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

  • Thread starter Thread starter fourier jr
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
Oprah Winfrey's endorsement of Barack Obama at a rally was likened to a religious revival, emphasizing his moral superiority over Hillary Clinton, whom she did not mention. Winfrey's rhetoric suggested that Obama embodies the qualities needed for a president, such as conscience and moral authority, contrasting sharply with Clinton's focus on policy details. The discussion highlights a broader concern about the intertwining of religion and politics, with many expressing skepticism about the sincerity of politicians who use religious language for electoral gain. Participants noted that while religious rhetoric is common in U.S. politics, it often feels disingenuous and serves primarily as a tool for garnering votes. Overall, the conversation reflects a critical view of the role of organized religion in shaping political discourse and the perceived lack of genuine moral leadership among candidates.
  • #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. :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #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.
 
  • #61
drankin said:
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.
It would also be disingenuous to not make it absolutely clear that your beliefs are your own personal choice, not based on any verifiable evidence, and that each individual should, when they are old enough to examine various teachings critically, come to their own conclusions about them.
 
  • #62
g33kski11z said:
Doesn't exist.QFT

So, you have no firsthand knowledge.

g33kski11z said:
um, I think that's true, you don't??

No I don't. I guess it depends on your definition of a life's value and what is meant by "get anywhere".

There are also many examples of people who have "got somewhere" and done poorly in school.

I do realize that these might be exceptions. And I do value an education, I have a PhD., but the the question is not whether I believe it is true or not. The question is whether it is a form of indoctrination. It is.

You seem to think that you are qualified to judge which forms of indoctrination should be tolerated.
 
  • #63
g33kski11z said:
.. 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. :)

Ahh, provide *proof* of a non-whatever...

I'm still waiting for proof that the majority of churches engage in legal fraud.
 
  • #64
g33kski11z said:
Although, these same values are taught to children in Cub Scouts. :)[/QUOTE

In origin, the cubscouts are certainly more theistic, than non-theistic.
 
  • #65
Gokul43201 said:
It would also be disingenuous to not make it absolutely clear that your beliefs are your own personal choice, not based on any verifiable evidence, and that each individual should, when they are old enough to examine various teachings critically, come to their own conclusions about them.

Oh, come on. That would simply confuse a child. "I believe this completely, but there are no reason you should because there is no scientific proof as to why I believe this so deeply, now, quit bugging your sister". Give me a break.
 
  • #66
seycyrus said:
...So, you have no firsthand knowledge...
Not true. I was baptized catholic, and confirmed lutheran. I attended church until I was about 14.
seycyrus said:
...The question is whether it is a form of indoctrination. It is...
Agreed, as stated in post #43. The point I was trying to make is that making your child go to church is also indoctrination.
seycyrus said:
...You seem to think that you are qualified to judge which forms of indoctrination should be tolerated...
Not at all. I just choose not to lie to my child. If a person was so inclined to attend a church with children and explained to them {when/if the children ask} the realities {ie myth's} about the bible, that's fine. As I said there is a lot of good that comes from churches. Based on my life experience with churches {beyond the age of 14} I feel that they are just not for me. My child, when appropriate will make his own decision.
seycyrus said:
I'm still waiting for proof that the majority of churches engage in legal fraud.
I never said that.
seycyrus said:
...In origin, the cub scouts are certainly more theistic, than non-theistic...
I was an Eagle Scout. We had prayers sometimes {ceremonies and such}, so you're right.
 
Last edited:
  • #67
g33kski11z said:
Not true. I was baptized catholic, and confirmed lutheran. I attended church until I was about 14.

Well, I thought you were saying that you never belonged to a church. I would still liek to know what catholic or Lutheran you attended where little kids were taught that everyone was going to hell. I've NEVER heard a going to hell sermon.


g33kski11z said:
Agreed, as stated in post #43. The point I was trying to make is that making your child go to church is also indoctrination.

Well, indoctrinatin certainly has overtones and implication. Go to your next school board meeting and ask them about their "indoctrination" procedure, and see how they respond :)


g33kski11z said:
Not at all. I just choose not to lie to my child.

You start out telling them that light is BOTh a wave and a particle? :)

g33kski11z said:
If a person was so inclined to attend a church with children and explained to them {when/if the children ask} the realities {ie myth's} about the bible, that's fine.

In my experience and those around me, it was more teaching about the good samaritan, than *any* mention of hell.
 
  • #68
seycyrus said:
...I would still liek to know what catholic or Lutheran you attended where little kids were taught that everyone was going to hell...
Grace Lutheran and Most Holy Name Catholic Church. Both in Pittsburgh Pa., Troy Hill to be specific.

.. but back to the original topic (sorry to thread crap).. but I thought we had "Separation of Church and State"? where are the limits on that? {I ask b/c I do not know}
 
  • #69
drankin said:
Oh, come on. That would simply confuse a child. "I believe this completely, but there are no reason you should because there is no scientific proof as to why I believe this so deeply, now, quit bugging your sister". Give me a break.

So now you're condoning arrogance?
 
  • #70
LightbulbSun said:
So now you're condoning arrogance?

You are going to have to break that down for me. I'm not sure where you are coming from.
 

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top