Godless Americans

[PassedOut]

In my opinion, a person's actions reveal a lot more about character than do professions of religious belief - particularly when those professions of religious belief are almost mandatory.

 

In that vein, here is a telling account of an act long ago by Barack Obama: Obama Helped Woman from Norway 20 Years Ago

 

The Norwegian newspaper VG has reported a truly amazing story about a newly-wed trying to get to Norway to be with her husband, and the stranger who helped pay an unexpected luggage surcharge. The blog “Leisha’s Random Thoughts” has translated the story.

 

It was 1988, and Mary Andersen was at the Miami airport checking in for a long flight to Norway to be with her husband when the airline representative informed her that she wouldn’t be able to check her luggage without paying a 100 surcharge:

 

When it was finally Mary’s turn, she got the message that would crush her bubbling feeling of happiness.

 

-You’ll have to pay a 103 dollar surcharge if you want to bring both those suitcases to Norway , the man behind the counter said.

 

Mary had no money. Her new husband had travelled ahead of her to Norway, and she had no one else to call.

 

-I was completely desperate and tried to think which of my things I could manage without. But I had already made such a careful selection of my most prized possessions, says Mary.

 

As tears streamed down her face, she heard a “gentle and friendly voice” behind her saying, “That’s okay, I’ll pay for her.”

Mary turned around to see a tall man whom she had never seen before.

 

-He had a gentle and kind voice that was still firm and decisive. The first thing I thought was, Who is this man?

 

Although this happened 20 years ago, Mary still remembers the authority that radiated from the man.

 

-He was nicely dressed, fashionably dressed with brown leather shoes, a cotton shirt open at the throat and khaki pants, says Mary.

 

She was thrilled to be able to bring both her suitcases to Norway and assured the stranger that he would get his money back. The man wrote his name and address on a piece of paper that he gave to Mary. She thanked him repeatedly. When she finally walked off towards the security checkpoint, he waved goodbye to her.

 

Who was the man?

 

Barack Obama.

To me, that is real character. [And it's nice to be in touch with my relatives in Norway!]

[luke warm]

To me, that is real character. [And it's nice to be in touch with my relatives in Norway!]

Orson Swindle, 71, a retired Marine lieutenant colonel who shared a cement pad with McCain at the infamous Hanoi Hilton prison, says McCain turned down a chance to go home because he believed that those captured before him should be freed first (consistent with the U.S. military's Code of Conduct's prohibition on accepting favors from the enemy). "He chose probably to die," says Swindle, who now lives in Alexandria, Va. "That, my friend, is character beyond what most of us can understand." George "Bud" Day, 83, recalls meeting McCain in 1967 when the future presidential candidate was in desperate shape, with two fractured arms and a broken knee, "filthy, sweating, feverish." "But John refused to die," adds Day, now a lawyer in Fort Walton Beach, Fla.

now that's character... of course, all in all i'd rather be in norway

[Lobowolf]

To me, that is real character. [And it's nice to be in touch with my relatives in Norway!]

Orson Swindle, 71, a retired Marine lieutenant colonel who shared a cement pad with McCain at the infamous Hanoi Hilton prison, says McCain turned down a chance to go home because he believed that those captured before him should be freed first (consistent with the U.S. military's Code of Conduct's prohibition on accepting favors from the enemy). "He chose probably to die," says Swindle, who now lives in Alexandria, Va. "That, my friend, is character beyond what most of us can understand." George "Bud" Day, 83, recalls meeting McCain in 1967 when the future presidential candidate was in desperate shape, with two fractured arms and a broken knee, "filthy, sweating, feverish." "But John refused to die," adds Day, now a lawyer in Fort Walton Beach, Fla.

now that's character... of course, all in all i'd rather be in norway

Screw that...gimme my 103 bucks.

[mikeh]

To me, that is real character. [And it's nice to be in touch with my relatives in Norway!]

Orson Swindle, 71, a retired Marine lieutenant colonel who shared a cement pad with McCain at the infamous Hanoi Hilton prison, says McCain turned down a chance to go home because he believed that those captured before him should be freed first (consistent with the U.S. military's Code of Conduct's prohibition on accepting favors from the enemy). "He chose probably to die," says Swindle, who now lives in Alexandria, Va. "That, my friend, is character beyond what most of us can understand." George "Bud" Day, 83, recalls meeting McCain in 1967 when the future presidential candidate was in desperate shape, with two fractured arms and a broken knee, "filthy, sweating, feverish." "But John refused to die," adds Day, now a lawyer in Fort Walton Beach, Fla.

now that's character... of course, all in all i'd rather be in norway

Both stories highlight good aspects of the subjects' character.. and I don't think that one can say that one shows more (or better) character than the other.

 

After all, we don't know how Obama would have reacted in McCain's situation, anymore than we know if McCain ever has or would exhibit the sort of spontaneous compassion and generosity (small tho the scale may be) that Obama showed.

 

Frankly, my take on McCain is that he has changed a lot in the last 8 years.. as some of the MSM (took me a while to realize this stood for MainStream Media) have noted, McCain 2000 has almost nothing in common with McCain 2008... can anyone seriously imagine that McCain 2000 would have chosen an evangelical ignoramus as a running mate had he beaten out W during the primaries back then? Heck, he was campaigning AGAINST the religious conservative side of his party, not pandering to them.

 

To me, his selection of Palin and some of the more reprehensible smears he endorses (the garbage about Khalidi is a classic) say more about his current character than anything he did or did not do in North Vietnam 40 years ago... and I say that from the perspective that he truly was a hero... and I am very, very happy that I never was nor ever will be in any situation remotely as difficult as his experiences as a POW.

[Lobowolf]

To me, that is real character. [And it's nice to be in touch with my relatives in Norway!]

Orson Swindle, 71, a retired Marine lieutenant colonel who shared a cement pad with McCain at the infamous Hanoi Hilton prison, says McCain turned down a chance to go home because he believed that those captured before him should be freed first (consistent with the U.S. military's Code of Conduct's prohibition on accepting favors from the enemy). "He chose probably to die," says Swindle, who now lives in Alexandria, Va. "That, my friend, is character beyond what most of us can understand." George "Bud" Day, 83, recalls meeting McCain in 1967 when the future presidential candidate was in desperate shape, with two fractured arms and a broken knee, "filthy, sweating, feverish." "But John refused to die," adds Day, now a lawyer in Fort Walton Beach, Fla.

now that's character... of course, all in all i'd rather be in norway

Both stories highlight good aspects of the subjects' character.. and I don't think that one can say that one shows more (or better) character than the other.

 

Frankly, my take on McCain is that he has changed a lot in the last 8 years.. as some of the MSM (took me a while to realize this stood for MainStream Media) have noted, McCain 2000 has almost nothing in common with McCain 2008... can anyone seriously imagine that McCain 2000 would have chosen an evangelical ignoramus as a running mate had he beaten out W during the primaries back then? Heck, he was campaigning AGAINST the religious conservative side of his party, not pandering to them.

I think there's some truth to this, but I also think that to some extent, it's a political reality that candidates frame themselves in response to whom they're running against and what they're running for. For example, when running against Howard Dean in the 2004 primary, Kerry issued some very hawkish statements, including that anyone who didn't think regime change was needed in Iraq was unfit to be president; when running against Bush in the general election, we saw a very different Kerry.

 

Similarly, with respect to Reverend Jeremiah Wright, I don't find it at all credible that Obama's designated "spiritual advisor," whom he'd known for 20 years, suddenly changed, or Obama suddenly learned shocking new things about him; rather, when Obama was on a local stage in a liberal venue, Wright was an asset, but on a national stage, when he needed to appeal to moderates, Wright became a liability. You could surmise that either Obama or Wright changed drastically over the last 10 or 20 years, but I think that Occam's Razor suggests political expedience.

[jonottawa]

I thought Obama was too smart/rational to believe in 'gods' and other superstitious nonsense, but if he doesn't even know when WWI ended, perhaps I'm mistaken.

 

I also thought that John Edwards would make the best candidate for the Dems because he'd be the most 'electable.' What a clown that guy turned out to be. Have an affair AFTER you get elected, not in the middle of the campaign.

 

I'm not very optimistic about an Obama presidency. He's slick. He panders well. He knows how to raise money. Can he govern? Time will tell. The alternative was too disgusting to consider voting for anyone else.

[helene_t]

By deciding what issues are most important for me? And that are issues that affect me + what I think is good for the country. And that's economic and social issues, not religious ones.

unless, of course, one believes that religion is a key issue for the country, which I think some do.

Disagree. Religion can be a key issue for a country without being a key issue for the country's government. One can favor separation of church and state without dismissing religion in general.

[helene_t]

 

GWB was one of the worst presidents they had. But this has exactly nothing to do with his religious belives.

I couldn't disagree more (with the last sentence, not the first).

 

One of the fundamental (pun intended) problems with born-again Christians (and of zealots of other religions as well) is that they are armoured with an invincible sense of their righteousness.

 

1. If GWB had been an atheist , he had been as convinced and as stupid as a christian.

Not sure what the term "born-again Christian" means, it is possible that it is an extreme cult that prevents its members from rational thinking. But more generally, it seems evident to me that religion not necessarily prevents people from rational thinking. Although I don't understand religion, and although religion (to the extent that I do understand it) seems irrational to me.

 

Conversely, it is quite possible to have this "invincible sense of one's own righteousness" without being religious. From my perspective, Marxist or Freudian zealotry is more dangerous than religious zealotry. Of course I might have seen it differently if I were raised in a country where religion is mixed into politics, such as Iran or USA.

[PassedOut]

Conversely, it is quite possible to have this "invincible sense of one's own righteousness" without being religious. From my perspective, Marxist or Freudian zealotry is more dangerous than religious zealotry.

How true. I was involved with anti-war activities during the Vietnam war, so got to know many different kinds of leftists. The worst to deal with were those who were absolutely convinced of the correctness of their ideologies. Some called me "worse than Nixon" for taking issue with their positions and for refusing to listen to long-winded nonsense.

 

I think that people with "true believer" personalities are pretty much the same whether they get caught up in religion, politics, or some other cause.

[TimG]

By deciding what issues are most important for me? And that are issues that affect me + what I think is good for the country. And that's economic and social issues, not religious ones.

unless, of course, one believes that religion is a key issue for the country, which I think some do.

Disagree. Religion can be a key issue for a country without being a key issue for the country's government. One can favor separation of church and state without dismissing religion in general.

I think this is an easier view for the non-religious. Take premarital sex, for instance. One's religion might teach that premarital sex is immoral, so that an elected official that has this religious belief would be hard placed to support programs that make birth control available to teenagers; he would be acting immorally (in his view), or encouraging others to act immorally, if he supported such programs.

 

I don't think the non-religious amongst us fully comprehend how impossible it is for some to suspend their religious beliefs when it comes to government. Religion is not something that can be practiced only when convenient, but rather it is an integral part of some people's every moment.

[Lobowolf]

Elected officials are influenced by their moral beliefs, whether those beliefs are religion-based or not.

 

Having said that, Christian politicians in America have a fairly long history of separating their religious beliefs from their political ones pretty much since Day 1, when they came up with/went along with a First Amendment (have whatever God you want) that was in direct conflict with the First Commandment (Thou shalt have no other Gods before me).

[mikeh]

Conversely, it is quite possible to have this "invincible sense of one's own righteousness" without being religious. From my perspective, Marxist or Freudian zealotry is more dangerous than religious zealotry.

How true. I was involved with anti-war activities during the Vietnam war, so got to know many different kinds of leftists. The worst to deal with were those who were absolutely convinced of the correctness of their ideologies. Some called me "worse than Nixon" for taking issue with their positions and for refusing to listen to long-winded nonsense.

 

I think that people with "true believer" personalities are pretty much the same whether they get caught up in religion, politics, or some other cause.

I agree.

 

Maybe the explanation is that any doctrine that purports to provide 'true answers' to matters that are insoluble by the rational parts of our brains is dangerous precisely because acceptance of that doctrine results in and in fact requires that we switch of the rational part of our brain.. at least in the context of trying to explore the issue to which the doctrine purports to provide an answer.

 

My suspicion, which is not remotely original, is that our minds are incapable of accessing any 'true' explanation of the 'why' of the universe. We can and not doubt will continue to come up with theories that push our understanding of the mathematics/physics closer and closer to the Big Bang, and perhaps the ideas of branes, or the multiverse and so on will develop further and so on... but understanding the 'why' of it all seems to me to be akin to expecting my dog to understand relativity. The concept may be valid, but my dog's brain lacks the ability to access it.

 

Marxism purports to afford an absolute answer (at least, it seems to be interpreted in that fashion by some), in much the same way as religion does... even if the questions being addressed are somewhat different. Hence those memes appear to capture certain types of minds into a closed belief system. And all closed minds are dangerous to outsiders.

[awm]

One's religion might teach that premarital sex is immoral, so that an elected official that has this religious belief would be hard placed to support programs that make birth control available to teenagers; he would be acting immorally (in his view), or encouraging others to act immorally, if he supported such programs.

This viewpoint (and I think it is a common one) is one I strongly disagree with.

 

We teach kids about the effects of alcohol and the dangers of driving drunk. Does this encourage them to drink? Should we stop teaching them about the effects of alcohol to prevent underage drinking?

 

We teach kids about the Holocaust. Does this encourage our kids to kill Jews? Should we stop teaching about the Holocaust in order to prevent anti-semitism?

 

We teach kids about slavery. Does this encourage our kids to enslave people? To hate blacks? Should we remove slavery from the curriculum?

 

We have kids read literature that involves all kinds of immorality... children killing their father and sleeping with their mother (Oedipus)... a husband killing his wife (Othello)... and on and on. Should we remove all these works of literature from the curriculum to prevent kids from repeating these awful deeds?

 

Teaching kids about birth control doesn't cause them to have sex. Kids have sex anyway. Look how many pregnant teenagers are walking around in the schools in Christian communities that don't teach sex education. Look at the percentage of evangelical kids who have sex before marriage.

 

This opposition to teaching kids facts is just bad educational policy. Ignorance is not a position. Encouraging ignorance in others should not be a political viewpoint.

[cherdano]

I thought Obama was too smart/rational to believe in 'gods' and other superstitious nonsense, but if he doesn't even know when WWI ended, perhaps I'm mistaken.

What are you referring to?

[helene_t]

I think this is an easier view for the non-religious. Take premarital sex, for instance.

I think it's fair enough if a politician says he's against subsidization of contraception. I also think it's fair enough if he says he is against because he considers pre-marital sex to be immoral. I wouldn't personally vote for a politician who extends his own sexual morality to others (but if he says he wouldn't personally have premarital sex I would have no problems with that). But whether that morality has a religious basis I wouldn't care about.

 

Suppose a politician says he will fight poverty. I might vote for him because I consider fighting poverty an important issue. It wouldn't necessarily scare me if his agenda was religiously motivated. Of course if he refused to collaborate with secular charities because he considered the religious dimension of charity to be important, it would disqualify him in my eyes.

[luke warm]

To me, that is real character. [And it's nice to be in touch with my relatives in Norway!]

Orson Swindle, 71, a retired Marine lieutenant colonel who shared a cement pad with McCain at the infamous Hanoi Hilton prison, says McCain turned down a chance to go home because he believed that those captured before him should be freed first (consistent with the U.S. military's Code of Conduct's prohibition on accepting favors from the enemy). "He chose probably to die," says Swindle, who now lives in Alexandria, Va. "That, my friend, is character beyond what most of us can understand." George "Bud" Day, 83, recalls meeting McCain in 1967 when the future presidential candidate was in desperate shape, with two fractured arms and a broken knee, "filthy, sweating, feverish." "But John refused to die," adds Day, now a lawyer in Fort Walton Beach, Fla.

now that's character... of course, all in all i'd rather be in norway

Both stories highlight good aspects of the subjects' character.. and I don't think that one can say that one shows more (or better) character than the other.

 

After all, we don't know how Obama would have reacted in McCain's situation, anymore than we know if McCain ever has or would exhibit the sort of spontaneous compassion and generosity (small tho the scale may be) that Obama showed.

even so, i'd guess (and it's just a guess) it's easier to show things like generosity in an airport in norway than a pow camp in hanoi

[luke warm]

 

GWB was one of the worst presidents they had. But this has exactly nothing to do with his religious belives.

I couldn't disagree more (with the last sentence, not the first).

 

One of the fundamental (pun intended) problems with born-again Christians (and of zealots of other religions as well) is that they are armoured with an invincible sense of their righteousness.

 

1. If GWB had been an atheist , he had been as convinced and as stupid as a christian.

Not sure what the term "born-again Christian" means~~

me either, helene... to be a christian one must be born again, so i don't know why that phrase is seemingly used to segregate the faith

[jonottawa]

I thought Obama was too smart/rational to believe in 'gods' and other superstitious nonsense, but if he doesn't even know when WWI ended, perhaps I'm mistaken.

What are you referring to?

 

"I want everybody to know, though, a little bit about her. Her name was Madelyn Dunham. She was born in Kansas in a small town in 1922. Which means that she lived through the Great Depression, she lived through two World Wars, ..."

[jdonn]

I thought Obama was too smart/rational to believe in 'gods' and other superstitious nonsense, but if he doesn't even know when WWI ended, perhaps I'm mistaken.

What are you referring to?

 

"I want everybody to know, though, a little bit about her. Her name was Madelyn Dunham. She was born in Kansas in a small town in 1922. Which means that she lived through the Great Depression, she lived through two World Wars, ..."

I believe he also said something like "I need you Ohio" the other day when he was campaigning in Florida. Do you believe

 

- that he thinks that state that sticks out into the water in the southest US is Ohio?

 

or

 

- that it's possible to misspeak after 21 months of giving hundreds or even thousands of speeches and interviews and going on perhaps a thousand plane flights, and with your grandmother who raised you having just passed away on top of it, and that Obama does in fact know when WWI ended?

[TimG]

One's religion might teach that premarital sex is immoral, so that an elected official that has this religious belief would be hard placed to support programs that make birth control available to teenagers; he would be acting immorally (in his view), or encouraging others to act immorally, if he supported such programs.

This viewpoint (and I think it is a common one) is one I strongly disagree with.

I did not mean to suggest that I believe telling teenagers about condoms encourages them to have sex. (I tend to believe it encourages those that are going to have sex anyway to practice safe sex.) But, there are plenty of "abstinence only" advocates who believe just that.

[jonottawa]

I can see momentarily forgetting which state you're in if you're travelling to dozens of states during the last week of a campaign.

 

But no, I can't see bringing up the date 1922, asking people to reflect upon what a person born on that date has experienced in life, and then coming to the conclusion that it included living through 2 world wars, unless on some level you are either ignorant or have some kind of dementia. It especially grated me that he was lecturing folks in his professorial tone when he did it.

 

I voted for him, but he's really not qualified for the job. The press was in the tank for him the whole campaign. He broke his promise on public financing. If the new threshold to be considered qualified to be president is that you're marginally better than GWB then may the FSM have mercy on all of our souls.

[jdonn]

That seems pretty cynical to me, but I bet you already know it is. I think I have said 2 before when I meant to say 1, and probably not even realized it. I don't think that makes me demented or ignorant about whatever I was talking about. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

Can you please name any person you believe is qualified to be president?

[jonottawa]

Bill Clinton ...

 

Chuck Hagel, Russ Feingold: guys with a bit of gravitas and experience who aren't all salesmanship. (If strenuously opposing the Iraq war ahead of time qualifies you to be president, well then pick me.)

 

Obama took 15 minutes to vote today. People are being disenfranchised all over the country by 5,6,7,8-hour lines and this clown is taking 15 minutes to vote while he banters with his wife. I wish he'd buy a clue.

[Gerben42]

But no, I can't see bringing up the date 1922, asking people to reflect upon what a person born on that date has experienced in life, and then coming to the conclusion that it included living through 2 world wars, unless on some level you are either ignorant or have some kind of dementia. It especially grated me that he was lecturing folks in his professorial tone when he did it.

 

Give the man a break, his grandmother just died. Would you like to have every mistake you make pointed out to you? I bet you'd be fed up with it in 1 day. I know I would.

[mikeh]

Bill Clinton ...

 

Chuck Hagel, Russ Feingold: guys with a bit of gravitas and experience who aren't all salesmanship. (If strenuously opposing the Iraq war ahead of time qualifies you to be president, well then pick me.)

 

Obama took 15 minutes to vote today. People are being disenfranchised all over the country by 5,6,7,8-hour lines and this clown is taking 15 minutes to vote while he banters with his wife. I wish he'd buy a clue.

Funny: you are upset because, on the biggest day of his life, he slows up a line for 15 mins, yet your first choice of who's qualified to be President is Clinton, who, as president, shut down a major airport while he had a barber come onto Airforce 1 to give him a haircut. I know, that arrogance didn't disqualify him as a president, but I did find it amusing that you call Obama a clown for his minor delay.. which had nothing to do with any 4 or 5 hour line-up in other polling stations, btw.

 

Personally, my impression of Obama is that he has ample gravitas... that he is possessed of a sound philosophical centre, that he will not give way to surges of emotion (unlike McCain), and that he has an intellectual aspect to him. One of the most ludicrous aspects of modern politics, perhaps more so in the US than in most western democracies, is the habit of using the descriptive term intellectual as a form of insult. Maybe the experience of being governed for 8 years by an anti-intellectual is sinking in.