I’m sure he wouldn’t have been elected president as an open atheist, but he certainly could’ve gotten elected to office and built a significant career for himself considering his skills. He could’ve done plenty. Lying about something for severa; decades to get ahead - not because you’re struggling with it or afraid of being punished; Obama doesn’t come from a religious family - isn’t passing, it’s just lying. I don’t think Obama is doing that because I think this whole theory is nonsense, but I wouldn’t view it sympathetically if he were.
So god told him that all people should be equal? Did he tell him to cheat on his wife, too?
One’s religion should not be a factor in how a president is elected.Look at the people God is said to have chosen to lead his people(according to the OT). One Moses killed a man, David was both a murderer and an adulterer. It looks like God wasn’t interested in morals for a leader.
“C’mon, Marty that chick is hot! Go for it!”
To be fair, when David sinned, the people were punished for it.
Watch from 6:00 on, Dawkins talks about Martin Luther King briefly
You are reinforcing Ibn Warraq’s point for him. In parts of his life where MLK applied religious principles, like organizing the SCLC, he was eminently successful. In parts where he did not, he was much less so.
Regards,
Shodan
I wouldn’t be surprised if Obama were an atheist, mainly because it’s the sort of thing that lends itself to many different appearances. If he were a Bible-thumping fundy, I wouldn’t be surprised if he were atheist and trying too hard to compensate. If he were a bland, church-going mainline Protestant, I wouldn’t be surprised if he were atheist and simply trying to blend in. If he were a non-church-going religious avoider, I wouldn’t be surprised if he were atheist and found associating with religion goofy or distasteful. There is NO pattern of behavior that would make me surprised at someone’s atheism.
Which is why I do what’s easy and take people at their word. If someone says they’re a Christian, I say, “Okey dokey, you’re a Christian.” Obama says he’s a Christian. Okey dokey.
From what I understand, he was quite successful at cheating.
I think you are confusing the reason he is doing something vs the manner is which he is doing them.
He may well have done what he did based upon his religious principles although the bible isn’t much on equality, but the organizing of how it was accomplished would have had little to do with anything he would have learned in that book.
So, why should people care about the president’s morals, it would mean God could punish him/her for it
A being who knows all things would know that David or Moses would do as they did and didn’t try to stop them in any way. Would you let your child murder someone then punish them afterwards if you could have prevented it in the first place?
His religious beliefs should have nothing to do with his being president. Just take a look at past presidents who made claim (and no one doubted their beliefs, they were far from perfect and Obama could teach a lot by his actions that he is a moral man, a good husband and father.If he were not a Christian he could put a lot of his critics to shame!
Again, not true at all. MLK founded his vision of the civil rights movement on non-violence. He got that idea from Jesus. Contrast that with the Black Panthers, for instance, which was based on a different set of principles.
Regards,
Shodan
Principles which, in their early stages, sound very libertarian.
I’d say he got it from Gandhi. Jesus made a lot of remarks like (from memory, so not exact) “I come not to bring peace, but a sword;” “Unless you hate your mother, father, wife, and children, you can’t be my disciple;” etc. He called people all kinds of names — Satan (IIRC he called Peter that), vipers, hypocrites, etc. Not to mention inventing the eternal torment of hell, which was not a concept from the Hebrew Bible, for the crime of not being able to believe patently unbelievable things.
I guess the baby Jesus was cute, but the adult was kind of an asshole.
He got his idea from Ghandi, who was successful. Jesus failed and was tacked up on a cross because of it.
Late to the thread, but:
I think Dawkin’s mistake is conflating “intelligent” with “spends much time questioning the validity of religion.”
I believe, honestly, that most intelligent, logical people, if they spend a lot of time considering the question of theism (and are presented with the current wealth of evidence and viewpoints), will come to either an atheist or lite theist (there’s a higher power out there but it’s very different from any mainstream religious concept of god).
I do not, however, think most intelligent people necessarily spend a whole lot of time asking the question. Especially if you’re busy. Which Obama, I think it’s fair to say, has been.
To the OP directly: no, Dawkins’ assertion doesn’t irritate as much as the right-wing argument, simply because the motive is so different. The reason the right-wing “secret Muslim” arguments are so unpleasant is because they smack of racism and xenophobia and amount to a whisper campaign to smear a person’s identity despite a lack of evidence. Dawkins is just being self-serving.
Self serving? How so? Dawkins concern, as for many atheists, is that the human race spends inordinate amount of time and resources upon myths, let alone people end up dying because of those myths. I guess it is self serving to want that to stop.
Except that both regularly cited Jesus. Also, Ghandi was, if anything even more religious than Martin Luther King.
I’m sure Der despises them both.
Well, he was a Hindu and probably considered a pagan because of it. Regardless, even stopped clocks can be right twice a day.
Considering that religions are created by man partly in an attempt to explain the world around them, it is conceivable that they could have useful information in regards to the human condition. Even more so when someone decides to go outside their own specific religion to find a ‘better practice’ and adapt it to one’s needs.
None of which provides a play book on how to organize a poker game, though. But because most of the information provided in the holy books was put in there to control people for the benefit of the clergy it is unlikely to provide much help to achieve goals that benefit mankind in general.