Comments on: Was “And Non-Believers” a Big Deal?

By: donna hammil

donna hammil — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 05:30:37 +0000

it is not a joke that it was in fact socially and politically incorrect to identify anyone as “nonbeliever.” If you are not me, you are other. I can hardly believe that such an intelligent honest individual would not have realized that in 2009 — you can’t say that! where has he been? “and the nonbelievers” — this sounds like something dear ol’ Rush would say (again & again). We are not “non” anything. We do not identify ourselves in the negative. It was not noble of him to include these “others” for the first time-where do you think we’ve been all this time? I could say it was a left-handed compliment–but that would belittle lefthanders, and righthanders, and ambis! To include “also the nonbelievers” keeps them in their place: smaller, lesser, begrudgingly acknowledged. BTW — if you don’t believe in what I believe in, then you are a nonbeliever.

By: mossel

mossel — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 12:07:21 +0000

Lets just call the acknowledgement of our existence is a change we can ‘believe’ in.

By: Janz

Janz — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 23:26:50 +0000

Big things come from little things. A baby step is a step…and after the evangelistic style of your previous, a mention is a great thing!

By: Tao Jones

Tao Jones — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 05:17:25 +0000

Okay, so apparently the mix-up regarding Obama's swearing in wasn't serious enough to invalidate his presidency. But it was important enough that Obama and Chief Justice Roberts did it all over again on Wednesday night. What was particularly interesting about this ceremony was that there was no Bible!

By: Seavee

Seavee — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 23:31:58 +0000

I voted for Obama. I even campaigned for him but I have to admit that the “non-believers” phrase didn’t do much for me. It just struck me as good speech writing. I felt it was just a way to make sure his speech was as inclusive and PC as possible, which fits his message.

I do think he will be a more inclusive president over all. I also think he will be less hostile towards atheism than many. However, one little catch phrase doesn’t make me want to celebrate.

By: eric perkins

eric perkins — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 21:00:00 +0000

We should be happy.. Just because he had a prayer doesn’t lessen the fact that he included us.

As it has been said before in the blog. It was his party and he can have a prayer if he wants to (that’s his choice).

The fact that he included us was very significant and we should not disregard it like we are above it already.

Baby steps. We are getting there =)

By: Richard Wade

Richard Wade — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 20:53:48 +0000

I don’t see Hemant’s post as being cynical. He’s asking questions and saying he is not sure what the right reaction is. If he was being cynical he’d make all those questions into negative statements about how it’s all bull. I think he wants to be open to the possibility that Obama’s mention of non-believers is the beginning of real and practical inclusion, and as any skeptic should, he is withholding his conclusion until he sees tangible evidence. That is what we are about, is it not?

Skepticism is not cynicism. The skeptic says “Let’s look for evidence.” The cynic says “I already know it’s crap even before any evidence is found.”

By: martymankins

martymankins — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 19:38:15 +0000

A mention was nice, but it’s not the ultimate package we need for proper unity.

By: postsimian

postsimian — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 19:23:58 +0000

I think we should celebrate the small victories. He didn’t have to mention us and if we don’t respond, we’re in danger of giving the impression that we simply can’t be pleased (“…so why even try?”). There’s no reason why we can’t do this as well as keep up the pressure.

By: cre8tivewmn

cre8tivewmn — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 18:10:38 +0000

He acknowledged us…as he should have. However, I agree with Miko that we shouldn’t thank him for something that is our due anyway.