Head Of Atheist Group Says Obama Shouldn’t Have Publicly Prayed For Shooting Victims

[cbayer]

http://www.mediaite.com/online/head-of-atheist-group-says-obama-shouldnt-have-publicly-prayed-for-shooting-victims/

by Josh Feldman | 4:12 pm, July 20th, 2012




At the end of his speech today reacting to the shooting in Colorado, President Obama said, “May the Lord bring them comfort and healing in hard days to come.” The head of the Center for Secular Humanism, however, told the Washington Examiner that Obama’s remarks were “unfortunate” and despite the “emotional context,” he should not be delivering “a message of exclusion.”



Tom Flynn sympathized with why Obama would want to say what he did today, but argued that he can’t “bend the rules” no matter what the circumstance.

“Even in a situation like this, [when] he leads a public prayer to a deity that it pretty recognizably the Christian God, much as you can understand the emotional context of it, he’s still sending to some degree a message of exclusion to other religions who don’t call their god “Lord” and to non-religious Americans.”
“By the very act of praying, that’s a message of exclusion,” he continued. “If I’m a public official, I think I’m going to look around in the morning and conclude that, ‘hey, this religion thing is just too hot to handle, I should stay away from it in my official capacity.’”

There is an unbelievably clear difference between allowing religion to influence public policy and a politician bringing up their personal faith in the context of a speech. I hardly think a politician saying “Our prayers are with the victims’ families” is a huge violation of the separation of church and state.


I’m an atheist, and I agree we should definitely have a dialogue on the increasing role of religion in contemporary politics, but all Obama did was offer a personal prayer to the victims’ families. People have different ways of coping with tragedy, and religious people turn to their faith to find solace and comfort. Even if you personally don’t believe in God, when a religious person tells you their prayers are with you, it’s meant to be a kind gesture showing you that they want to make sure that you are okay. That’s all the president did. No more, no less.

[Lint Head]

1. Wasn't it just a moment of silence?

[cbayer]

3. It is this statement that they find objectionable:

“May the Lord bring them comfort and healing in hard days to come.”

Note - this is the same guy who is upset because the Ag Secretary said he was praying for rain.

[cleanhippie]

15. No, he is upset that government official, acting in their official capacity, are espousing...

their personal religious beliefs. Barak Obama and Tom Vilsek are free to speak their mind about their personal religious beliefs, but the President of the United States and the Secretary of Agriculture should have not a single word to say about personal religious beliefs.

THAT is why non-believers are upset. Got it now?

[CAG]

67. freedom of speech, anyone?

I guess the next time a reporter asks if the president is a christian the president should just say, "you know, I'm not supposed to tell you a truthful answer to this question because it would be politically incorrect and somehow offend some people in some way."

[cleanhippie]

71. sigh

It's a shame that some people are unable to see beyond their privileged positions.

[CAG]

72. Do you have another line? I've seen this "privileged position" farce several times on this thread.

We like to make fun of the right wingers when they express outrage and victimhood at the "persecution" they suffer, but I think that would be matched by the "whoa is me" victimhood expressed in this thread.

[cleanhippie]

73. It's the only line needed.

[Speck Tater]

2. I am an atheist and...

I believe that every person, including the President, has the right to exercise their own particular religious beliefs. No atheist has the right to impose his atheism on others.

[RegieRocker]

6. You are a fair and respectful

Atheist. I commend you.

[cbayer]

7. There are quite a few in these parts. And quite a few fair and respectful believers. And

quite a few fair and respectful agnostics as well.

[stopbush]

32. What would have been respectful would have been for Obama to use words like

"we'll remember them, each in their own way, as our fellow Americans."

I'm sorry, but using the term "the Lord" here was entirely inappropriate. That is Xianity and nothing else. The only people thinking it's OK are the Xians. What if Obama had said "Allah" instead of "the Lord?" The country would be ripped by riots today.

I get that the country's default position when it comes to tragedy is to mumble to oneself and imagine they are praying to the imaginary Christian god, but why does it have to be so? Are we so craven that the freedom from religion enshrined in our Constitution actually isn't worthy of the same public notice as are religious beliefs?

Why are we atheists the ones who are always assumed to be the ones who need to be respectful of the religious? Why does the road never run the other way? Why is there absolutely no assumption at any time that the Christians are going to be publicly respectful of non-believers? Even our Democratic president seems to have no respect for the growing population of non-believers in this country.

I support Obama, but he showed no support for my non-belief by invoking the CHRISTIAN Lord in what was billed as a call for public unity and thought from all Americans, religious AND not.

[Speck Tater]

45. As the Buddha said...

You are not annoyed because of what somebody else did. You are annoyed because you are annoyable.

Take a deep breath. Live and let live. Don't make a federal case out of insignificant trivia.

[stopbush]

48. And I say, fuck the Buddha.

That felt good.

BTW - it's not insignificant trivia. The Buddha is insignificant trivia. The Constitution isn't.

[cleanhippie]

55. Winner!

Spot on!

[Dorian Gray]

68. People who would care

that he said Allah are idiots.

Let him respond in the way he sees fit. He believes in God, so let him relate to this the way he knows.

People seriously complain about everything.

[cleanhippie]

16. When you find anyone IMPOSING atheism on anyone, let us all know, will you?

Until then, this is a SECULAR government, and there is no place for personal religious beliefs in a SECULAR government.

[kwassa]

41. Is there room for personal beliefs in government?

If so, then there is room for personal religious beliefs.

Otherwise, you infringe on someone else's freedom of speech.

[cleanhippie]

42. If I thought for a second that you could be honest about the hypothetical situtation...

where a member of the government, who was of a religion that was NOT christianity, that espoused their personal religious beliefs while performing the duties of their office, in the same sectarian way that christians do now, you would retract your statement as false.

[kwassa]

51. Clarify your sentence.

I've re-read it several times, and it doesn't make sense.

I think you are trying to say that you believe that I would have a problem with a President speaking from religious beliefs that are other than Christian.

I would not have a problem with that, if the feelings expressed were universal enough. Same way I feel about Christian expressions.

[cleanhippie]

52. Seems like you understand it just fine.

Thanks for your response, I appreciate it.

[Goblinmonger]

53. So Christian expressions are universal

but other religions might not be so universal?

[cleanhippie]

63. I don't think you will get a response, GM.

And if you do, the christian privilege will not allow an honest answer.

[kwassa]

74. No, and this is not what I said.

Universal is universal.

Since you are a teacher, the reason that any book or teaching succeeds is because it resonates with the personal experience of the viewer. No work of expression has any power if it doesn't match up with something previously known.

Most spiritually-inclined people are pretty eclectic these days.

[Siwsan]

31. I am blowing you a kiss

Pray or don't pray, people should honor the dead in the way that is the most relevant to themselves.

People need to stop getting their knickers in a twist over verbal minutiae. Being honest, how many times does an Athiest utter any phrase containing the word "God". It could be 'Good God!' or 'God Damn', or even 'THANK GOD', just by reflex. It's just semantics. No one is going to force anyone to pray. It just doesn't work that way.

[Arkansas Granny]

4. As a non-believer, I agree with you. President Obama did not jeopardize the separation of

church and state with his statement. When a person tells me they will keep me in their prayers, I just accept that they are trying give me some comfort. I would never reject what they have offered out of kindness.

[stopbush]

50. Wrong standard applied erroneously.

It's not about church and state separation. It's about respecting non-beliefs and beliefs equally, and being mindful of that when making public pronouncements.

[struggle4progress]

5. poor tom flynn needs to get a life

and wtf is "the center for secular humanism"?

is it some bastard offspring of "the center for inquiry" and "the council for secular humanism"?

[cbayer]

8. I think it's an editorial mistake, but I'm not sure.

[humblebum]

9. Those two little words: "free exercise" seem to be purposely being ignored.

definition of FREE:

"free/frē/
Adjective:
"Not under the control or in the power of another; able to act or be done as one wishes."

[Goblinmonger]

10. When government agents are acting in their capacity

they are, in fact, the government and are held to different standards. Which is why teachers can't lead a prayer in front of the class in public schools. Or would you not have a problem with that either?

[humblebum]

13. But they do not forfeit their individual rights. "Free" has a very definite meaning.

I see no evidence of being forced to do anything, except those who wish to force certain others into silence.

[Goblinmonger]

17. I notice you didn't answer my question.

Are you OK with a public school teacher leading a prayer in front of class?

[humblebum]

18. What does this have to do with leading prayer? Nothing.

It is about individual prayer and voluntary prayer. Children in a classroom are a captive audience. That is the difference.

[Goblinmonger]

19. He was acting as the leader of our government when he said that.

Like it or not, he is restricted by the Constitution when doing so. Him saying a noticeably Christian prayer puts him in the position of endorsing that in a situation like that.

[humblebum]

22. Hardly. nt

[Goblinmonger]

35. What stunning analysis. n/t

[cleanhippie]

43. More like stupefying.

[humblebum]

46. But oh so real. nt

[humblebum]

14. BTW, Congress has a chaplain and has had for a very long time.

Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution states: "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers."

"The election of the Rev. William Linn as Chaplain of the House on May 1, 1789, continued the tradition established by the Continental Congresses of each day's proceedings opening with a prayer by a chaplain. The early chaplains alternated duties with their Senate counterparts on a weekly basis. The two conducted Sunday services for the Washington community in the House Chamber every other week.

Since the election of Rev. Linn in 1789, the House has been served by chaplains of various religious denominations, including Baptist (7), Christian (1), Congregationalist (2), Disciples of Christ (1), Episcopalian (4), Lutheran (1), Methodist (16), Presbyterian (15), Roman Catholic (1), Unitarian (2), and Universalist (1).

In addition to opening proceedings with prayer, the Chaplain provides pastoral counseling to the House community, coordinates the scheduling of guest chaplains, and arranges memorial services for the House and its staff. In the past, Chaplains have performed marriage and funeral ceremonies for House members."

So where is it stated that public officials are not allowed to pray - even publicly?

http://chaplain.house.gov/chaplaincy/history.html

[Goblinmonger]

11. I had no problem with the moment of silence

nor did I have a problem with him saying his prayers went out to the families of the victims.

But when he said an actual prayer that was clearly Christian, I, too, cringed a little. That is outside the scope of what the POTUS should be doing. Of course I don't have the privilege others do and am not one to go out of my way to protect that privilege.

[rrneck]

12. *sigh* nt

[johnnypneumatic]

20. what if President Obama had said:

“May Allah bring them comfort and healing in hard days to come.”

who would be complaining then?

[cbayer]

21. Were he a Muslim, that is probably what he would have said.

[johnnypneumatic]

23. And?

Don't you think many Christians would be offended?
Do you think the republicans would accept it, or would we never hear the end of it?

[cbayer]

24. I have no idea.

I would presume that the American public knew they had elected a Muslim and would have come to expect this.

Can't see why most christians would be offended.

Republicans might scream, but they would be shown to be hypocrites and bigots if they did. While that might help them in some quarters, it would most likely be a bad political move.

I think most people would simply not care and hear only this - my deepest sympathies and good wishes go out to the victims and their families.

[johnnypneumatic]

25. interesting

I think it would cause a firestorm. Anyone else agree with me?
You are talking about an alternate universe where Obama was a Muslim and was elected. In this universe, he is not and would never have been elected if he was.

You may not be offended, but I think all the "this is a Christian nation" Christians would be.

Republicans do react like that all the time, they are bigots and hypocrites, the republican party have been extremists for a while, yet they still run the House and could still win the Presidency again.

It would be better for the President to say "my deepest sympathies and good wishes go out to the victims and their families" as that is want I'd agree most people really mean to say, and there is no need to bring religion and prayer into the mix to confuse the issue.

[cleanhippie]

26. We both know that the answer you just got is anything but honest.

Had the POTUS said that, you, me, cbayer, and everyone else knows EXACTLY how the majority of believers in this country would have reacted.

You won't get honest answers to the hard questions here. Sorry.

[DonCoquixote]

33. what if he said

"America offers prayers and well wishes" something that covers what religious and non religious offer?

[cleanhippie]

56. Perhaps.

But he didn't.

[cbayer]

28. You are right - he never would have been elected.

I have problems with "God bless the USA" at the end of political speeches. It seems very trite and unnecessary.

I don't have a problem with a person who has openly professed his religious beliefs saying something religious during times of tragedy or sadness. He is still a person, and as long as it doesn't exclude or harm others, I am ok with it.

[Leontius]

65. Probably some rightwing Christian assholes

and the same bunch of atheist assholes who're complaining over this.

[MichiganVote]

27. Perfect. Athiests as annoyingly "right" as the Christians know it all's.

[cbayer]

30. I'm not clear on what you are saying here.

[MichiganVote]

62. I'm saying this is much ado about nothing. IF...

the Christians complained he didn't pray hard enough or long enough or said the "wrong" thing, I'd feel the same. People in the US need to chill out.

[cbayer]

64. Agree. People need to just let people be who they are

as long as it doesn't cause harm to others.

[MichiganVote]

69. Really? Cool. :) Can't member' the last time agreement on DU was this easy.

[cbayer]

70. We agree on a great deal, don't we?

[bluestateguy]

29. The atheist leader can go piss up a rope

A majority of our citizens--a big majority in fact--believe in God.

I do commend you for your understanding of the issue.

[Goblinmonger]

37. So screw the minority?

How privileged of you.

[bluestateguy]

38. Exactly how is the minority being screwed by the president saying a prayer?

Which you don't have to participate in or even listen to.

There is no constitutional right to not be offended.

[Goblinmonger]

39. Step down off your privilege for a bit and check things out.

The leader of our country is leading a Christian prayer. While I expect the right wing to be very happy about that, I expect more from progressives.

As I said above, I don't have a problem with him saying his prayers went out to people or even that he prayed about it. But actually saying a prayer that is markedly Christian is a little too far into the entanglement/endorsement realm (read: Lemon).

[bluestateguy]

40. Nothing in Lemon v. Kurtzman precludes leaders from making religious statements

To do so would actually represent an abridgement of public officials right to free speech and free exercise under the 1st Amendment.

[cleanhippie]

57. As evidenced by the response you got to this, some are simply unable to step away

from their privileged positions to see anyone elses POV.

[arcane1]

34. Eh, this atheist has no problem with that statement

It's not like he said "Join me in this prayer..." or "go to a church and offer your prayers" or in any way coerced anyone to participate in a one-sentence personal statement.

No big deal to me.

[Politicalboi]

36. He has to do it

Just like he has to say he is christian to become President. The lunatics in the US won't vote for you unless you believe in their nonsense. I hope to see a government with NO religion preference allowed. No more prayer on the public's dime, and get that word god off our money and out of our pledge, and out of our laws.

[CAG]

66. He just doesn't "say" he's a christian....he is a christian

and a damn good one at that

[Evoman]

44. How hard is it to keep this bullshit out of your speech?

So fucking easy. You can say something deep and meaningful without bringing stupid god shit into it. In fact, christian bullshit is the opposite of deep and meaningful. A good message is one that includes everyone.

So when someone doesn't do something that is extremely easy in order to include you, I assume they don't want me included. Then they can go fuck themselves.

[cordelia]

47. It's sad, isn't it, that he didn't contact you first

to determine what is and isn't bullshit before offering his condolences to dozens of families affected by this tragedy?

I am so very sorry you are so very offended by this egregious assault on your delicate sensibilities.

[Evoman]

49. He should. I'm awesome.

[2ndAmForComputers]

54. Hey, take a look at this.

BTW, you get no cookie for guessing who juror #5 is. Too easy.

At Sat Jul 21, 2012, 02:15 PM an alert was sent on the following post:

How hard is it to keep this bullshit out of your speech?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=36660

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Christian bullshit? This is an insult to all Christian DU'ers.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Jul 21, 2012, 02:30 PM, and the Jury voted 3-3 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Every group has bullshit coming out of it. Christians are certainly not exempt. I suggest the alerter respond to the post intelligently.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Stupid alert. Alerter should grow a thicker skin and engage the poster instead of trying to censor him. This post isn't out of bounds.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: It is his opinion and he has a right to it. Religion is not a protected group. No SOC violation here.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: Speaking as an agnostic, it's pretty much an insult to everybody. I could look to see what the first two edits were like, but I'm not at all sure I want to know.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[cleanhippie]

58. Damn! 3-3 to leave it? It was alomost hidden! WTF?

[2ndAmForComputers]

59. They got unlucky for once.

Even with slightly reduced probability, DU's Daemon of Randomness picked me.

[Evoman]

60. HA! I. am. bulletproof. *bows*

Nice try guys....

[Evoman]

61. Dear Juror 5.

My first two edits where spelling mistakes that I fixed. Thank you for your faith in me haha.

Well, there was that statement about how christian babies taste like chicken when you barbeque them...but I figured that was going too far.