"People could be helped even more by secular charities that don’t proselytize than Catholic charities if they had the same funds."
Proof, please. Because as it is, many people who are in positions to help those in need don't. The world has the ability to help, we just don't.
"Catholic charities often provide their generous “donations” conditionally."
Again, proof please.
The first one would be simple. Don’t buy bibles, buy more food/clothes/medicine instead. Don’t build churches, build hospitals and schools. Don’t force people to convert to your religion in order to work with or receive the charity. Even those simple small steps would provide a great deal more help.
You have never heard of forced conversions? We don’t even need to go back to the Inquisitions to see it happening. Most the time these missionaries due their work in areas of the world that are so impoverished and deprived the people have no way of speaking up or letting the rest of the world know. Right now one of the only areas of the world that you hear about it is in India. India thankfully has laws in place to try and prevent forced conversion but it still happens often. (http://www.hindujagruti.org/news/11831.html 6 Christians arrested just last week for it)
Currently Haiti is also experiencing a lot of the same issues. Many of the Christian based charities in Haiti are forcing conversion in order to receive relief. I did post an extensive article on it just a few months ago. People are being forced to convert in order to receive food and aid and if they refuse they have to fend for themselves. Some charity isn’t it? Love our God, or we’ll watch you starve to death, it’s about as low as anyone can possibly get. Even worse it’s not only their money they’re using for this, they’re using our tax dollars too.
How can religion cause people to lack responsibility when they are clearly commanded to help one another? Faith and Hope don't come without Charity. If anything, regardless of if you believe it is taught out of fear or not, Christianity demands we step up and take responsibility. This is why more people in poverty have been helped more by the Catholic church than any other private organization.
The idea of redemption is something that strongly takes away from personal responsibility. The idea that no matter what action someone commits, no matter how horrible it is, all they have to do is simply ask for forgiveness and it is granted. How is that responsibility? How is that accountability?
The idea that the only way to be rewarded is by accepting Jesus is absolutely ignorant. Someone can be a good, responsible, giving, caring person their entire life but yet still be damned forever. Someone can murder, rape, and abuse people but still be rewarded with an eternal paradise. Whatever lesson this teaches it certainly has nothing to do with responsibility.
People with a bit more fundamental view on religion may give into the idea of predestination. In which case there is no responsibility to anyone for anything since it has all been set out by God. If someone punches you in the face it was simply the way God planned things to be, that person isn’t responsible.
People could be helped even more by secular charities that don’t proselytize than Catholic charities if they had the same funds. Catholic charities often provide their generous “donations” conditionally. They often require people to attend church or even pledge to Jesus in order to receive it. They push their way into developing and struggling countries so that they can exploit uneducated individuals. That is about the only way they are able to spread their message any more since the developed areas of the world are turning away from the Catholic church in huge numbers.
"The chief deficiency I see in the skeptical movement is its polarization: Us vs. Them — the sense that we have a monopoly on the truth; that those other people who believe in all these stupid doctrines are morons; that if you're sensible, you'll listen to us; and if not, to hell with you. This is nonconstructive. It does not get our message across. It condemns us to permanent minority status."
— Carl Sagan
This is an interesting quote. I do think it often turns into an us vs. them mentality but I think a lot of times it is unavoidable. When you present someone with facts and information but they refuse to listen to reason, what alternative are you left with? I do my best on my page to address all legitimate questions I receive and try to have discussions that maintain a productive tone. We try to get our message across but if someone still simply refuses to listen to science, reason, logic, or even common sense, what more can you do? People have the right to hold onto nonsensical beliefs if they chose to, there is really nothing we can do about that. It doesn’t mean we need to treat them as just as valid as any other or give them more consideration than what they’re worth.
Honestly couldn’t care less about the whole thing for the most part. Don’t understand the infatuation with the love lives of people that happen to be the result of a lot of royal inbreeding. Just more celebrity worship. I guess if I was English I might have a bit more curiosity but personally I’ll be happy when it’s out of the news.
Dear Hateful Atheist,
Today, I was legitimately asked "So, why do you believe in every aspect of proven science?" by a friend who I was having a friendly debate with about religion. That question I asked that evoked this response was "So, why do you believe in some parts of the bible, and not others? Do you honestly believe that god created the earth 6,000 years ago?" When faced with this response, I was shocked by the utter stupidity it had to ask a question such as this. He even included the word "proven" in there. I guess my question would be, have you ever been asked such a stupid question, or been involved in an equally ridiculous instance?
Have you seen much of my page? I get a lot of ridiculous questions. Some of them have to be trolls but there have been a lot of legitimate completely ridiculous questions as well. Usually the most ridiculous ones have to do with people that don’t understand evolution. Things like do you really thing something as complex as humans just evolved? Yes, yes I do. If we evolved from monkeys how come there are still monkeys? How come there aren’t all the transitional fossils? Usually the ridiculous questions reveal a lot about the lack of understanding the questioner has. Like in your case, whoever asked you that obviously doesn’t understand what science even is.
This isn't really related to religion, but you're intelligent so I felt like asking your opinion. Do you think that UFO's have ever actually been sighted by people on the earth, or do you think that all of the claims etc. are false and ridiculous?
There is no reason to believe any of the claims of UFO sightings as of yet. There has never been sufficient evidence to say that these things don’t have a much simpler explanation like weather balloons, birds, optical illusions, personal hallucinations, or something of the like. I have always had a bit of a strange curiosity when it comes to UFO stories. Some of the most spectacular sightings, like the one last year in China that temporarily shut down the airports, really don’t have a good explanation as of yet, but assuming that it is something other worldly or extra terrestrial is a non sequitur. Perhaps some day we will know for sure if we have been contacted by life outside of our planet but as of yet there is no solid reason to believe we have.
What do you think of W.K. Clifford's idea, "it is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence."?
I think it’s an interesting statement. As far as belief I believe it is true that you should have some kind of evidence to support that belief. There are reasons to have curiosity and interest in ideas that do no have sufficient evidence because that is exactly what drives science to discover new things. There is plenty of reason to think beyond what we already know but as far as accepting and believing something, there needs to be some type of reason or evidence for it.
"Freedom, most definitely and that is one of the biggest things religious individuals give up." - Technically you are correct. We freely give up our Free Will to do the will of God... But we haven't lost our ability to be free, that's silly! Now, don't get me wrong, your freedom is probably not the same as my freedom. Your freedom probably consists of doing whatever you please (within the law, and your own personal boundaries), where mine may limit me from eating meat on Friday's, or playing soccer Sunday but instead going to mass... I don't find that I lack freedom, for the reason that I choose this lifestyle. You may think I'm chained up by Catholicism, but really, it gives me more freedom than you could ever understand, and you can't/won't understand unless you were in my shoes!
I also was wondering why you use the world evil. You stated that Christianity and Muslim's are the greatest of evils... but if you don't believe in stuff like that, how does this evil work?
You realize I have been in the Catholic shoes before, but regardless glad we are at least partially able to agree on something. I don’t consider it just a loss of freedom in the physical sense, like not eating meat on certain days or not working on certain days, but also a loss of freedom of thought. Being told to accept things without questioning. Being told to accept things as positively true regardless of it they make logical sense or agree with your own reasoning. Being told that not only your actions but thoughts are watched at every moment of every day, so that there is nothing private to yourself.
Wanting to give up physical and mental freedom is a subservient desire. It’s a desire to want to sacrifice yourself and give into a force you perceive to be greater than yourself. It’s out of fear and juvenile thinking in my opinion. It’s wanting to have an eternal parent to watch over your every action with either a nod of approval or a scolding glare. Why can’t you simply take personal responsibility for your thoughts and actions on your own instead of trying to overlay the moral standards of an archaic and irrelevant book?
As for the last part are you trying to say I don’t believe in evil? Just because I don’t believe in religion or an absolute standard of morality doesn’t meant I can’t still gauge things to be good or evil. From what I’ve seen religion has been the greatest source of evil throughout time and of religions Christianity and Islam are currently the largest proprietors of evil. Obviously this influences people in many different ways and many different aspects but as Christopher Hitchens has said religion really does have the ability to poison everything.
Do you feel that being a Christian or simply being a person of unreligious faith causes them to lack wisdom, intelligence, logic, freedom, responsibility and reason? That only those who are atheists possess that quality?
And I see that on here, the only religion you refute seems to be Christianity and the Muslim faith, does this mean you support the other world faiths in their morals and thinking?
Wisdom, no, not necessarily. Intelligence, possibly, but certainly not in all areas. Logic, yes, absolutely. Freedom, most definitely and that is one of the biggest things religious individuals give up. Responsibility and reason, yes, they are also two major things that religious individuals often give up or at least have illogical view points on.
So the fact that I only discuss half of the world is not enough for you? Perhaps if I lived in a village filled with Hindus and Sheikhs I’d be more concerned with them. Do you really think not denouncing them means I support them? You think me and Ahura Mazda have some secret deal worked out where if I work against the two major religions I get special prizes?
It should be obvious why I go for the biggest targets. If I could possibly bring about any change in those two religions I’d happily move on to work on others after. Right now though they comprise a large portion of the world and are the two most influential religions. They are the two that are affecting policies and governments throughout the world. They are the greatest of the evils.
Your "logic" makes no sense, here you take the basis of the Christian faith, without fully understanding and denounce it.
Just because you can form a sentence does not make you a logical person, and I'm 100% faith free and I sit here and disagree.
Now for the other side of comments I receive. How do you see it that I don’t understand Christianity? If you mean I haven’t been to seminary school you are correct but I have a very good understanding of Christianity. Do I have to hate freedom, beat women, and threaten everyone I don’t like for a few years to be able to say I hate Islam too? Don’t be so ridiculous.
It often bothers me when people send a message like this and throw in the whole “I’m an Atheist too” or “I’m not religious but” comments. If you are an Atheist as well and disagree with what I say, why not simply discuss it with me? Why try to send comments anonymously that provide no help or insight into what you disagree with at all?
That seems to be one of the biggest things that separates me from the anonymous messages I get. I’m not afraid to put my opinion out there and defend it. I’m not afraid to speak out with what I believe or think. I’m not afraid to get all these silly pointless unhelpful messages because of what I do on the internet. But you? You can’t even step out of anonymity long enough to denounce one person.
Just wanted to stop by and tell you that I appreciate this blog. Being an atheist, and living in a small town, I am subjected to the non-nonsensicalness of the Christian faith. Why, at class the other day, I was speaking with a peer about the history of Christianity and about the moral fallacies of the Bible. I soon discovered that I, an atheist, had more knowledge on the subject than this church going Christian. It puzzles me why so many people claim to believe something, but have no idea what it actually entails. And then, you get the "well, the old testament is not literal" excuse. My question to that would be of course, "So, why is the new testament supposed to be?" I hope you get around to this post.
Thank you for the message. I appreciate it. It is often surprising just how many people are willing to accept a label without understanding it all the way. Not even all of the details necessarily but often times many of the major points or ideas of the religion. It is always funny to hear a Christian discuss the bible. It often becomes a sorites paradox of sorts, how much of the bible can you remove and still have a bible? That’s why I figure they need to just scrap the whole book and think for themselves.
“For those who believe in God, most of the big questions are answered. But for those of us who can’t readily accept the God formula, the big answers don’t remain stone-written. We adjust to new conditions and discoveries. We are pliable. Love need not be a command or faith a dictum. I am my own God. We are here to unlearn the teachings of the church, state and our education system. We are here to drink beer. We are here to kill war. We are here to laugh at the odds and live our lives so well that Death will tremble to take us.”—Charles Bukowski 1920-1994
I need your advice.
I am an Atheist and my Husband is a Christian. He believes in god, heaven, hell, the whole kit and kaboodle.
We have discussions about it but we rarely argue about religion (or lack there of) The issue is his family. They are god fearing Born Again Christians and are very set in their ways. They know I'm an Atheist but usually just ignore it or pretend I'm one of them. They say utterly stupid things ALL OF THE TIME.
My nephew bit his mum the other day and my mother in law claimed he did it because he was born in sin.
Yes, that makes complete sense. It wouldn't have been because he was tired and cranky and just wanted some boob.
Another golden one was that I am Bipolar because I don't believe in god.
My question being, how do I deal with being in such a devout family without killing everyone?
Hey, thanks for the message. Hopefully you don’t mind me posting this message because it is something I get asked about every so often. It can be difficult when there is a conflict of religious views in the family. I have been in a similar situation myself at times.
A lot of it will depend on how close you are with his family, how open they are, and your own comfort level. For me personally, I am the type of person that couldn’t let something like that slide without some comment. Just a little something to let them know that I caught it and that it was non sense. Not something directly rude so much but just something to remind them of how silly what they’re saying is.
If that doesn’t work or isn’t an option it may be just best to avoid it. Let them be who they are but when “family prayer” time is about to start just step out. When the topic comes up make sure that your views are known and clear but try to avoid debates and discussions on the topic. It’s amazing how quickly something can go from civil to screaming when religion is the topic.
Unfortunately these are about the only two options I’ve come across that are able to avoid a lot of conflict. Good luck!
Would you ever come to think that the existence of humans was a mistake, or that the earth just wasn't meant to hold us? A biological or chemical error? The reason I ask is because with all of the problems we create for our environment, it makes me feel like that's just not how everything was supposed to go. If we were meant for this planet, then we wouldn't be hurting it so much. What's your take?
To say that human existence is a mistake we would have to say that there is some underlying reason or purpose for existence at all. I don’t really believe there is. Saying that we’re all the result of some cosmic “accident” or pure chance to many people sounds like a devaluing of life but even if it is not a pleasant thought it’s most likely true.
Evolution does not make mistakes. Evolution doesn’t have any official goal or purpose, it is not as if evolution was set into motion for us to reach the level that we are. We may not be able to live harmoniously with our environment in many cases but there is not fault involved on either side. It is simply a result of what happened, it is how things have been laid out. There is no fate or predestination to it.
We have reached the point where we can manipulate our environment and the results of our actions are having global impacts. We do need to make major changes to the way we live. The way we treat the planet and burn through resources is not sustainable in the long term. We do need to stop being short sighted in the effects that we have on our own environment.
"Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes."
- John Paul II, Pope
Well he was about half right. Although religion provides absolutely nothing worth while to science in my view. He was a somewhat progressive Pope despite his love of saints and other mystical thinking. He was the Pope after all that said people should accept evolution. He brought people into the 20th century with just a few years to spare before it was over.
Do you enjoy any movies/books/music/art/entertainment that could be considered Christian? Example: The Chronicles of Narnia, Creed, The Exorcism of Emily Rose, Lord of the Rings, etc?
It depends on how much you would include to be Christian. Is Tupac considered Christian? Some would say no way, some would say yes. It is so wide spread in our culture in the United States it’s almost impossible to totally avoid. Personally I am not a fan of C. S. Lewis or his works, really don’t like Creed at all, haven’t seen that particular movie, and am not sure how LoTR would be considered Christian? Of the ones listed I am definitely a fan of LoTR but usually am not a fan of anything that would be considered overly Christian. There are definitely plenty of things I like that do have a Christian influence though.
"If a geologist sets out to find evidence of a massive biblical flood that covered the earth they may or may not find it, but the results be will independent of what they hoped to find if published scientifically without bias, if they skew results to add bias of their own, they’re not upholding good science."
So you're going back on your original statement and saying that if a scientist makes a discovery, whatever the reason he/she started researching, if the discovery is truthful then we should trust them? How is this different from the scientists at Vatican Observatory?
Also, you're acting like the purpose of the Vatican Observatory is still to find a physical god, which it is not true.
If the Vatican observatory was to make a great scientific discovery that held up to scientific standards we would have no reason to distrust it. It does have the possibility of doing that and if did that would obviously be a plus. What I have been attempting to say this entire time that seems to be lost on people is simply because they are attempting to do something scientific doesn’t mean I am automatically supporting them in it. There are better observatories, better scientists, and better groups to support in their endeavors. There are people with pure scientific motives the are not tied to bigoted groups of hatemongers.
If the Vatican observatory is the first to come out with a ground breaking scientific claim I would want that verified from other groups. I wouldn’t trust them at face value and I feel there is ample reason to support that. If it stood up to verification from the rest of the scientific community, wonderful, if not, it’d hardly be a surprise.
What exactly is the Vatican observatory attempting to do? It’s an honest question because I don’t know. What is their purpose in maintaining such a thing? I don’t think it’s out of pure scientific pursuit and wanting to understand the awe of the universe. That’s not the business of the church. They don’t pursue other areas of science in the same way so seriously what is their motive? Best I can tell, aliens, that way once they run out of credulous people on this earth to try and swindle they can move on to another planet.
"Any Atheist scientist who has considering the subject at length realizes there is no way to disprove the existence of God with the possible exception of Victor Stenger. I don’t think there is any measurable amount of Atheists that get interested in science because they believe it will lead to them proving non-existence. As far as disproving the claims of religion, that is field that science can affect. Disproving religion though is usually a result of scientific findings and not the intended pursuit."
Sorry to send another ask, but would you please answer the question. Should we not trust Atheist scientists if it is known that they have a motive for disproving religion/God (or as you pointed out, religious claims)?
I would have to understand how it would be possible for an Atheist scientist to even set about trying to disprove God. What field would he be in? What kind of studies would he do to try and do such a thing? I honestly can’t think of a way that it would be possible so I really can’t answer the question. If it’s a matter of disproving religious claims at the same time it has the possibility of proving religious claims until the findings are complete. If a geologist sets out to find evidence of a massive biblical flood that covered the earth they may or may not find it, but the results be will independent of what they hoped to find if published scientifically without bias, if they skew results to add bias of their own, they’re not upholding good science. If an archeologist attempts to locate and excavate biblical cities they either will or will not find them, but again the results have nothing to do with their original intent.
If someone says I am setting out to build a telescope to prove that God exists they are already have their stated goal and will ignore what contradicts their intended findings. With Christian science they seek to try and prove that the world is 6,000-10,000 years old and will ignore any finding or information contradictory to that. “Christian science” does not hold to the same rules that other science does. There is no way possible for a scientist to set out to disprove God and simply ignore all the “proof” they find for God because there is no such proof. The two sides are not compatible.
I don't know if you've answered this before- but is it possible to be a "scientist" (in any field) and a "believer" (in any religion that says there is one entity that created everything as we know it)?
I have answered similar questions before and yes I do believe there is the possibility. The key is that if there is a conflict between the science they are working on and their faith they need to be able to say that their religion is wrong. Francis Collins is probably the example people most often point to of a strong believers and brilliant scientist. His personal reason for choosing to become religious is a bit laughable but he still has provide invaluable scientific information to the world because the field he works in does not contradict with his faith. If we look at the other side though we see the problems. Kurt Wise, a promising young geologist, who could have had a very bright future in his field but he was unable to reconcile truth with scripture and decided to reject science.
If science and religion conflict you can look at the science all you want but if it holds strong you have to be able to say religion is wrong. If someone as a believer is unable to do that chances are they are not going to be a worth while scientist. If they can set aside their presumptions and be open to their findings regardless of how they conflict with personal feelings they have just as much opportunity to be a great scientist as anyone else. Sometimes they just can’t do it, like a geologist who still wants to be a young earth creationist, it won’t work.
Devil's advocate time. You mentioned that we shouldn't trust scientific institutions funded by religious groups because they might have a motive.
Should we not trust Atheist scientists if it is known that they have a motive for disproving religion/God?
Side question: Dawkin's was found to be using research done by Marc Hauser that was later discredited. Doesn't self advancement mean every scientist has a motive beyond truth? Why should we trust them?
Any Atheist scientist who has considering the subject at length realizes there is no way to disprove the existence of God with the possible exception of Victor Stenger. I don’t think there is any measurable amount of Atheists that get interested in science because they believe it will lead to them proving non-existence. As far as disproving the claims of religion, that is field that science can affect. Disproving religion though is usually a result of scientific findings and not the intended pursuit.
Many scientists do hope that they will get acclaim and credit for their finding and it is a driving factor for many of them. Many scientists have compromised their own finding in the hopes of achieving that. Just because there are a few bad scientists it doesn’t mean that science should be discredited. It means we need better science and with that better science far more often than not those bad scientists will be found out and exposed for the attention seekers they are.
Your anon is bating you. One of the first key principals of science is that hypotheses can never be proven true. They can only be proven false.
I realize, but it’s just a dumb argument to have. There is no serious way to respond to people like that. They’ve obviously worked very hard to delude themselves into whatever fantasy world they chose to create.
Science cannot be proven true. This is a logical fact.
Yes we all just walk through life blind. Nothing can be proven. The world is a lie. You probably don’t even exist, you’re just a figment of my imagination. The sky could be on fire and we wouldn’t even know. Oh wait sorry, just making fun, I didn’t take any hallucinogenics this morning so I’ll stick with reality thank you.
I love your blog! I am a fellow atheist who also hates religion, and I have a strong dislike for creationists, who disregard all evidence for a silly myth. Hopefully, as centuries pass, religion will be diminished and seen for what it really is, a lie.
Thank you for the message and I definitely that in the future it will. People always look back at past generations and condemn them for certain accepted actions or practices of that time. Religion is one of those. If humans are still around 1,000 years from now they’ll probably look back at us with a “What were they possibly thinking?” attitude when it comes to religion.
Regarding the most recent 'I missed the point' proof from anon, even IF the Vatican Observatory made a discovery, and with it expanded our knowledge of the universe, it would STILL be incorrect to think that any FUTURE research they did should be supported by anyone who actually understands the way science works. Science has to start from "I don't know", and given the vast number of things that the Catholic church CLAIMS knowledge of with no supporting evidence, it is immediately clear to anyone who knows what science is that they are INCAPABLE of doing real, honest science. If they happen to stumble across something new while practicing fake science, that doesn't change the fact that it is still fake science.
Agreed. I seem to have multiple anons thinking they’re making points but just filling up my ask box with junk that seem to miss the point. Thanks for the message. :)
"Have they provided any worth while scientific advancements that deserve recognition and credit?"
Your prejudice is showing. Doctors haven't cured AIDS yet; do these researchers who try to find a cure not deserve our support?
Oh silly trolls. Actually they have cured a patient of HIV/AIDS through stem cell transplants. You can look here for that. Considering it’s not even close to the same thing though I’ll try and pretend like it’s a valid point. What exactly is the Vatican observatory trying to do? What are they going to accomplish? Well the other anon discussing the issue with me sent me this wonderful link on their “research highlights” and it’s not a shocker that it takes up a whole 4 paragraphs with not a single actual accomplishment listed. Astronomers and physicist deserve support but what they do at the Vatican observatory is not ground breaking work pushing the limits of our knowledge and understanding. If we are going to support someone are we going to support people that do the best and most ground breaking work or are we going to support a bunch of people that believe fantasy stories and have their own agenda?
Your anon is an idiot.
Christian science is more like pseudoscience. They aren't looking for discoveries in general, they are looking for something very specific, despite there being no evidence for it (Creationism, for one). It's like, they have drawn a conclusion from the bloody Bible and then do whatever they can to show that their conclusion is right.
Anon - THAT IS NOT SCIENCE.
Besides, science is science is science. It has no religion. It will surprise you. It will let you down and bring you up. You might find something you never expected. There is no "Christian" science or "American" science or "Vatican" science. It is universal. There is one way to conduct science, and it is called the scientific method.
Agreed. Thanks for the message. Just because it is a religious institute that is attempting to do something almost scientific doesn’t mean I should automatically agree with it and say it’s a great thing. I liked the other reply on the message I saw saw too.
You really can't find anything positive to say about a scientific institution, just because it's funded by religion, can you?
Your blind hate has truly deluded you. To not agree with religion (or even to think it can have a negative effect on people) is fine, but you've actually fallen to a point where you HAVE to disagree with every word and action that a religion stands behind, no matter if it it's good or bad.
This is a perfect example of why I can't stand behind your site anymore. It is ignorant.
So they have an observatory and I’m supposed to give them a round of applause for that? Have they ever discovered anything worthy of note? Have they provided any worth while scientific advancements that deserve recognition and credit? Best I can tell is no. Amateurs with a telescope in their back yard have discovered more exciting new finds than the Vatican has. What does it matter?
So much for all of Europe being more accepting of Atheists than America. I love their justification that such a march could “provoke clashes”. Religious people getting out of hand when people disagree with their views? I can hardly imagine….
What is your opinion of the current Vatican Observatory and the current work they do?
You mean how they are now searching for aliens in a semi-obsessive way? Sounds like an interesting idea I suppose. Didn’t find God, might as well try and find something real. It would be interesting if they find something but other than that I honestly haven’t heard anything else in recent memory about what they’re doing.
“My only wish is… to transform friends of God into friends of man, believers into thinkers, devotees of prayer into devotees of work, candidates for the hereafter into students of the world, Christians who, by their own procession and admission, are “half animal, half angel” into persons, into whole persons.”—Ludwig von Feuerbach (1804-1872)
"Nothing beats scripture and the reminder of the eternal ... I pray that our time here this morning will strengthen us both individually as believers, and as Americans." -President Obama (4/19/11)
Yes can certainly tell he’s doing his best to pander to the right. He is trying a bit too hard at this point and it is starting to get a little old. If you compare his first two years in office to everything since the AZ shooting he has been much more religious in his dialogue.