Apparently Obama is now against religion

[General Zod]

LOL

(CNN) — Newt Gingrich said Tuesday the Obama administration is "intensely secular" and "anti-religious," the former House Speaker's second hard-hitting criticism of the new administration this week.

In an interview with FOX News, Gingrich said he strongly disagreed with Obama's choice of Harry Knox — an outspoken activist for gay rights — to the White House advisory council on faith-based initiatives.

"I think their goal is to have a very secular America in which government dominates everything," he said. "Why wouldn't you put an anti-religious, left-wing zealot on a faith-based group? It's a perfect pattern for this administration."

Since 2005, Knox has served as the director of the Human Rights Campaign, a national organization that advocates on behalf of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals. He is also a former Methodist pastor.

Obama formally named Knox to the 25-member advisory council on Monday, a move that has not sat well with some Christian conservatives. The conservative Catholic League called him "unfit to serve," especially taking issue with Knox's recent comment characterizing Pope Benedict XVI as a "discredited leader" because of his opposition to gay marriage.

In a statement released earlier this week, Knox said, "The lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community is eager to help the administration achieve its goals around economic recovery and fighting poverty; fatherhood and healthy families; inter-religious dialogue; care for the environment; and global poverty, health and development."

But Gingrich said the Knox appointment, along with some other moves, proves the administration is trying to "go down in history as a consistently anti-religious, secular group of people who are consciously trying to drive things out."

Two days ago, Gingrich told Politico former Vice President Dick Cheney was "clearly right" when he asserted the Obama administration's national security policies have left the country more vulnerable to a terrorist attack.

Consistently anti-religious? This is just so mind bogglingly stupid of an attack I don't even know where to begin. The fact that he thinks having a secular government is a bad thing is especially hilarious, though.

[The Vortex Empire]

But don't you see, Zod? America was of course founded as a Christian nation, and not allowing religion to dominate politics is FASCIST!

Seriously though, have these damned ultra conservatives even read the Constitution? One would think politicians would need to know the laws of their country.

[Crossroads Inc.]

They have read it, naturally.. It says "One nation undergod" Which, to them, is cartblanch to have a nation totally and completly given over to the Christian religion.

In truth it is all about a lifetime of indoctrination of "A chrsitian Nation" and "Founded by Christians" so many on the ultraright have grown up believing that America was founded by, for and to spread the Christian faith.. Anything that takes away from that is thusly "anti-American" as the point, for them, OF america is to spread the word of god.

The fact that Obama recently said "America is not a Christian nation" is most likely what has so many all up in arms at the moment.

[General Zod]

They have read it, naturally.. It says "One nation undergod" Which, to them, is cartblanch to have a nation totally and completly given over to the Christian religion.

In truth it is all about a lifetime of indoctrination of "A chrsitian Nation" and "Founded by Christians" so many on the ultraright have grown up believing that America was founded by, for and to spread the Christian faith.. Anything that takes away from that is thusly "anti-American" as the point, for them, OF america is to spread the word of god.

The fact that Obama recently said "America is not a Christian nation" is most likely what has so many all up in arms at the moment.

You know that "under God" wasn't even in the constitution until 1954, right?

[Qwerty 42]

They have read it, naturally.. It says "One nation undergod" Which, to them, is cartblanch to have a nation totally and completly given over to the Christian religion.

In truth it is all about a lifetime of indoctrination of "A chrsitian Nation" and "Founded by Christians" so many on the ultraright have grown up believing that America was founded by, for and to spread the Christian faith.. Anything that takes away from that is thusly "anti-American" as the point, for them, OF america is to spread the word of god.

The fact that Obama recently said "America is not a Christian nation" is most likely what has so many all up in arms at the moment.

I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic: but the Constitution does not say "One nation, under God." The Pledge of Allegiance does, and the generally accepted version of the Gettysburg Address has something similar ("that nation, under God, shall not perish from the Earth.",) but the Constitution itself, the only one of those that impacts the law of the nation, does not contain anything remotely religious within it.

In fact, the First Amendment reads "The Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Some of the more outrageous theocratic groups will point out that the date at the bottom of the document is an Anno Domine date, which means "In the Year of Our Lord." Of course, it's not reasonable to expect the founders of the Constitution to invent a whole new dating system when writing their document, but there you have it.

[NecronLord]

They have read it, naturally.. It says "One nation undergod" Which, to them, is cartblanch to have a nation totally and completly given over to the Christian religion.

No it doesn't. That's the pledge of alligance. And that was added in the fifties. The original pledge was "One nation, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all." Personally, I think 'one - indivisible' works much better than 'one - god willing - indivisible'

The Consititution mentions religion only to say that the Union shall not promote or discriminate against it.

[Superman]

Newt brings up a good point. What we need is a president who chooses religious types, like John Ashcroft. Even if he was a complete disaster, at least he was an active member of the Assemblies of God church.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Damn. At first I honestly thought that was true until I found it out that this news article is just about the ramblings of a politician that shits out in two places of his body. Again, the Republican party continues to demonstrate its fundamental characteristic of insanity.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Well.... I would liek to retract my statment then... I am Deeply embaressed I got that mixed up >_<

That said... I'll let my point still stand.. That your average Chrtian fundi believes the country was founded BY chrstians, For chrstians as a christian nation.

[Haruko]

To so many Republicans and fundamentalist Christians, you are an extremist unless you are them.

[Ender]

Thinking Obama is secular shows how far out they are. I've been following the stuff from Religion Clause and American's United, and in a number of ways Obama has brought religion even deeper into the White House. They've got more access, but now they have to factor in the inputs from the rationalists as well, which acts as a check on their ability to influence policy. But they still have actually more access then Bush gave them even if their influence is now subject to internal politics rather then direct.

[B5B7]

In an interview with FOX News, Gingrich said he strongly disagreed with Obama's choice of Harry Knox — an outspoken activist for gay rights — to the White House advisory council on faith-based initiatives.

One must question the need for such an advisory council in the first place, but that is a separate issue. The council has 25 members - a rather large committee, so its effectiveness will be dubious anyway. One man in a 25 member group won't have much influence, especially if his views do not fit with the majority. Therefore, the conservitards have nothing to worry about - unless they are worried that the other members will get consciences.

Also, it is only an advisory council - any actual policy and actions will be decided by government. Finally, some people may give a fuck what Gingrich "strongly disagrees" with, but most people do not, certainly no one with sense.

[Ilya Muromets]

It speaks a lot of the sad state of mind the American conservatards pander to when "secular government" is immediately equal to an "anti-religious, left-wing zealot" running the show. As in, every person expressing interest in keeping a measure of secular is immediately some sort of evil crusader out to destroy anything religious and that it isn't possible for anything secular to be anything less. It's just stupid.

Do these people even read their own Constitution? You know, the same document where it says something about the separation of church and state and where the leader's stance on religion isn't supposed to be a factor in the first place?

Article VI, Section 3 of the US Constitution I've always admired since I've heard of it since I live in a country run by Catholic fundies. Then I grew up and realized even there it was little better. A shame, they're such beautiful words:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Given the state of affairs over there, however, I'm afraid that's all they ever will be--pretty words.

[Patrick Degan]

Thinking Obama is secular shows how far out they are. I've been following the stuff from Religion Clause and American's United, and in a number of ways Obama has brought religion even deeper into the White House. They've got more access, but now they have to factor in the inputs from the rationalists as well, which acts as a check on their ability to influence policy. But they still have actually more access then Bush gave them even if their influence is now subject to internal politics rather then direct.

Not only that, but it's not just the Christofascist voice being the sole one heard at the table anymore.

[Mayabird]

Dear Newt,

Go back to writing alt-history. It's the only place where you're not a has-been trying desperately to be relevant when you haven't been for over a decade.

Sincerely yours,
Everybody with the times

[Imperial Overlord]

Dear Newt,

Go back to writing alt-history. It's the only place where you're not a has-been trying desperately to be relevant when you haven't been for over a decade.

Sincerely yours,
Everybody with the times

IIRC, the book was pretty much written by his co-writer or ghost written with Newt doing little but collecting an excessively large check from a media conglomerate that totally wasn't a bribe.

[Count Chocula]

Heh. I was raised Catholic, but even I know that's bullshit. Hey Newt, here's what some of the founders said:

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind." - Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason, 1794-1795.);

Every man "ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience." - George Washington (Letter to the United Baptist Churches in Virginia in May, 1789) Washington may have been a Christian, but he kept it personal and desired that others do so as well;

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson (letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787)

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." - James Madison (Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, 1785.)

"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." - (Treaty of Tripoli, 1797 - signed by President John Adams.)

More are at the link.

And the "under God" line was added to the Pledge of Allegiance as the Cold War was heating up, so children could say every day how they were better than those godless Commies in the USSR.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Dear Newt,

Go back to writing alt-history. It's the only place where you're not a has-been trying desperately to be relevant when you haven't been for over a decade.

Sincerely yours,
Everybody with the times

IIRC, the book was pretty much written by his co-writer or ghost written with Newt doing little but collecting an excessively large check from a media conglomerate that totally wasn't a bribe.

That may be, but he then co-authored a series of three novels in which Grant kicks Lee's ass and wins the Civil War early after the Union loses at Gettysburg, long after he ceased being a politician, which is actually pretty damned good.

[Adrian Laguna]

That may be, but he then co-authored a series of three novels in which Grant kicks Lee's ass and wins the Civil War early after the Union loses at Gettysburg, long after he ceased being a politician, which is actually pretty damned good.

That's a very interesting and original premise, and I can imagine how it would play out.

With Grant attaining victory at Vicksburg almost simultaneously to the Army of the Potomac getting it's ass kicked, again, Lincoln would immediately have him transferred out East. In the meanwhile Mead withdraws from Gettysburg to the Pike Creek Line, and entrenches there. Any victory Lee could wrangle out of Gettysburg is liable to be very Phyrric in nature, so he'd be in no position to attack again. That means little or not fighting until Grant arrives, re-organizes the troops, and comes gunning after the old man. Grant's aggressive style starts winning the war in the East just as it did in OTL. Having been spared many months of Meade doing fuck-all after Gettysburg, the war draws to a close earlier.

That sound about right, or did he approach it from another angle?

Only issue I can think of with mine is that it assumes a similar to OTL Gettysburg, and I'm not sure the Union can lose that.

[The Spartan]

Apparently Obama is with the nation:

Newsweek through MSNBC.com

One Nation Under God?
The latest NEWSWEEK Poll finds shifting American attitudes about religion and faith. Still, the U.S. remains a deeply religious land.

Daniel Stone
Newsweek Web Exclusive
A nation facing problems of biblical proportions appears to be looking less and less to religion for answers. According to a new NEWSWEEK Poll, the percentage of Americans who think faith will help answer all or most of the country's current problems dipped to a historic low of 48 percent, down from 64 percent in 1994.

The poll also shows changing perceptions about the religious makeup of the United States and its politics. Since Barack Obama took office earlier this year, the number of people who consider the U.S. a Christian nation has fallen to 62 percent, down from higher numbers during the Bush administration (69 percent last year and 71 percent in 2005).

Last summer, when George W. Bush was still in office, one third of Americans thought that religion played too big a role in U.S. politics, compared to 25 percent who said it had too little influence. The numbers have switched in the new Obama era. Now, 26 percent think religion is too influential, compared to 31 percent who say faith doesn't carry enough weight in the political system.

"It has to do with the context of the White House," says Larry Hugick, chairman of Princeton Survey Research Associates, the firm that conducted the poll. "When you talk about religion in politics, it usually has to do with the role of evangelicals. Bush was an evangelical, but Obama isn't, so people see the leadership of the country differently now."

Sixty-eight percent said religion is losing influence on American life, up from 58 percent in 2000, 39 percent in 1984 and 32 percent in 1962. Previous periods where more than 60 percent thought religion was losing influence included 1994 and 1968.

When asked about their attitudes on social issues, survey respondents revealed a continued shift toward liberalism. One quarter of those surveyed say school boards should be able to fire homosexual teachers, down from 51 percent in a 1987 poll. Those who claim to have "old-fashioned values about family and marriage" has also decreased 13 points in that time, to a current 74 percent.

Still, Americans' personal beliefs about religion haven't changed much in the last 20 years. The number of Americans with faith in a spiritual being—nearly nine in 10—has not changed much over the past two decades, according to historical polling. Seventy-eight percent said prayer was an important part of daily life, an increase of 2 points since 1987. Eighty-five percent said religion is "very important" or "fairly important" in their own lives—a number that hasn't changed much since 1992. Nearly half (48 percent) described themselves as both "religious and spiritual," while another 30 percent said they were "spiritual but not religious." Only 9 percent said they were neither religious nor spiritual.

An interesting measurement of the poll looked at the number of people who leave one faith for another. The percentage of Americans who identify as non-evangelical Protestant (25 percent) is 5 points lower than the number who said they were raised that way. While 22 percent of respondents said they were Roman Catholic, 26 percent said they were born into Catholic families. The faith groups with net gains in believers were evangelical Protestants (29 percent compared to 25 percent who were brought up in the faith) and people who are agnostic, atheist or report no religion (also called "seculars"), up 3 points to 11 percent.

The pursuit of both religious and secular voters in the 2008 presidential race required candidates to walk a middle line, as it appears voters are evenly split on whether faith dictates their politics. The new poll measured that 51 percent of those surveyed, the vast majority of them evangelical Protestants, said their religion can have an impact on their personal politics. A bit less, 46 percent, reported that their faith is much less likely to affect how they vote on a candidate or an issue.

Measuring party identification by religion is not predicted as intuitively, but the poll shows that the GOP has lost ground to Democrats among all measured faith groups. The number of religious respondents who identify with the Republican Party has fallen nearly 10 percent among non-evangelicals and Roman Catholics. Often viewed as a Republican stronghold, more evangelicals now identify as Democrats (35 percent) than Republicans (34 percent). And other religions contain bigger divides. Among Catholics, the spread was the biggest—50 percent Democrats to 17 percent Republicans. Seculars also include a higher percentage of Democrats than Republicans (35 percent to 13 percent), but the majority (44 percent) of seculars identify as independents.

The survey was conducted among 1,003 adults, age 18 and over, on April 1 and 2, 2009. The margin of sampling error is 3.5 percentage points for results based on total adults. In addition to common sampling error, the practical problems of conducting surveys can also introduce error or bias into polls.

Okay, so that was a bit of an exaggeration. Still the numbers are improving slightly.

It's also nice to see the religious just begining to identify away the Republicans.

[CarsonPalmer]

That may be, but he then co-authored a series of three novels in which Grant kicks Lee's ass and wins the Civil War early after the Union loses at Gettysburg, long after he ceased being a politician, which is actually pretty damned good.

That's a very interesting and original premise, and I can imagine how it would play out.

With Grant attaining victory at Vicksburg almost simultaneously to the Army of the Potomac getting it's ass kicked, again, Lincoln would immediately have him transferred out East. In the meanwhile Mead withdraws from Gettysburg to the Pike Creek Line, and entrenches there. Any victory Lee could wrangle out of Gettysburg is liable to be very Phyrric in nature, so he'd be in no position to attack again. That means little or not fighting until Grant arrives, re-organizes the troops, and comes gunning after the old man. Grant's aggressive style starts winning the war in the East just as it did in OTL. Having been spared many months of Meade doing fuck-all after Gettysburg, the war draws to a close earlier.

That sound about right, or did he approach it from another angle?

Only issue I can think of with mine is that it assumes a similar to OTL Gettysburg, and I'm not sure the Union can lose that.

Very different angle, actually. The first goes as OTL, except that Early tries an evening attack up Culp's Hill and Hancock kicks the shit out of him with troops that just came rushing up. That causes Lee to swing all the way around to Hanover, smashing the supply depot there. Meade chases him, but Lee digs in along Pipe Creek. The AoP attacks and gets murdered, and Meade is relieved for Dan Sickles (Hancock and Sedgwick both get wounded at Pipe Creek). That sets up Grant coming east.

[Darth Wong]

Is it possible that ordinary people will find all this hyperventilating from the right to be absurd, and tune them out? Or is it actually gaining traction, politically speaking?

[Crossroads Inc.]

As far as I can tell the Only people making any sort of fuss about this or Rightwing blogs and Faux news... There hasn't so much been a blip on any other news network since he first said it a few days ago. The closest anyone came to bringing it up was an NPR interview abut his trip to the middle east when a Commentator simply said "Obama feels comfortable enough to say something he never could while campaigning" whihc was a passing reference to what he said.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Should we send Newt copies of the constitution and the Treaty of Tripoli?

he obviously hasn't read them...

Then again it might give the conservatives an idea for refuting the vote count. Apparently some voters are only 3/5ths of a person....

[Rogue 9]

The Pledge of Allegiance does, and the generally accepted version of the Gettysburg Address has something similar ("that nation, under God, shall not perish from the Earth.",)

No it doesn't. The final phrase of the Address is as follows:

[T]hat we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom; and that this government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.