Atheist Groups: Don’t Do This in the Wake of a Tragedy

I didn’t have have a problem with that Obama said compared to Mitt bringing up the Apostle Paul and other religious nonsense.

Thanks for making non-believers look like unsympathetic ass-hats, Flynn.

 Excellent comment.  How you feel and express yourself is vastly different than how you govern.

I’m ambivalent. On the one hand, saying “our thoughts and prayers are with the families” is  a shorthand sentiment of sympathy almost devoid of much sincere religious feeling. It’s like saying “bless you” or “gesundheit” when people sneeze is pretty much devoid of superstitious stuff about someone’s spirit sneaking out or demons sneaking in. It’s the expected manner of expressing condolence with victims of tragedy. On the surface it’s fine. The sentiment of solidarity is beneficial and wanted.

On the other hand, it really does reinforce the idea that only the religious can show empathy in an accepted  form. And what of families who aren’t praying because they don’t believe it was all part of god’s plan–is the elected leader not just assuming that prayers are welcome? Moreover, it’s part of that cluster of platitudes that display, in truth, a total lack of moral worth in religion and the gods worshipped therein. What good are prayers when you’re praying to a monster that supposedly allowed the tragedy to occur in the first place? Or didn’t miraculously protect the victims from being injured at all? Prayer in gratitude for survivors is just another facet of crapping on the people who weren’t so fortunate, and so on. And when is the time to call out people for this since people only say it when something bad happens?

Amen! 😉

I don’t have much of a problem with what Obama said, but I also don’t have much of a problem with what Tom said. I agree that he might have waited a day, but I’m not sure that it’s a bad thing to have people regularly and promptly pointing out when the secretary of ag prays for rain or the president says something that seems to assume that everybody is religious.  

I wonder if Obama isn’t really one of us. In lots  of pictures when he’s in a group up on a stage and the  others are in “praying” attitudes, he’s just standing looking straight ahead. Which is exactly what I would do in the same situation.

 These are the decisions we make everyday in life as to when to stand forth and say ‘no’ I’m not acknowledging your religion or your religious beliefs. Now isn’t the time to stand on your soapbox and tell people about their imaginary friend. Religious people and society in general is already making room for the rest of us when they say things about prayers and thoughts. We’re the ‘thoughts’ part of that – they’ve already acknowledged that some don’t fancy prayer as anything more than acting like you’re doing something positive in response to a tragedy when they aren’t actually doing anything. Now is the time to be sad and angry and upset with everyone because this happened to everyone.

 When it’s something else like asking for prayers for some far away tragedy I say no thanks, actually I’ve sent a donation to the Red Cross – actually doing something rather than an telling your imaginary friend that I am also sad about what happened.

I don’t understand the problem with what he said. He didn’t ask anyone to pray, suggest that we should pray or anything of the sort. He asked us to keep them in our hearts and minds. I can do that without a god.

The part about “May the lord bring them comfort…” seems kind of like an irrelevant, personal comment tacked on the end. I don’t care if he wants to personally wish magic comforting on survivors of a tragedy. I’d do it too, if I thought it would work.

 I agree. O course I’m far more upset that some crazy bastard can think it’s a good idea to carry out such a horrid act than I am that the POTUS publicly invoked “the lord” for comfort. However, I will rejoice when religious speak is not the standard, and is just supposed to be accepted and/or ignored by all who do not recognize “the lord” as a source of comfort. It’s one thing if your neighbor says such things to you, it’s entirely another when government officials speak in such terms, regardless of circumstance.
Anyone with a brain and a sense of compassion understands how and why such language is used in horrible times when there’s not much to say that will help, but in my opinion it will be a fine day when it is not normal to hear such religious talk from government officials.

Well, I’d like to think of it as “whack-a-mole.” Whenever you find a government official stroking the ego of the Religious Right, no matter how small, it is a must to whack that mole down! But I’m glad that it’s Tom holding the mallet. ; )

I don’t watch the news, this thread was the first I’ve heard of the shooting, I am therefore ripe with emotion over this horrible act. My primary though is of the families, my heart goes out to them. My thoughts also include the officers who are risking their lives trying to breach the shooter’s booby trapped apartment. I’m also lost in confusion as to how a ‘seemingly’ sane person could commit such atrocities.

Loss is loss, regardless of belief, this is a time to show our humanity and not a time for nitpicking over belief. 

Flynn put out a press release yesterday about the secretary of ag calling for prayer as a solution to drought.  Are you going to condemn him for that also?  If not, when is it appropriate for a government official to call for supernatural interference?

Note:  Flynn did not put out a press release in response to the Obama call for prayer.  He was contacted by the Washington Examiner who questioned him in context to the previous press release on the prayer for rain. 

Franklin Graham says that God may not cause everything, Like Katrina, but God allows it to happen.  Then people “pray to this God and give thanks for sparing some.  Why would this be a God.

I’d say there are a few areas where a comment can trip a warning wire. 

Most obviously, a politician speaking of policy suggestions in terms of faith would be problematic, for reasons that Obama himself has articulated in the past: the policy debates of a society must be secular in nature because the terms and definitions of those debates must be sensible and accessible to the whole polity, which necessarily includes non-believers. This would also include suggestions seriously made in lieu of actual policy solutions, like praying for rain rather than beefing up irrigation architecture.

Also problematic is when the faith language or categories are intended to exclude or divide the polity directly. You know, one of those “…times when invoking the name of god is really a not-so-subtle middle finger thrown in the direction of Secular Americans.” Such as George Bush the Elder’s infamous comment about the patriotism of atheists.

Still problematic but significantly messier are those times when politicians indicate that their political choices themselves are inspired by religious belief or activity, such as for example when a politician indicates that their belief that abortion should be outlawed, or gay partnerships unrecognized, has a religious basis. On the one hand people (and politicians are indeed people) make decisions even on very important matters for all sorts of reasons, and some of those reasons are going to intersect with one’s metaphysical opinions about God(s) and all that; it does no good to have politicians hide their reasoning, if that is their reasoning, as it gives people a distorted sense of just how their politicians are making choices on their behalf if they do. On the other hand, resorting to personal religious beliefs to make decisions on behalf of people who do not share those beliefs does tend to indicate a serious lack of respect for the role of an elected people towards representing all of their constituents and their concerns, rather than the limited swath that happens to agree with their personal religious opinions.

 A troll by any other name should still not be fed.

 But calling out “health” when someone sneezes is at root a  superstitious warding off of disease. It’s like knocking on wood (or saying “knock on wood”) when you say you’re hoping something good will happen to avoid a jinx.

This is what President and CEO of the Center for Inquiry, Ronald Lindsay, said about the matter. This is all that needed to be said. 

Statement on the Events in Aurora, Colorado: http://www.centerforinquiry.net/newsroom/statement_on_the_events_in_aurora_colorado//statement_on_the_events_in_aurora_colorado

Ummm… technically, “No comment” IS a comment.

I’ve always believed Obama’s religiosity is just for show. He’s a very well-educated man who grew up without religion. How on earth does such a person come to embrace Christianity?

I’m not angry with him at all. This country is absolutely drunk with Jesus. In order to be  elected to public office, most candidates have to prove they have a relationship with a higher power.

Obama’s smart. His religion is “politics.”

Tragedy = The main marketing-tool for religions. Even  graves have magic book X ad’s. It’s the ultimate spam.

I disagree, this tragedy will be used by the religious to promote themselves & their God, we need to be respectful of the victims & their families, but IN NO WAY should we allow the religious a free pass here. Just look at Rick Warren’s disgusting use of this event to hammer evolution & (by association) Atheism. Hemant, sometimes you can be a little too friendly.☮

Keep in mind what YEAR this is, and what will be happening in November! Obama CANNOT “come out of the closet” as an atheist THIS year of all years! Of COURSE he is going to “pander to the religionists”, and ingratiate himself with EVERY THEISTIC VOTER he can come into contact with. Unfortunately, there continues to be more of “them” (the theists!), then us atheists!