Was Oprah right to preach about Obama's moral superiority?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter fourier jr
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around Oprah Winfrey's endorsement of Barack Obama during a political rally, where she employed religious rhetoric to convey her support. Participants explore the implications of using religious language in politics, the perception of Obama's moral standing compared to other candidates, and the broader influence of religion on political discourse in the United States.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants describe Oprah's endorsement as akin to a religious revival, suggesting it elevates Obama to a moral figure, while others express skepticism about the sincerity of such rhetoric in politics.
  • Several participants question the appropriateness of religious language in political contexts, with some finding it disingenuous and others noting its historical prevalence.
  • There are claims that politicians often cater to religious sentiments to gain votes, with some arguing that this is a strategic move rather than a reflection of genuine beliefs.
  • Some participants express concern about the influence of organized religion on personal freedoms and political decisions, citing examples of how religious groups mobilize against certain media and political positions.
  • Others argue that while religion may be leveraged for political gain, most politicians do not base their governance solely on religious convictions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit a range of views on the role of religion in politics, with no clear consensus. Some agree that religious rhetoric is common in political discourse, while others find it troubling. Disagreement exists regarding the extent of religion's influence on personal freedoms and political actions.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference specific examples of religious influence on political behavior and public sentiment, indicating a complex relationship between personal beliefs and political strategy. The discussion highlights varying perceptions of the impact of religion on societal norms and individual liberties.

  • #31
opus said:
Unfortunately libertarianism/Ron Paul is the new fad for raging white nerds on the internet. I read about it on Something Awful, so it must be true.

That entire site is full of retards. Remember the pants sh|tting fad? And in their debate forum a guy was arguing with me, saying that drugs working on the same neurotransmitters cause completely different effects because, and this is an exact quote, "they're different drugs." Then of course I get my own callout thread because some high school biology buff thinks he knows more about drugs and the brain than somebody who actually has an education in that field and has worked for several drug companies.

I've pretty much written off that website as being the exact opposite of reality.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
drankin said:
What world is that?
Some of the strange countries in which you play football with your feet.

russ_watters said:
You actually believe that?
I don't believe. I know.

Politics everywhere and forever is show business.
Although I guess it's strange for you to imagine political campains without patriotic flag waving rallys blessed by god, debates in which the politicians actually discuss politics, and politicians who are in the game for ideological reasons, they actually exist. (Sorry to ruin your conception of the world.)
 
  • #33
EL said:
Although I guess it's strange for you to imagine political campains without patriotic flag waving rallys blessed by god, debates in which the politicians actually discuss politics, and politicians who are in the game for ideological reasons, they actually exist. (Sorry to ruin your conception of the world.)

Seems to happen quite a bit in british-style government. I don't even think our british-style party leaders are publicly elected to lead the party; they just sort of appear. If I'm not mistaken, elected members of parliament decide who leads the party, then the public votes for members of parliament; you can't directly vote for the leader of the country.

It sure stops a lot of the in-party arguing. Hillary and Obama are attacking each others credibility in order to gain leadership of their own party, and it might lead to that party losing the overall election. Hillary turns out to be a lesbian and Obama is responsible for a double murder, then republicans win the election by default. It seems counter-productive for the party to be attacking itself.
 
  • #34
ShawnD said:
Seems to happen quite a bit in british-style government. I don't even think our british-style party leaders are publicly elected to lead the party; they just sort of appear.
Correct - you vote for each MP individually as a person. They can belong to a party but this isn't reflected in the ballot. Once elected an MP can leave the party or even swap sides without having to be re-elected. independent MPs often win if the local party candidate is unpopular, or if they stand for a particular local issue.

The party chooses a leader from within the elected MPs, usually the leader is known going into the election, but a change of leader during a sitting government is done by the party.
Interestingly one of the main critisims aimed at the previous leader, Tony Blair, was that he made it too presidential by being too much a figurehead of the party. The prime minister is supposed to be officially 'first among equals'

It sure stops a lot of the in-party arguing.
No it just makes it really vicious behind closed doors among their fellow MPs!
 
  • #35
ShawnD said:
Allāhu Akbar!
Congratulations, you have joined the game of Homeland Security tag. :-p
 
  • #36
introduced as the "First Lady of Television", Oprah Winfrey
As to the OP
She 'controls' ( ok more like influance ) more people daily than just about anyone.
Like her or not, she swung an amount of votes just by saying she likes him.
 
  • #37
Economist said:
I don't know if I'd go as far to call it indoctrination, because that term fails to recognize that many people choose religions that they feel are personally beneficial
I think the term indoctrination fits. How many members of this forum were taken to church as a child? How may children do you know of that at an early age {we'll say 5 for the sake of argument} make decisions that they feel are personally beneficial. Not many... unless huge scoops of ice cream and candy are "personally beneficial"...
 
  • #38
g33kski11z said:
I think the term indoctrination fits. How many members of this forum were taken to church as a child? How may children do you know of that at an early age {we'll say 5 for the sake of argument} make decisions that they feel are personally beneficial. Not many... unless huge scoops of ice cream and candy are "personally beneficial"...

How many members were forced to go to school?

How many were forced to wear clothes?

Indoctrination is a poor choice of words.
 
  • #39
seycyrus said:
How many members were forced to go to school?
.. ok, I'll give you that.. every little child does have to go to school. {though personally, I think that's a weak statement} You have a choice {for the most part} once you are mature enough to make a responsible decision as to which college you attend or even what high school to go to, do you not?
I think that's where the word "indoctrination" fits. Children do not have a choice in the matter. They are told this is how it is, was and will be...

seycyrus said:
How many were forced to wear clothes?
Weak. Being told to wear clothes is totally different than being made to attend church.

I stand by my original statement.
 
Last edited:
  • #40
Should parents be prevented from taking their children to church? If so, on what premise? I'm sure Oprah would not approve!
 
  • #41
g33kski11z said:
.. ok, I'll give you that.. every little child does have to go to school. {though personally, I think that's a weak statement} You have a choice {for the most part} once you are mature enough to make a responsible decision as to which college you attend or even what high school to go to, do you not?.

And you have a choice about attending church, do you not? At least at some age. Generally, this choice occurs before the choice of continuing education.

g33kski11z said:
.. I think that's where the word "indoctrination" fits. Children do not have a choice in the matter. They are told this is how it is, was and will be...

Yes, children are *indoctrinated* into all aspects of society.


g33kski11z said:
.Weak. Being told to wear clothes is totally different than being made to attend church..

It's impressing a belief system.

g33kski11z said:
I stand by my original statement.

Which was just as weak as my statements.
 
  • #42
drankin said:
Should parents be prevented from taking their children to church? If so, on what premise?
On the premise that the overwhelming majority of churches in this country perpetuate ethical and probably legal fraud? Perhaps this will change when people start getting over this addiction to religion and start suing their parents for forcing them to attend church as children.
 
Last edited:
  • #43
seycyrus said:
And you have a choice about attending church, do you not? At least at some age.
.. Yes, you do.. after being told that if you disregard the given belief system you will burn in hell. That seems fair..
seycyrus said:
Yes, children are *indoctrinated* into all aspects of society.
Right, but what other aspect of society is an unprovable myth?

From dictionary.com "to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., esp. to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view"
... if your church tells you about all of the religious "gods", past and present, then maybe it wouldn't fit.

drankin said:
Should parents be prevented from taking their children to church?
Yes, until they are able to make an informed intelligent decision on their own. My child (9) has never been to a church, when he is old enough to make an informed decision, we will go to every church, temple, mosque or whatever is available to us and he can make up his own mind.
 
  • #44
g33kski11z said:
.. Yes, you do.. after being told that if you disregard the given belief system you will burn in hell. That seems fair...

Did your church tell you this? Mine didn't. Mine concentrated on being nice to people. Maybe we should just stop people from going to *your* church.

My school told me that if I didn't pay attention and do my homework, I wouldn't amount to anything in life! I hear that this *myth* is propogated widely. Such indoctrination!

g33kski11z said:
.. Yes, until they are able to make an informed intelligent decision on their own. My child (9) has never been to a church, when he is old enough to make an informed decision, we will go to every church, temple, mosque or whatever is available to us and he can make up his own mind.

So, you propose not allowing people to bring children to church. What should they do with the children for the hour or two every Sunday while they are attending (if they choose to attend)?

It sounds like you are trying to create a systematic procedure and apply it to the raising of other people's children. That sure sounds like indoctrination to me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #45
Gokul43201 said:
On the premise that the overwhelming majority of churches in this country perpetuate ethical and probably legal fraud? Perhaps this will change when people start getting over this addiction to religion and start suing their parents for forcing them to attend church as children.

This is a ridiculous statement.

The "majority" of churches?

Prove it.

Once you do that, prove to me that there is a disproportionate perpetuation of said fraud in churches as opposed to every other group structure.

It's amazing to me that people who are assumed to scientific, posit such illogical statements simply to promote their own belief system.
 
  • #46
Gokul43201 said:
On the premise that the overwhelming majority of churches in this country perpetuate ethical and probably legal fraud? Perhaps this will change when people start getting over this addiction to religion and start suing their parents for forcing them to attend church as children.

Prevented by whom? The government? Or is this just your biased opinion? I'm the VP of the stewardship board of my church. Trust me, no fraud there. A church is for families. Now, if we decided to hire babysitters so us adults could attend church while our kids are wondering why we get to go to church and they can't join their parents... That's rediculous.
 
  • #47
They make a promise of good times after you are dead in return for cash and obedience now - but they have no evidence to back up their claims.

It's like selling timeshares in an undiscovered country!
 
  • #48
seycyrus said:
*your* church
Doesn't exist.
seycyrus said:
My school told me that if I didn't pay attention and do my homework, I wouldn't amount to anything in life!
..um, I think that's true, you don't??
seycyrus said:
So, you propose not allowing people to bring children to church. What should they do with the children for the hour or two every Sunday while they are attending
Children should be outside playing, not being brainwashed to worship a mythological pagan deity.

mgb_phys said:
They make a promise of good times after you are dead in return for cash and obedience now - but they have no evidence to back up their claims.
QFT
 
Last edited:
  • #49
mgb_phys said:
They make a promise of good times after you are dead in return for cash and obedience now - but they have no evidence to back up their claims.

It's like selling timeshares in an undiscovered country!

Like I said, I'm on the stewardship board, most (but not all) churches are not a business for profit. Non-profit. The only person getting paid at our church is the pastor and we determine his salary.

Even if there is no proof other than a belief on an ancient text. How is it a detriment to our society to teach teach good values? Where else is a society to get a foundation in values? The criminal system?

Sure, there are people who will exploit religion for gain, those are the people we hear about. They are not genuine people who would practice what they might preach.

What we don't hear about is the rest of the community that are good people because they adhere to value system they adopted due to their religion. Pretty much every major religion on the planet has a pretty good value system. And many jump around to whatever religion seems ideal to them. Or none at all. To expose your own child to a form of religion as a way to "indoctrinate" good values is not a bad thing. Some parents are extreme and unrealistic but they would be the same whether it was via religion or something else.
 
  • #50
mgb_phys said:
They make a promise of good times after you are dead in return for cash and obedience now - but they have no evidence to back up their claims.

It's like selling timeshares in an undiscovered country!
That answers the questions addressed to me. Thanks, mgb.
 
Last edited:
  • #51
drankin said:
...I'm the VP of the stewardship board of my church. Trust me, no fraud there.
.. No fraud..? Your church doesn't claim that "god" will come to save all who worship him/her/it? It doesn't claim to offer "eternal life" in "heaven"? Provide proof of this non-fraud and I'll see you Sunday. :)
 
  • #52
drankin said:
Even if there is no proof other than a belief on an ancient text.
That is also not any kind of proof.
 
  • #53
Gokul43201 said:
That is also not any kind of proof.

There is no proof. I didn't mean to suggest that there was. Religion is a belief system. It can't prove there is life after death and no one else can prove that their isn't. Most people like to believe that there is and that their life has a greater meaning beyond their own short life. It gives them hope, even if it's unfounded. Call it positive thinking, can't hurt to think how you live your life may influence a fantasy after you're dead. Unless you have a bomb strapped to you, of course. That's not the kind of value system any civilization should condone.
 
  • #54
It seems many people who do not attend a church believe those who do attend only do so in return for a promise of life after death.

Most people attend church for the values they preach, the support they give in times of need and for the sense of belonging to a congregation who shares similar values to their own. If there is an afterlife then that is simply a bonus as if there isn't you as the recently departed will be the last to know. A bit like trying to imagine your life before you were born.

Perhaps that mentality of 'what's in it for me' explains why those so quick to attack organised religion are not members of a church themselves as religion is about giving not taking and so religion has nothing to offer them.
 
  • #55
That may be the real reason people go to church, Art, but it isn't why they are supposed to go to chuch. This is why you are supposed to go to church:
I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:

Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.

He descended into hell. [See Calvin]

The third day He arose again from the dead.

He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy *catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.

Amen.
http://www.reformed.org/documents/i...ww.reformed.org/documents/apostles_creed.html

People who go to church for other reasons are going for the wrong reasons. And I'll go a step further: people (ie, me) who went to church because their parents thought it was a good place to teach them values often decide later they don't need the church for that purpose, since that isn't it's purpose anyway.
 
  • #56
russ_watters said:
That may be the real reason people go to church, Art, but it isn't why they are supposed to go to chuch. This is why you are supposed to go to church: http://www.reformed.org/documents/i...ww.reformed.org/documents/apostles_creed.html

People who go to church for other reasons are going for the wrong reasons. And I'll go a step further: people (ie, me) who went to church because their parents thought it was a good place to teach them values often decide later they don't need the church for that purpose, since that isn't it's purpose anyway.

We are not talking about Christianity exclusively here, we were using church as a common example of a place to go, but it could just as well be a Buddhist temple or whatever else. Our point is that it IS a good place where values are shown to children when they are young because they don't understand the theology. But they do get that you shouldn't steal, that you shouldn't lie, you should share, you should help people who need help, and so on. To not allow parents to bring their children with them to church is to lessen the reinforcement of the parents value system.
 
  • #57
Perhaps that mentality of 'what's in it for me' explains why those so quick to attack organised religion are not members of a church themselves as religion is about giving not taking and so religion has nothing to offer them.
Or perhaps it's the mentality to use one's mental capability, rather than fall for stories about imaginary beings.
 
Last edited:
  • #58
drankin said:
...Our point is that it IS a good place where values are shown to children when they are young because they don't understand the theology...
My child is old enough to understand the theology. Some of the stories told in church would contradict what he already knows as reality. {creation of the planet, no mythical figures hiding in the clouds} I will not disagree that some of the values instilled inside of a church as are good for children as well as adults. Although, these same values are taught to children in Cub Scouts. I do however, disagree with lying to my child.

(and as a side note, Santa Claus has always been a sticky area. My wife and I divorced over 2 yrs ago and its becoming increasingly difficult to "avoid" answering questions that he asks. I usually tell him that I don't know how Santa does it and to ask his mom. :)
 
Last edited:
  • #59
drankin said:
...Most people like to believe that there is and that their life has a greater meaning beyond their own short life...

Most people were raised to believe that there is, and have never known another way. All other ways have been sufficiently villified to them in their youth that they cannot imagine even trying it (such as comments about ``godless atheists'', ``immoral atheists'', ``evolution leads to racism'' and similar)
 
  • #60
g33kski11z said:
My child is old enough to understand the theology. Some of the stories told in church would contradict what he already knows as reality. {creation of the planet, no mythical figures hiding in the clouds} I will not disagree that some of the values instilled inside of a church as are good for children as well as adults. Although, these same values are taught to children in Cub Scouts. I do however, disagree with lying to my child.

(and as a side note, Santa Claus has always been a sticky area. My wife and I divorced over 2 yrs ago and its becoming increasingly difficult to "avoid" answering questions that he asks. I usually tell him that I don't know how Santa does it and to ask his mom. :)

We all teach our children our belief system. It's our parental obligation. How could we teach them otherwise? I can teach my child about our religion with a clean conscience. It would be disingenuous if I taught my children contrary to my own beliefs.