Obama’s Inaugural Speech Recognizes Non-Believers
Was I the only one surprised when President Obama mentioned nonbelievers in his list of religious “patchwork heritage”? In Obama’s inaugural address, he said,
For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus — and nonbelievers.
I’m very much accustomed to this notion that every religion ought to be treated with respect. Traditionally, that’s been Christianity, Islam, Judiasm, and Hinduism. Occasionly you may hear about old Eastern religions thrown in the mix like Confusionism. However, today’s been the first time that I heard about nonbelievers getting recognized as part of our religious diversity.
Posted on January 20th, 2009 by Ryan
Filed under: diary worthy, societal concerns
A very shrewd thing for him to do. The comment wasn’t a shout out to atheism, but a calculated cue. He used the line in the campaign a few times too. The majority of Americans are deeply sick of these religious zealots running our country as if they spoke for God. Obama wouldn’t bash religion–but the “nonbelievers” comment was a nod to those like me, who are very happy that “faith-based” government is over.
Nonbelievers make up 8-10% of our population, and are the most under-represented minority in the history of this county. I, for one, was gratified by the long-suppressed recognition that there is a non-believing minority in this country.
Yeah, I noticed he threw that in at the end. I’m sure that’ll score him some brownie points with the atheists out there. Obama is nothing if not a diplomat.
It’s about time - I am agnostic (atheists aren’t the only non-believers). I am completely open to good ideas from all religions but it does irk me when our elected leaders act as if anyone without religion must be lacking in moral guidance. I do not require the fear of God to do the right thing and I’m very happy to finally have SOMEONE get elected who actually recognizes my viewpoint as a valid one even if he doesn’t share it. It’s funny that such a small statement is noticed though - I think that speaks volumes as to how little notice has been given to non-believers in the past.
I think we need to look at exactly what it means to be a believer in order to really get at what it means to not be one. Does it entail believing in EVERY aspect of your specific religion? If so then what percent of the population can be considered to be believers? I would say that many Christians (and Jews and Hindus etc.) sin or otherwise break with their religious beliefs (strict interpretation of those beliefs at least) in some way and may believe that what they are doing is perfectly fine (sex before marriage, eating shellfish, drinking wine or whatever) - does that mean they are not TRULY followers of that religion? Where is the line between believers and non-believers and who defines it? Until you define what it is to be a believer then you can’t define what it is not to be one and therefore you cannot draw a distinction between any of us (along those lines at least). Maybe believing that our ways of living just fall along a spectrum of valid belief systems would be a better perspective for all of us to have anyway. How else do we stop acting like OUR beliefs are superior to everyone else’s?