The objection to Obama's speech is not the content of his speech, but that he seemed to walk down the tried-and-true path of blaming the progressive base while not holding the conservatives to similar scrutiny. He uses the word "secularists" to describe people who want to keep government free from religion. How about "supporters of the First Amendment" instead? That's what is annoying everybody. We'd like to see leaders of the Democratic party actually standing up for the traditional positions such as separation of church and state, instead of caving on yet another brick of our foundation as part of an ill-conceived attempt to woo "swing voters". To be fair to Obama, that emphasis is hardly the sum of his speech. But he needs to be aware that the political enemies of the progressives are going to twist it that way, and use his equivocation about separation of church and state as a wedge issue to divide Democrats.

As always, Obama just took the words out of my mouth.  (Clinton did a pretty good job a few weeks ago too).

 Anyways, as I've mentioned before (and been lambasted for doing so), there are elements in the left that feel any expression of religion- particularly Christianity- is per se dangerous, and that the person speaking must be stupid.  After my experiences blogging about this issue, I'd say it's quite possibly one of the greatest self-destructive forces at work within the leftist/democratic sphere today.  And it's something we have to get over, for several reasons: 1) The sort of absolute stereotyping at work is totally incompatible with a truly liberal viewpoint, and thus should be against all liberal principles and 2) We're shooting ourselves in the foot by alienating voters and groups with whom we agree on a whooole lot more issues then we disagree.  So the good stuff we agree on doesn't get done, and we never reach a conclusion on the areas where we disagree.

What I can't quite figure out is WHY the absolutists react with such hatred.  Most blind prejudices are based on fear and ignorance.  Ignorance I get- a lot of it comes from the fact that only the "anti" platform of the right wing comes out. And that's a lot of their (meaning the right wing's) fault, along with the media. But what is the left wing so afraid of?

Excellent points. As a Black Democrat, I have often been concerned that the party allows the GOP (who only read the Old Testament and the hardline of Paul in the New Testament) to usurp the message of hope and joy in the Bible. MLK is a hero of mine. Black and White church members worked towards insuring voting and housing rights in the US, often risking life and limb. There is a clear division between the "fire and brimstone" message I here coming from right wingers like Dobson, and the newly more racially "refined" Southern Baptist Church. (You're gonna die versus you can attain a good life)
Those who consider religion to be fantasy and science fiction for the feeble-minded are welcome to their positions, but should not invade my rights.
How can you have free speech if you're told to shut up if you mention God in public?
People of all faiths (Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc) will be important to the party to understand the feelings of others who occupy our world.
"The Mighty and The Almighty" by Madeleine Albright gives some insight in the the problems that can occur by discarding religion when negotiating with different peoples.
Paying heed to religion doesn't require conversion to a particular religion, but a realization of it's importance and influence on the opinions of others.
It's a practical matter.
Bravo Obama

Two quotes illustrate the reason that many of us reacted negatively to Obama's speech:

First.

The WaPo states that Senator Barack Obama chastised fellow Democrats on Wednesday for failing to "acknowledge the power of faith in the lives of the American people."

Which of his "fellow Democrats" have done anything remotely like that? Not one, of course. The truth is that Democrats are as shameless as Republicans when it comes to public displays of piety as a substitute for moral actions.

The meme that comes out this is that Senator Obama says that Democrats fail to acknowledge God and people who care about God. This is not only a lie, it is a damnable lie.

Second, again from the WaPo story:

"Obama mentioned leaders of the religious right briefly, saying they must 'accept some ground rules for collaboration' and recognize the importance of the separation of church and state."

The right wing Christian Separatists do not believe in the separation of church and state. They do not acknowledge any legal, political or moral basis for such a separation. They also do not believe in collaboration with anyone with whom they disagree.

Was Obama asleep during the Schiavo episode? Did he follow the Justice Sundays? Where has Obama been for the last twenty years?

As a practical matter the central premise of Obama's "chastising" of fellow Democrats is the same as the central premise of Ann Coulter in her book Godless. Democrats are anti-God and anti-religious people.

We object when she does it. Why should we remain silent when he does it? It's a lie when she says it and it's a lie when the new rising star of the Democratic party says it.

For me, I can work with people who say they are inspired by God, no problem. I hesitate to work with people who insist that WE must be inspired by God. Some people are inspired by God to be moral and ethical, some people are inspired by Morality itself to do the same. If Christians wish to chuckle that inspired non-theists are secretly being inspired by God in disguise, so be it. Like Obama says "In fact, because I do not believe that religious people have a monopoly on morality, I would rather have someone who is grounded in morality and ethics, and who is also secular, affirm their morality and ethics and values without pretending that they're something they're not."

I also don't think there's anything inherently wrong with refusing to talk about faith in public. Sometimes keeping one's faith secret is a sincere part of their faith, especially for Christians of the Midwest and Northeast U.S., who recall Mathew 6:6 "But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."

I think Obama's off the mark on things like the pledge. No, I don't think we should campaign against "Under God", but I respect those who do. Those words are a disgrace to the principles on which our country is founded, and the idea that theism is something sacred and magical that non-theists have to regard with deference is unacceptable to me--people can be inspired to disbelieve just as much as they can be inspired to believe. I am not an athiest--I believe there is something extra-logical on which our visible world rests--but to call that extra-logical quality "God" strikes me as blasphemous to something which should be beyond all names.

We shouldn't campaign against it, because even a single child going without health care is a greater evil than a couple of words for some pledge, disgraceful or not. But those who oppose those words do so for what they believe is Moral and Good, and they are entitled to just as much respect as the believers who insist--contrary to our Constitution--that the words stay.

If the option is NO religious expression by any member of the party rather than SOME religious tolerance, and > 80% of voters consider themselves to be religious. Do we ask them to give us our votes, but keep their opinons to themselves (since religion plays a role in some of their decisions)? Is that a winning strategy?
Does it not just push some people to the theocrat(GOP) party, and tell others to just stay home, because they have no true representation?

Clever politicians who aspire to higher office know that making ambiguous statements about fundamental issues is a way to create a body of quotations which can later be used during campaigns. Really clever politicians manage to sound like they favor both sides of difficult issues, some even manage to vote on both sides of controversial legislation.

Obama is pandering to the religious center, but he is correct that he will need their votes in the future.

--- Policies not Politics
Daily Landscape

Religious conservatives have monopolized the public discourse of religion for a generation. Secular progressives have unwittingly played into religious conservatives hands by presenting themselves as the only authentic progressive voices on issues of religion and politics. Obama is providing a necessary corrective service, by sending a clear message that religion in the public sphere in America need not be sectarian and exclusive, but rather pluralistic and inclusive. 

Any progressives serious about labor reform, environmental reform, criminal justice reform and reducing poverty will need to make room for faith-based social justice movements.  The reason why Obama is the "rising star" of the party is that he speaks in faith-based language naturally, and he can tap into the deep well of non-fundamentalist evangelical support for social justice.   

Obama wasn't going after his audience - he was preaching to the progressive religious choir as it were. These are people who feely doubly excluded in that both religious conservatives and secular liberals are insistent that they don't exist.  If you read his speech, he takes religious conservatives to task for being sectarian and ignoring social justice concerns.

(You don't have to answer this, but if your church is taking such a blinkered view of Jesus' teachings, why not vote with your feet and attend a place more in line with your beliefs?  I can't imagine being a member of congregation which disdained the equality of women or served as a megaphone for conservative political views.) 

There is a tale of three souls that showed up simultaneously at the Pearly Gates, each looking worried. St. Peter asked the first what was his religion and why he was so worried.

The first tortured soul said that he was a Catholic, and used artificial birth control. St. Peter smiled and let him in.

In more discomfort, the next explained he was a Baptist who enjoyed demon rum. The good Saint waved him in, saying he was generally a good man.

The third seemed as if he was already down below, tormented by devils. Eventually, he sobbed out, "I was an Episcopalian, and I used the wrong fork."

We can switch now to Shi'a, Sunni, and Mahdist Muslims, and perhaps make the Sunni Salafist or Qutbist.

Here we have a few Buddhists, Theravada, Mahayana, and Vajrayana. All believe they can attain Buddha-nature. Suzuki-san, the Mahayana, follows the Zen practice but is also a Shintoist. None believe in what we call a personal deity.

Oh, over there, we have some polytheistic Hindus.

Now, does any of these have the truth and can prove it? They are all people of sincere and wildly different faith.

Let's elect two to office, a Jain and an Odinist. How do they vote on the defense budget?

To try to answer your direct question, for purposes of faith and government, they are all the same -- as is a militant atheist that wants government to tell people there is no deity. There's no profiling here, just the separation between church (and in the broadest sense to include the atheists) and state.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

No, Sundog, it is you that misses the point.

At present, your fanatical anti-religious screeds repel more people than they attract. Since the real point is to win elections for the party most likely to allow you to continue your rants, you aren't really helping the cause now, are you?

...

But he needs to be aware that the political enemies of the progressives are going to twist it that way, and use his equivocation about separation of church and state as a wedge issue to divide Democrats.

Actually, "secularist" antireligous bigots, who sometimes style themselves as "progressives" do everything in their power to divide Democrats by making religion a litmus test -- according to them, if you are religious, you are variously a fool, an ignoramus, a coward, a loser who "can't face reality," even an enemy of the State. In his book The End of Faith, Sam Harris suggests that it might be acceptable to make religious belief a capital offense, and imprison or execute those who refused to surrender their beliefs.

I think that it is quite likely that Obama is the future of the party and not the bigots who use the "separation of powers" argument as a shibboleth to further their private animus against believers. The numbers are on his side, not yours.

mp

debcoop

Barack Obama "Having voluntary student prayer groups using school property to meet should not be a threat, any more than its use by the High School Republicans should threaten Democrats."

I disagree heartily with this statement. And I base it on personal experience. I grew up in a small, very small town. I was one of 3-4 Jewish families in one town and the only one in another one. We were the only ones who were religiously identifiable---my parents as Holocaust survivors were easy to spot --- mostly because of their Yiddish accent.

Being forced to say Christian prayers offended my parents greatly. They understood the real end result of religious discrimination.

There was mostly ignorance of what Judaism was---I was asked what Jews did for Christmas!!! And then there were the times that I was actually persecuted --- emotionally and once physically because I was Jewish.

Before the Supreme Court decision I would just sit there during the prayers---but the kids noticed and once a teacher asked why I was silent. I stayed in stunned silence. Doing this in school is obviously inherently coercive

So let's get to a more recent instance---The Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs actively allows the airing of Christian views. It is so active that Jewish students and one Protestant chaplain at the Academy have complained that they were being subjected to coercive proselytization. The Academy superintendent was reprimanded not only for allowing such active persecutive preselytizing, but for encouraging it.

That is exactly the danger of introducing this into the public square. Those who actively advocate putting religion into public life are just the stripe of religious fundamentalists --from Evangelical Christians to Hasidic Jews --who have no tolerance for other people's faith. (As a Jew who has gone from Orthodox to Reform, I am well aware of what the Hasidim feel about the rest of their co-religionists and besides I understand Yiddish so I know what they really feel about the rest of you) If religionists like them are in the majority than the rest of us ought to fear for our own free expression to our own religion.

Keeping religion out of the public square protects everyone's right to observe their religion.

So, what's the "message," naugiedoggie? And does it come from God or Jim Wallis?

I'm all ears.

I disagree. I don't agree with everything he said, but I believe his heart is in the right place (even though I know that sounds like a Bush voter thing to say).

He said some stuff about religion in his Democratic Convention speech that everyone so loved, so I don't see what the surprise is at him trying to thread this needle. If he's successful, it would mean Dem majorities as far as the eye can see, and we share more in common with all but the farthest right-wing Christians than they do with the money-hungry parts of the GOP.

naugiedoggie, you falsely imply that on one side there are religious belivers, and that on the other side there are Democrats. Most Democrats are religious, and Democratic values are a lot closer to the values of the Sermon on the Mount than Republican values. Also, it was Jesus himself who gave the order to his disciples never to pray in public (Matthew chapter 6, verses 5-6). So why pander to those who want to defy the words of Jesus Christ and pray publicly in schools?

Aren't you conflating "voluntary" and "coercive" religious activities?

And for that matter, isn't Obama erecting a straw man? How many Democrats are spending time fighting those who'd like to use school premises for voluntary religious activities? About as many, I'd guess, as are invested in removing "Under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance.

I don't think all Christians want the same things or are treated the same way, despite some of the comments on this site.

Anyway, I agree that is the root of the problem, and the conservative Catholic and evangelical alliance (despite their lack of communion), is much different from, say, mainline protestantism or unitarianism.

"attacking large portions of their own base in a vain attempt to get votes from the other guys' base"

Why not be specific. Which portions of their own base do they regularly attack? Oh you probably mean the Republican leaning centrist, warhawk portions, right?

It's completely unclear how paragraph one leads to paragraph two. However, it is clear that the purpose of the comment was to leverage an opportunity to sneer at "the religious." Here's some links to a handful of "ethnocentric Protestants" (according to you, there being no other type of "religious" person in America). Well, I'm going to cheat and include a Catholic. So, sneer at me.

Joan Chittister
Chuck Currie
Street Prophets
God Is Still Speaking
Church Folks For a Better America
Sojourners: Christians For Peace and Justice
UCC Action Center
Southern Christian Leadership Conference

I could keep going. I think this short list is sufficient to demonstrate that your position is merely that of the petulantly bigoted.

For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?

And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so? -- Matthew 5:43-44

The rightwing bigot wants to rid the world of atheists and the leftwing bigot wants to rid the world of theists. You're equally self-congratulatory and equally deluded. You both want to deprive me of my liberty, differing only in particulars of the rhetoric aimed at achieving that end. The rightwinger wants me to acknowledge "his" God and the leftwinger wants me to pretend God doesn't exist. The origin of these countervailing demands is the same in each case: moral timidity that leads to a perceived need to enlist the power of the State to suppress the offending belief.

The big difference is that presently, the rightwingers have the political means to actual complete the job. So, what happens when/if the leftwing bigot gains the ascendancy?

Meet the new boss, Same as the old boss.

I know that, under particular circumstances, I am capable of great evil. Therefore, I strive to humble myself and never allow myself to enter into those circumstances. Sadly, and dangerously, the bigoted "progressive" believes that by aggrandizing power and suppressing me and other believers, in the name of the "greater good," he will be ushering in the Golden Age. Instead, it becomes yet another ritualized slaughter of innocents.

I do not care about the supposed purity of your motives. I care only about the certain destructiveness of the results.

mp

debcoop

I am saying that what is said to be voluntary really becomes coercive in milieus in which one religion faith is heavily predominant.

I am saying in real life that there is no meaningful difference between voluntary and coercive.

As a Hindu who grew up in the South, I may have a different perspective on this than many of you. I strongly agree with Senator Obama, at least as far as his statements on religion. I don't know exactly how much he "chastised" other Democrats (that seems to be the author's phrasing more than Obama's intent), but if we can't have an open forum of views then we're through as a party anyway. This is something we need to talk about, as it is clearly a real division in the party.

Part of this is cold pragmatism. Frankly, this is not simply an issue of "secularism" vs. "Christian theocracy". There are millions of Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Wiccans, Jains, Buddhists, and members of other faiths in this country, all of whom lose out nearly as badly under one ideology as the other. For those of us who are religious minorities, we're stuck between people who think we're infidels and people who think we're childish morons.

I guess the biggest peeve with me is the fact that people who strongly advocate a completely secular political debate tend to have very asymmetric reactions to people of faith. If the word "God" is just meaningless gobbledygook, why is it such a big deal to just utter the loathsome syllable and get on with your life? I'm not advocating some kind of theocratic state, and I would stand up to anyone who tried to implement any coercive practice of religion, but I have a hard time seeing the deep existential harm that supposedly arises from simply mentioning the concept in passing.

From a coldly pragmatic perspective, I think Obama's strategy is frankly the only one that can work in the long term. If liberals/progressives really want to purge religion from the public square we will frankly lose. However, every fight we pick over small issues like the Pledge or like voluntary prayer groups just radicalizes more Christians and moves us further from the far more achievable goal of pluralism, in which all religious beliefs are valued. In effect, they shuffle coal into the Religious Right's furnace. Americans are usually pretty tolerant, but if their only choices are to take a hard line on something they believe in OR take a hard line on something they disagree with, of course they're going to stick with the former. I just don't understand why liberals should be interested in replacing Christian fundamentalism with secular fundamentalism.

Barack Obama did not not use a Republican frame.

The AP hack writer used a Republican frame to take Obama's quotes out of context.

If you'd read the actual speech, you'd know that the heart of Obama's speech was telling the Religious Right how separation of church and state is necessary. To say that Obama addressed the Religious Right briefly is to totally miss the entire point of what he was saying.

naugiedoggie, you falsely imply that on one side there are religious belivers, and that on the other side there are Democrats. Most Democrats are religious, and Democratic values are a lot closer to the values of the Sermon on the Mount than Republican values.

No, actually, I believe that it is the antireligious "progressives" who want to make the distinction between "religious" and "Democrat." That is why they are making such a stink about this speech. They're claiming that Obama is talking "like a Republican."

The percentage of Americans who admit a religious belief has remained consistently high throughout the 20th and into the 21st century. There may be some petulance among certain disbelievers, who just can't accept what they perceive as "irrational" belief systems.

Leaving aside the consistently rude, derogatory blogging by this group, what is truly offensive and disheartening is the way they attempt to undermine the core political power of the Democratic Party by submarining openly religious candidates. As, in the present instance.

Thanks.

mp

Once upon a time separation of church and state was the cry of religious groups all across the nation. Nobody gave a damn about the athests, agnostics or unitarians. They were worried about each other.

The Baptists in particular wanted to keep churches out of the schools. Why? Well in those days there were lots of denominations with more members than the Baptists. One of them would have assumed the role of "state religion" before the Baptists. The idea of an Episcopalian state church was appalling to them. Hell, they fled the old country to get away from the Church of England.

Protestants were really afraid of the Catholics. European wars between Protestants and Catholics went on for centuries. Until I was full grown, the very idea of money going to Catholic schools was renounced not only as being unconstitutional, but as being evil. Jack Kennedy had to declare himself free of Papist loyalties to have any chance of election. On hearing his comments some Catholics smiled knowingly.

Well those other Protestant denominations have slipped. The Baptists have increased in numbers and political power. Guess what, they want to be the "state religion."

They seek to both rally and poach on the other, now defanged, Protestant denominations. For now they don't want an open fight with the Catholics.

To advance their political agenda and to reintroduce the idea of a state religion, the fundamentalists (mostly Southern Baptists) have cleverly declared "secular humanists" to be the enemy of all "religious people."

How well have they succeeded? Well enough that a lot of non-religous progressives now identify themselves as "secular humanists." They write silly blog posts attacking religious progressives. The non-religious progressives forget that the "fundamentalist" politicians are really enemies of the religous progressives.

The funny thing is that the fundamentalists defined (or perhaps, redefined) term "secular humanist" to describe their enemy in their quest for policial power. I find the willingness of some progressives to trash talk other progressives using fundamentalist vocabulary surpassingly odd.

Ron Byers

The issue is that he repeated a GOP talking point.

What if Obama just said, We Democrats are going try to reach religious and invite you to join us because the Democratic Party values are Christian values of charity, mercy, helping the poor, etc and because people benefit more from Democratic Party policies than republican policies. Something positive. There are many stereotypes and I would like to dispel them. etc.

Instead of chiding Democrats and reinforcing a stereotype.

There were several Democrats who were in that Sojourners meeting reaching out to religious belying his gop talking point claim.

So what's all the hubub, bub? If Obama wants to pander to rightwing fundamentalists, like Dean going on Wacky Pat's 700 Club, so what? It's not like they have any principles anyway. Sheesh! Democrat party voters aren't going to make any demands of them one way or the other, so why not suck up to the theocrats?

Come on, people! Get a clue! You're going to vote for Bob Casey or Hillary or Lieberman or whatever anyway. Why all the phony outrage? Why should you care what Lieberman's Apprentice does or doesn't say about anything?

In Europe, most of the "Christian Democrat" or "Christian Socialist" Parties are very conservative. Case in point is the Christian Social Union of Germany/Bavaria.

So, what's the "message," naugiedoggie? And does it come from God or Jim Wallis?

I'm all ears.

Thank you for making my case, with your absurdly useless comment.

You remind me of a line from Shakespeare, another author I feel sure you haven't read:

Dost thou think, because thou art virtuous, there shall be no more cakes and ale?

In that particular case, the individual being satirically pilloried was a malevolent and obtuse Puritan named, of course, Malvolio. Do you recognize any spiritual affinity in yourself to that "paragon of virtue"?

Do you really think that you are smarter than, better educated than and a better human being than I, simply because I believe in God and you don't? Do you have any conception at all, just how foolish that belief makes you look?

"I believe in the brotherhood of man and the uniqueness of the individual. But if you ask me to prove what I believe, I can't. You know them to be true but you could spend a whole lifetime without being able to prove them. The mind can proceed only so far upon what it knows and can prove. There comes a point where the mind takes a higher plane of knowledge, but can never prove how it got there. All great discoveries have involved such a leap." -- A Einstein

mp

What if Obama just said, we Democrats are going to try to reach religous and invite you to join us because the Democratic party values are Muslim values of monotheism, prayer, charity, fasting, and pilgrimage, and because people benefit more from Democratic party policy than Republican policies.

What if Obama just said, we Democrats are going to reach religious and invite you to join us because the Democratic party values are Wiccan revival values of "an it hurt none, do what thou wilt" and "actions reflect threefold on the actor", and because people benefit more from Democratic party policies than Republican policies. (threefold reflected evil is quite nasty)

What if Obama just said, we Democrats are going to reach religious and invite you to join us because we recommend following the 613 mitzvot (commandments) incumbent on Jews but not Jews, compiled by the Rambam. Please make yourself comfortable and take notes as we review the Democratic mitzvot, because people benefit more from Democratic Party policies than Republican policies.

What if Obama just said, we Democrats are going to reach secular ethical humanists and the Democratic values are the values of the Ethical Culture Resolutions and because people benefit more from Democratic Party policies than Republican policies.

Am I making a point here that there is no unanimity on faith-based policies? In fairness to Obama, he did point out the inherent conflict between absolute faith and pragmatic politics.Was anyone else thinking he was talking about other than some value of Christian values? Was anyone thinking that he was appealing to all faiths being better served by Democrats?
-
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Come on!

The Jerry Falwels, the Bush's, and their ilk have forever tainted religiosity.

6 years (or, if you want to get picky and start from Reagan, 26...) overwhelm several millenia of religious discourse? That's pretty extreme.

I understand your desire for us to base our positions on "morality" rather than faith. That would seemingly eliminate the problem of sectarianism inherent in using religious discourse.

The problem is that to the vast majority of the Americans, the two are connected. Most Americans will recognize that people from other faith traditions can be moral, but few will understand arguments for morality that don't incorporate SOME sort of appeal to faith. Sure, there are secular arguments in favor of "religious morals", but most people don't know them and can't articulate them. It's certainly a lot easier to explain the need to help the poor, prosecute corruption, and fight for civil rights by appealing to standard definitions of "right and wrong" (which nearly all voters associate with their faith traditions) than some abstract, scientifically determined, quantifiable morality.

I also think the idea that this can only result in theocracy to be unpersuasive. A lot of the reason that Catholics, Protestants, and Jews (and even some Muslims) are working together now after thousands of years of conflict is that they all perceive a common enemy in people who are adamant about purging religion from the public sphere. Let any one of them gain an upper hand for even a second and we'll go back to a "mutually assured destruction" model in which minority faiths strongly advocate for pluralism. To me, pluralism is the best we can expect.

Given the general quality of the negative comment on his speech, I think his point was well made. He's not saying that members of the party should stop spouting antireligous opinion. He's suggesting that the party leadership should stop catering to them.

I agree. I find it hilarious that many people will go to great lengths to celebrate exotic cultural differences...except the religious ones. To a great extent, religion and culture cannot be separated.

The extreme positions of the religious right are best addressed and discredited by christians from the left, not by the antireligious left. Those positions are frequently inconsistent with biblical christian values. Let the debate be framed in that context, and it can be isolated as a christian debate. Muzzle the religious left and intellectual dismissal is spun into religious persecution, which is what the religious right wants. It is you who are playing into their position, not Barrack Obama.

The fact that evildoers publicly justify their psychopathology with religious cloaks is not the fault of religion. The absurd premise is that if there were no religious believers, these evildoers would somehow cea