1. President Obama: Bad News For the New Atheists and Other Fundamentalists

Comment #280568 by aratina on November 7, 2008 at 8:49 pm

Funny how atheists (new or old) are dropped together with religious extremists, because that characterization is extremely wrong. Unlike religious extremists, atheists are just fine with religious people believing whatever the hell they want to believe. Atheists simply do not like the hypocrisy of religion and we peacefully fight against it. This is why Frank Schaeffer is wrong about atheists and wrong about Barack Obama.

Obama himself grew up in an atheist/secularist household and did not join a religious community until he was in his 20s! It really looks like Obama became religious because it connected him with a community that was larger than any he had ever been connected to before as a biracial black child who had grown up in white and Asian/Pacific Islander cultures where he had been something of an outsider. Obama seems to have decided to embrace the religious aspect of his own humanity and run with it to accomplish his lifelong goals. There is no harm in that and it actually is an ironically rational reason to become religious.

It is all too easy to get freaked out when Obama's church members erupt in anger at atheists in the state assembly chambers, or when Obama proposes expanding Bush's faith-based initiative, or when Obama agrees to pander to the religious right's newest prophet, Rick Warren, because for too long the loudest religious leaders have been very derogatory and disdainful towards atheists and just about every other minority. Just look at how "Christians" dumped on the LGBTQ community in California while simultaneously electing Obama. The problem is that those awful people are not Obama and atheists need time to adjust to a tolerant believer in a position of ultimate power.

So Frank Schaeffer needs to give us time before disparaging us by grouping us with religious extremists. Neo-atheists have already warmed up considerably, just look at Hitchens' endorsement, and look at how correct Dawkins was about the religious labeling of children being child abuse (it was used by the "Christians" to show that Obama was Muslim). It is clear Obama and atheists can work well together. I think Frank Schaeffer will find, to his surprise perhaps, that Obama is still a secularist.

And last I just want to say to all those haters out there who smeared Obama and Democrats, a big fat F'ing "Ha-Ha!"

2. Obama Wants to Expand Role of Religious Groups

Comment #203236 by aratina on July 2, 2008 at 1:44 pm

Quite a few people find complacency with Obama's faith council too readily. From another NY Times article:

The program would "be central to our White House mission," [Obama] said, and would consider elevating the director of his Council for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships to a cabinet-level post.

3. Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech

Comment #192137 by aratina on June 12, 2008 at 1:38 pm

The article did not emphasize enough how the current US Supreme Court restricts the First Amendment to older people outside of certain institutions. Just look at its most recent ruling on the issue: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1637131,00.html And that was not even hate speech! No, the debate is never settled in America on constitutional rights, and that is the beauty of it. I personally think it is representative of America's lack of a monarchy. Very few nation states can actually say they have no ruler, king, queen, emperor, or empress who deserves respect, fortune and fame (and sometimes ultimate authority) simply for existing, although that is slowly changing as it did in Nepal and Russia.

4. Repulsive but right

Comment #184665 by aratina on May 25, 2008 at 11:13 pm

Actually, you can watch all the youtube videos of debates with Hitchens and find that he gets a huge applause from a wide range of the audience, not just a little fan section. There is always that one small-minded person (as there is at all of Dawkins speeches) who can't be persuaded and that person invariably gets scolded or shamed by the audience, not just Hitchens. How could Hitchens win all these debates if he was not persuasive?

And about the alcohol, tobacco and religion comment, Hitchens has quit smoking, just google for it and find this:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/16/AR2008011604301.html
It is also incorrect to say that since Hitchens drinks and some people hurt others under the influence of religion or alcohol that Hitchens will hurt others, too. Then there is the small fact that tobacco does not kill people who don't use it (not considering forced secondhand smoking). The worst part of that comment, though, is that sexual repression is what causes low HIV rates. Actually, sexual repression causes HIV rates to be unreported, causes condoms to not be used, and causes people to be assaulted or left untreated and infected for having nonconforming sex. Sexual repression just hurts people; it certainly hurts people physiologically and socially.

5. Richard Dawkins Interview on TVOntario

Comment #181187 by aratina on May 16, 2008 at 3:14 pm

I get such a kick out of watching Dawkins reach right in, grab these credulous people by their necks and haul them up to reality as he does with this interviewer on several occasions.

That said, I'm not sure why Dawkins conceded that Jesus likely was real. From my own research, I found a real Jesus to be about as likely as a real fairy. What is likely is that a whole bunch of anecdotes about real people were merged into this one character and it took off for the reasons Dawkins mentioned (see 5:20). In that way, a person named Jesus who happened to have taken up the practice of healing could be said to have been real, but he would not have been the comprehensive character in the Bible.