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.

  • #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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #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.