‘given the increasing diversity of America’s population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.’

In a CBN (Christian Broadcasting Network) email interview, during the presidential campaign {7/27/08}, Obama repeated the statement almost verbatim:

‘I think that the right might worry a bit more about the dangers of sectarianism. Whatever we once were, we’re no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of non-believers.’

Notice the shift in the style of the latest comment from the others. The earlier two versions make believe we can be all kinds of nations at the same time, unsuccessfully trying to pluralize and universalize the religious perspectives into a single national identity. The more recent clip restricts religious expression from the outset by denying religious classification at all, tending instead to a nation of citizens with certain shared ideals and values.

The comment in the earlier versions was a set-up to the further point of how policy is not only made, but even discussed – in 2006 stating further:

‘We should acknowledge this [new ‘nation’] and realize that when we’re formulating policies. We’ve got to work to translate our reasoning into values that are accessible to every one of our citizens, not just members of our own faith community.

Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what’s possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It’s the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God’s edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one’s life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing.’

The 2007 version:

‘Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, …if I seek to pass a law…, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why …some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.’

So religious belief itself is, according to Obama, inherently invalid as a basis of expression and must at the least be translated into some non-offensive universal form based on communal betterment or common good – Democracy demands it and gives us no choice. Freedom of religious expression, in the public policy sphere, is not just stifled but now deemed a threat to the democratic ideal and the common aim and reality. Someone speaking from a religiously based viewpoint is not just marginalized, but they are now demonized and not to be tolerated. The very manner of expression, even the basis of thought and reasoning, must not include even a religious tone, however subtle – expression must be based then on no faith at all. And so a national religion of no religion is established as policy becomes inherently a-theistic. In this manner, America becomes an Atheistic Nation whose course from the outset is charted in full rejection of God.

Notice again the wrap up on the most recent version, ‘we consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values.’ Obama identifies this set of principles as being found in the ‘promise of a secular country that is respectful of religious freedom, respectful of rule of law, respectful of freedom, upholding these values.’ Speaking of respect for religious freedom is all well and good, but rings empty after the creation a new set of ideals and values that demand a wholly secular country and limit the expression of such freedom. The new value and ideal is to have a commonly agreed upon morality and reality that expressly forbids a religious approach and requires the rejection of any existing belief outside reason itself. In such a scheme, there is no room for God and the invocation of religious belief in a public forum is pronounced dead on arrival. The New Atheist Nation is proclaimed.

Something Extra to Chew On—->
Consider further that beyond the ramifications for domestic political discourse, freedom of expression and policy formulation – Obama actually pronounced this in a joint press conference in a moderate Muslim Nation (also predominantly a Nation of Muslims), that being Turkey. He held it out there as if it were something we are proud of that we have absolutely no religious morality or spiritual basis – to a foreign audience (the wider middle east and all Muslims) that is staunchly religious and not just pro-morality but ultra-fundamentalist in the enforcement of religious ideals – to the point of Jihad. So He is trying to say, we’re no threat to you because we don’t really believe in anything anyway – don’t hate us. But in effect He is classifying as not only as an Atheist Nation but as an infidel nation in the eyes of the Muslim world – worthy of conquering by those who Allah has divinely revealed himself to. Nice foreign policy move. What’s next sending Perez Hilton as a goodwill ambassador to Iran – hmmm might not hurt.