Regardless of whether or not you think Barack Obama should be President (and I do), you have to admit this is one hell of a speech, both in terms of style and content and the sheer balls required to make it.
The comments to that are killing me. All of the people complaining about him “pandering” to the GLBT community with the speech- yeah, because if you want to pander to the gay community, the place to do it is a black church in the deep South, where you call out those in your audience for falling short of the church’s leader’s ideals.
Despite whatever qualms I may have with him…he is a fantastic speaker. I can’t help but want imagine the way Obama would have presented this, not to mention the reaction.
He’s a magnificient orator, and this will likely go down as his “Sister Souljah” speech.
Sadly, he had to make it because an event earlier this year featured a fundamentalist christian preacher and singer who’s one of those “ex-gay” organization people.
He’s a magnificent orator, and will make a wonderful rallying point. I just don’t think he’s got the policy or experience to actually get things done. Plus, his praise of Reagan in the last week and his effort to out-do the Clintons on “reaching out to the other side” scares me silly.
Personally, I’m tired of trying to compromise with people so far to the right that even if we could get them to compromise fairly (and we can’t) the positions we’d end up in would be actively counter to our long term goals.
Obama would make a great vice president. But I’m for showing people what Democratic leadership, and partisanship, really means. Edwards for President, Dodd for Majority Leader, Obey for Speaker.
scripture, scripture, scripture… blah, blah, blah.
Every religious terrorist/zealot/apologist/preacher uses the exact same technique when they try to defend a political position with religion:
1. Take what one wants from the holy book
2. Ignore the rest until needed
3. Denounce any opponents for not interpreting the holy book the same way
4. Chalk up any inconsistencies to religious faith
Spiritual conjecture has no place in social or political application. Period. What we need is a candidate who understands that. This is why, whether he gets the nomination or not, I am voting for Dennis Kucinich.
So to you, there’s no difference between using a well-know religious story to frame a point and using a religious text to claim absolute, objective authority with no room for debate?
Must suck that Dennis is such a huge fan of the Sermon on the Mount…
There is video of the entire speech here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=Kf0x_TpDris
I didn’t say Dennis was perfect, but he’s the best of the lot and he sure as shit wont kowtow to the religious wrong.
And no, there is no difference between using spiritual conjecture to frame a point or to claim objective morality. Since religious faith can neither be quantified nor qualified, the mainstream theist only serves to enable the religious extremist by accepting, establishing, maintaining and spreading the social dependency on religious faith and all things faithful to religion.
Religion doesn’t promote ethical behavior. If anything, the automatic pseudo-validation of “my god said so” only encourages that unethical behavior be done in the name of whatever religion’s invisible sky genie.
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
"[O]ne of the funniest bloggers on the planet... I only wish he updated more." -- Popcrunch.com
"By MightyGodKing, we mean sexiest blog in western civilization." -- Jenn
Subscribe in a reader