tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7458724113457799001.post5585559880495005392..comments2024-03-09T16:22:54.461-05:00Comments on <a href="http://www.dancirucci.com">Dan Cirucci</a>: Inaugural Remarks: First AssessmentDan Ciruccihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18362893049097966904noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7458724113457799001.post-9325215630540519462009-01-21T13:37:00.000-05:002009-01-21T13:37:00.000-05:00Now that I think about it, he may have felt phanto...Now that I think about it, he may have felt phantom pressure based on his decision to include Rev. Warren in the ceremony. I know the decision had more to do with gay rights, but given that the Bush presidency was in many ways associated with religion, Obama may have had religion on his mind. And if his theme has been unity, at least superficially, he would want to include everyone, not just the devout. I'd really like to know how the population breaks down along those lines. Anyone know?Radu Ghermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05789021832046862184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7458724113457799001.post-46814285750298124742009-01-21T10:37:00.000-05:002009-01-21T10:37:00.000-05:00LBB and Draco: You have contributed important, cog...LBB and Draco: You have contributed important, cogent comments. I appreciate your views and agree that "religious" people can be very wicked indeed and that bad, bad things have been done in the name of religion. Very true.<BR/>I just don't know why Obama felt the need to insert this reference here - in an Inaugural address.<BR/>I think it would have been more effective (and more appropriate) if he had done it in a more faith-related or faith-specidic speech or setting. An example: maybe in remarks at a National Day of Prayer breakfast.<BR/>This was a very conscious decision to insert this in the Inaugural address and I'm not sure I understand why it was done.<BR/>Again, it just does not sit well with me.Dan Ciruccihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18362893049097966904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7458724113457799001.post-86554314248619147152009-01-20T22:59:00.000-05:002009-01-20T22:59:00.000-05:00I'd have to agree with LBB. The effect of religiou...I'd have to agree with LBB. The effect of religious belief on an individual's moral compass depends on the individual. And 'non-believers' make up an increasing percentage of the population. And I'm assuming that the reason no one has mentioned them in the past is because they tend not to make noise. <BR/>Like I've said before, a lot of good has been done in the name of religion; but religion has caused much evil as well. In today's fast paced, increasingly technological and scientific society, a lot of what made up traditional beliefs and rites is going to be displaced. It doesn't mean that people become less than moral. It means that some people have to grant a "non" or "less" believer the benefit of the doubt when it comes to judging him or her based their religious inclination. And to an extent, that's what Obama did.Radu Ghermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05789021832046862184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7458724113457799001.post-58211573451844444152009-01-20T18:16:00.000-05:002009-01-20T18:16:00.000-05:00Religion doesn't have a monopoly on morality, Dan....Religion doesn't have a monopoly on morality, Dan. A religious person can be just as wicked as an atheist, and vice versa.K.O. Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09335324973680065803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7458724113457799001.post-28946169257340458482009-01-20T17:06:00.000-05:002009-01-20T17:06:00.000-05:00LBB: This was just the first time I ever heard a P...LBB: This was just the first time I ever heard a President mention "non-believers" and grant them what appears to be moral equivalency with peoplo of faith, and in an Inaugural address no less. Why? I don't get it. I must be missing something.<BR/>It sounds vaguely existential and vacant.<BR/>Dave W.: Here's my point -- Obama never even gave us a hint as to HOW he would judge which programs are working and which are not. And I feel that the speech went so out of its way to be non-idealogical that it wound up being somewhat rudderless.<BR/>This was an historic moment -- an historic opportunity. But this was not an historic speech.Dan Ciruccihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18362893049097966904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7458724113457799001.post-8526971823221007642009-01-20T16:24:00.000-05:002009-01-20T16:24:00.000-05:00It was weak. Not only does it not belong in great...It was weak. Not only does it not belong in great speeches I don't know if it makes the top 3 Obama speeches so far.Sean Schaferhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12535893033033070458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7458724113457799001.post-30041930172375614882009-01-20T16:05:00.000-05:002009-01-20T16:05:00.000-05:00Hi, Dan, hope you're well.Interesting that you beg...Hi, Dan, hope you're well.<BR/><BR/>Interesting that you begin the post by pointing out that these speeches are not typically specific and then criticize the President for not being specific. That's telling. <BR/><BR/>At any rate, for those interested in a good analysis of the speech, I encourage reading the two links below. I'm not, by the way, affiliated with the writer or the publication. It's just good reading for those who care about speechifying.<BR/><BR/>Cheers!<BR/><BR/>Dave W.<BR/><BR/><BR/>http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/01/warren_it_all_exists_for.php<BR/><BR/>http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/01/_now_there_are_some.phpAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7458724113457799001.post-86944443359727845732009-01-20T15:19:00.000-05:002009-01-20T15:19:00.000-05:00How can you criticize "cynics," challenging them a...<I>How can you criticize "cynics," challenging them and nearly mocking them while at the same time putting "non-believers" on the same plain as people of faith? We all know that so many of those "non-believers" are simply nihilists and/or cynics. Why grant them official recognition?</I><BR/><BR/>Because we're citizens too, Dan. Just because you have a blinkered, stereotypical view of a segment of the population doesn't mean our government has to agree with you.<BR/><BR/>And really, among all the prayers and the requests for god's favor that marked this day, was it really so awful that people who don't believe in a deity got a single crumb of recognition?K.O. Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09335324973680065803noreply@blogger.com