Comments for I Have to Say This at http://www.randi.org/site , comment 1 to 14 out of 14 comments http://www.randi.org/site Tue, 21 May 2013 11:54:36 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/351-i-have-to-say-this.html#comment-1236 I for one am not that concerned. We all know that an (open) atheist president is a no no. So Obama has to throw the rabid religious nuts a bone. I would rather have him throw the swearing in bone than the "here's a cabinet position" bone. I think that Obama has made it clear where he stands on science and knowledge. This to me is inconsequential out side of a political image context. It's about building bridges people :P. - Raindoggy Fri, 26 Dec 2008 13:03:16 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/351-i-have-to-say-this.html#comment-1199 With respect to all: Having been one of "those" evangelicals, (including a YEC, and all that went with it), and having worked in Christian Radio, this is one of the most boneheaded moves the new administration could have made. Rick Warren? Are you [i]kidding[/i] me? Warren has a decidedly myopic view of humanity and of the world at large. I hope I don't sound too cynical, but Saddleback will be making hay of this for the next four years, using this as part of very sophisticated ad campaigns which will support their very simplistic views of science, God, and American politics. It will ultimately result in the uninformed making sizeable contributions to Saddleback, without realizing that those "contributions" will be used in manners that would make Thomas Jefferson's and Gregor Mendel's hair stand on end. The whole thought of this just plain creeps me out. - Roadtoad Thu, 25 Dec 2008 13:03:59 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/351-i-have-to-say-this.html#comment-1166 One could stretch the idea of "free and open inquiry" to include those of a relgious bent, since they might be considered philosophers. President-elect Obama is just doing what all polticians do -- pandering. To expect otherwise is to not understand the nature of the political animal, no matter how much one purports to believe in a "search for knowledge, truth and greater understanding of the world around us." Religion does exactly the opposite. No need to whine about Warren at the inauguration, though; it's essentially harmless. It will take someone with much greater courage in the future to openly say: "My administration will base its policies on the best available science. Woo-woo and superstition of all kinds, including religious, is unjustified and inappropriate. Therefore, there will be no invoking of the blessings of any mythical Judeo-Christian Hairy Thunderer at my inaguration, since such an act would be both hypocritical and moot." I won't hold my breath waiting for this to happen. - frankwomble Mon, 22 Dec 2008 08:39:08 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/351-i-have-to-say-this.html#comment-1150 Yes, he's obviously working some political angles... But what was the last administration that would make a statement like this: (change.gov website): “The truth is that promoting science isn’t just about providing resources—it’s about protecting free and open inquiry,” President-elect Obama said. “It’s about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology. It’s about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it’s inconvenient—especially when it’s inconvenient. Because the highest purpose of science is the search for knowledge, truth and a greater understanding of the world around us. That will be my goal as President of the United States—and I could not have a better team to guide me in this work.” Pretty refreshing. M - mike5496 Sun, 21 Dec 2008 17:22:39 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/351-i-have-to-say-this.html#comment-1143 I find it sad government is scaring 501(c)3 organizations by threatening their tax-exempt status if they...criticize government. [b]Even if criticism of supernatural things is part of the organization's purpose.[/b] Still, it would seem to be a careful line to tread. It's a subtle difference between saying, "This guy opposes a women's abortion rights because of religious beliefs, which we find wrong" (for some Randi-esque reason), and "This guy should be opposed because he opposes a women's abortion rights", without mentioning the religious background. Full speed ahead on the former, careful with the latter, though IANAL. In any collision in court, I suspect the former would survive a challenge. - Beerina Sun, 21 Dec 2008 13:10:14 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/351-i-have-to-say-this.html#comment-1140 Let's not forget that Rick Warren is also a Creationist, and a young Earth one at that. What really irked me about Obama was the way he defended his choice. He claimed Warren invited him to speak at Warren's church. Well, not exactly. Obama was invited to debate McCain. Obama made it sound like Warren was open to hearing opposing opinions on his own turf. In delivering an *invocation,* Warren will be asking favors of his deity on behalf of the nation. Doesn't that call for a big knife and a goat? - LindaRosaRN Sun, 21 Dec 2008 12:22:00 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/351-i-have-to-say-this.html#comment-1133 Jesse Ventura said, "You can be yourself and get elected, but you can't be yourself and govern." Obama's going to have to make lots of compromises. As a start, this isn't bad. There shouldn't even be a chaplain at the inauguration of a secular government official in a secular government. But there is, for now, and Obama is going to play by the rules, for now. He's going to be [i]fair[/i]. And that makes me happy. For now. ;D - Yahzi Sun, 21 Dec 2008 09:07:48 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/351-i-have-to-say-this.html#comment-1132 A better choice for the inauguration of the president of a nation founded to have a secular government, with clear separation of church & state, would be to say, "I'm not going to have a preacher in any official capacity at my inauguration." Not that I'm holding my breath. - Trish Sun, 21 Dec 2008 08:46:55 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/351-i-have-to-say-this.html#comment-1127 The right choice would've been the guy from Americans United for Separation of Church and State. - julianrod Sun, 21 Dec 2008 06:47:59 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/351-i-have-to-say-this.html#comment-1124 If Obama's intent was a minor political nod to evangelicals, he might have made it a bit less glaring had he offered it to a 'softer' evangelical like whutzizname, Billy Graham Jr. - Cuddy Joe Sun, 21 Dec 2008 04:40:15 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/351-i-have-to-say-this.html#comment-1123 ...who would have been a better choice? Jeremiah Wright? Ted Haggard? Al Sharpton? When you make your living trying to get people to worship a fictional entity you are, by definition, a little nuts. Most any clergy person anywhere would be opposed to gay marriage, stem cell research, and abortion. That's what their bible tells them. That's their gig. - MrIncredible Sun, 21 Dec 2008 03:55:27 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/351-i-have-to-say-this.html#comment-1118 [quote]"As a 501(c)3 organization, the JREF is limited in what it may properly say in regard to political matters.[/quote] Is the Saddleback Church in Orange County also a 501(c)3 organisation or similarly restricted? Can they have their charitable status removed after the inaugural invocation by it's representative? Isn't that just about as political as you can get? Just askin'. - Jon Sat, 20 Dec 2008 22:58:51 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/351-i-have-to-say-this.html#comment-1108 Perhaps, but I can't get the old saying "give them an inch and they'll take a mile" out of my head. To my mind Warren's views are as unacceptable as the views of the folk in white sheets and pointy hats. So why are his views tolerated even at the highest levels? - Alencon Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:49:06 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/351-i-have-to-say-this.html#comment-1106 While I'm certainly no fan of Rick Warren, I'm pleased that Obama chose this extremely unimportant role for someone like this. If politics dictate that Obama pander to these folks, this is the way to do it. - JeffWagg Sat, 20 Dec 2008 17:11:03 +0100