Barack Obama is not a Christian.
Are you equally outraged by THIS guy? Just as eager to shout him down and dismiss him as a crank or a racist?
Now, speaking as a Catholic Republican, I have always been on record as believing Obama is exactly what he says he is: a liberal Protestant.
But I’ve long suspected that many lefties are like Professor Dawkins- deep down, they can’t quite bring themselves to believe that any intelligent person could really be a Christian, and tell themselves, “It’s all an act. It’s all for show. He needs the votes of believers, so he fakes it to keep the rubes happy.”
But what do you think- is Dawkins out of line? If so, are you going to tear him a new orifice, as you do to any Christian who suggests Obama is “really” a Muslim?
So… He’s basically saying that Obama is smart, so he probably secretly agrees with Dawkins and presumably is only a nominal Christian because he needs to be in order to be elected.
I happen to think Dawkins is incorrect, and if this quote is accurate, he seems to be a bit full of himself. I guess I’m not like the “lefties” who you have caricatured above. Sorry.
Contrast this with those we mock, who profess that Obama is the literal Antichrist, or that Obama is a Muslim sleeper agent. Those folks deserve mocking. Dawkins shows the sin of Hubris. The others show the sin of being out of touch with reality.
Dawkins deserves merely an eyeroll.
Sorry if my fury does not burn against Dawkins with the head of a thousand suns, but there you go.
He gives believers too much credit. Religiosity is insane, not just stupid. A denial of reality, not just ignorance of it. You can be smart and religious; you just won’t be able to use that intelligence very well on anything that religion touches.
I think Dawkins is talking out of his ass, but a key difference you’re overlooking is that when Dawkins says Obama is secretly an atheist, he means it as a compliment. When right wing cranks call Obama a secret Muslim, they mean it as an insult.
Also, Dawkins doesn’t appear to be proposing any sort of conspiracy. He’s not saying Obama is secretly trying to run America according to an atheist agenda, he’s just saying the guy is willing to lie to get elected. The idea that Obama is a Muslim is often packaged with some sort of theory about how he’s secretly plotting to make us all live under Sharia law, or some similar nonsense, or at the very least, that there’s something inherently bad about having a Muslim president.
So, I’d say that the two situations have only the most superficial similarities. The majority of the anger over the “secret Muslim” thing doesn’t come simply from the fact that people think Obama is lying about his religion, it comes from the way the argument is presented, and the implications inherent in that presentation.
“I think” “may well be”. “probably is”. Ooohhhh! That’s some strong assertions there. Oh, wait, no they’re not at all, actually.
Do I think Dawkins is a crank? Absolutely. But this is positively mild and friendly for him.
Do I think Dawkins is wrong? He may well be. But, as others have said, I’m not annoyed with fundamentalists who accuse Obama of being a Muslim because they’re accusing him of being a Muslim, but because they say it like it’s a bad thing. Dawkins certainly doesn’t think being an atheist is a bad thing, but a compliment of the highest order.
Were a person to say, “I think Obama may well be a Muslim. Obama’s a very intelligent man. He probably is a Muslim,” I’d probably think they have little evidence to base such an assertion on, but I wouldn’t think much beyond that.
I’m having a hard time drawing an exact equivalent between the two situations.
Lemme try and describe an analogous situation:
You can be either a Giants fan or a Patriots fan. Saying you’re a Giants fan when you really root for the Patriots isn’t the same as not giving a shit about either team but saying you favor the Patriots because you live in Boston so you don’t have to listen to a bunch of your fellow residents bitch at you.
Either way, I think Dawkins’ comments make it clear that he’s speculating, whereas the right wing types you are talking about seem to always make comments that indicate they are sure of the truth.
On Preview, I agree with Miller that Dawkins means it as a compliment, while accusations of being a Muslim are meant as an insult. Big difference in intent there.
The difference is that Dawkins believes Obama is a better person than he claims to be, while the right wing fundies believe Obama is a worse person than he claims to be.
Of course, Obama probably is exactly what he claims, a liberal protestant.
I’m sure Obama is an atheist, I’m sure neither he nor many many others would have gotten anywhere in politics if they admitted it.
Considering the majority in America conscribe to a faith yet are comfortable with the hypocrisy of only living the part of it that appeals to them, I’m comfortable with him lying about this issue.
Personally, I think Pres. Obama is an atheist or maybe just agnostic. Unfortunately, it would be impossible to get elected president if you openly professed this. It’s almost impossible to get elected to any office in the US from local positions to US president if you don’t claim to be a christian.
I think there is zero case for Obama being an atheist. He says he is a Christian, treats people like a Christian is supposed to treat people, and goes to church. There is a better case for me being an atheist because I don’t go to church.
Lincoln is a more interesting case. Pretty clearly he was an atheist prior to being President. He said so a number of times. His law partner, Herndon, said a number of times that Lincoln was convinced of atheism. When running for office he would occasionally mention God, but with no flourish. After being elected President and as the war went on and tragedy engulfed his life, Lincoln referred to God more and more in his addresses and in a very central way and very evocatively. Was this more cynicism and manipulation? Or did the war and the death of his son Tad change him?
I’m going to come down on the side of no, he was still an atheist pretending. Without an explanation of his conversion from Lincoln himself, along the lines of Surprised by Joy by C.S. Lewis, we just have rhetoric from one of history’s greatest rhetoricians.
This is yet another bad analogy. Right wing nut cases who think Obama is a secret Muslim is not the same as Dawkins speculating that maybe Obama isn’t really religious. It was a throw-away line, and not something I’d see him defending in any kind of debate.
I’m also on the side who takes him at his word as being religious. Most people in the US are. I don’t understand this need to make Obama seem better than he actually is.
Obama’s mother was an atheist. I’m pretty sure Obama used to be an atheist, before he got religion. Now, if he really got religion or just got religion for political purposes I don’t know. I also don’t how he could be a secret Muslim when no one has ever seen him praying to Mecca.
I do know that the first post in this thread is a crock.
But Obama was also raised by his grandparents, who were religious. I’m not sure he was ever an “atheist” or he just wasn’t raised to be particularly religious. There is a difference. He also had some issues growing up, and I can see him having found religion as a way of dealing with and/or overcoming those issues. Especially as he began identifying more the African American community, which tends to be pretty religious. Wouldn’t be the first time.
As others have mentioned, Dawkins’ position is presumptuous, as opposed to malicious(*). There is no true equivalence since the RW Fundies are not just assuming “the worst” but asserting it as true while Dawkins is assuming “the best” (in their respective worldview). It’s the difference between merely being wrong about someone and deliberately slandering him.
(*Save for the disturbing fact that it still presumes a major dishonest deception, which means the RW Fundies could just as well drop the stealth-Muslim meme and raise banner for the stealth-atheist claim, to continue slandering Obama.)
But still the whole “Wouldn’t it be cool if Obama’s a stealth Atheist” thing as put forth by some of its advocates is annoying as all heck to me, since IMO it is no more evidence-supported or falsifiable than the stealth-Muslim argument. I mean, what possible argument or evidence can he put forth to establish that he IS a believer? They already think it’s just an act to begin with. That they think it’s a good thing does not take away that they’re just reaching.
Regardless of what he may or may not be, in the privacy of his own home, or head. He would appear to be a more Christian ‘behaving’ man, than the white house has seen in some time.
Of COURSE Obama is an atheist who professes generic Christianity to get elected. I can’t see how anyone, whether they agree with him or not, can actually think he magically had a road-to-Damascus experience in his late 20s that told him to be a not particularly fervent Christian. That’s unbelievably obtuse.
No, i believe he is right. I also don’t believe Obama is against gay marriage. And to be fair i think Bush was also an atheist who would be in favor of gay marriage. Same with Clinton and Bush sr. Pretending to be religious is sadly as much a requirement to be POTUS as having been born here. We make fun of right wing fundies who think he is Muslim, and not just for thinking he is lying about something so ridiculous but for thinking that it is somehow bad to be Muslim.
But, as others have said, I’m not annoyed with fundamentalists who accuse Obama of being a Muslim because they’re accusing him of being a Muslim, but because they say it like it’s a bad thing. Dawkins certainly doesn’t think being an atheist is a bad thing, but a compliment of the highest order.