13

The Obamas are looking for a new church in Washington…

And the choice they make could have huge racial and political ramifications


 

As Easter approaches, and nearly a year after a divisive break from their Chicago church and the politically toxic sermons of its pastor, Jeremiah Wright, the Obamas are in need of a church near in their new home base. Aides and close friends of the family have been quietly checking Washington churches on a shortlist, including Foundry United Methodist (choice of the Clintons), attending services, speaking with pastors, reverends and rectors and reporting back to the Obamas, said one White House source familiar with the search. For the first black President, the selection carries racial ramifications: should he choose a majority white church, blacks may be upset; should he choose a predominantly black church, whites may fear a repeat of the Wright debacle. Whatever the choice, the church itself may not welcome it: the honour brings gigantic logistical problems. The president’s massive motorcade would have to be accommodated; dozens of Secret Service agents would be needed to secure the site; and parishioners would be forced to pass through metal detectors or be hand-checked before entering.

Washington Times


 
Filed under:

The Obamas are looking for a new church in Washington…

  1. Why doesn’t the President just select a pastor to come give a service at the White House? It isn’t as if there aren’t rooms that aren’t big enough. Then he can bring in fellow congregants among his staff who share his beliefs, and nobody will videotape anything.

    • Oop, too many negatives. “It isn’t like there aren’t rooms big enough.”

      • No, you had the right number of negatives, and also the right idea w.r.t. the Obama and church. He’s just increasing his vulnerability to potential attackers, and inconvenciencing fellow church-goers, by attending an outside church. If he feels he has to pretend to believe in the Jesus fantasy to suck up to the several hundred million suckers who still buy that story from priests and pastors (and, unfortunately, he does have to, in order to retain support), then he should do so in the privacy of his own home.

  2. I can’t believe the principle here. What would be the point of going to any church that you honestly don’t believe and support? Does not compute – please forgive me but I would have more respect if he did choose a church that had a Reverend Wright at least that way there might be just a little glimmer of honesty about the spiritual pursuit but if you start choosing a church because of political demographics then you are by definition a hypocrite and if I am not mistaken the master of the universe (God or whatever you call it) seems to have a great deal to say about such – the old testament states Jehova vomits them out of his mouth – hmmmmmm

    • You are indeed mistaken. The “old testament” is not a reliable guide. It is a collection of viciously xenophobic traditional stories collected by Jewish priests over several centuries in order to manipulate their people into an us-and-them perspective on all members of other tribes — a central tool in an effort to create greater social cohesion within the tribe (under the direction of the priesthood) by telling a bunch of made-up stories that amount to the idea that Jews are “special” to a singular God. This had, and has, nothing whatsoever to do with the question of what it was that created the Universe (which is something we may never know, and if we do figure it out, it will be cosmologists and physicists, not priests, who do the figuring). Priests are politicians, and the stories they tell are tribal-political stories, not at all stories about the creator of the universe.

  3. The REAL hurdle to the US Presidency isn’t electing a black or a woman….it is electing a truly and unashamed non religious person. I don’t think that will ever happen.

    • Atheists are prohibited from running for public office in many states. The laws are probably unconstitutional in this day and age, but they remain. They remain for a reason: every time atheists take over a country it is the same: executions, gulags, forced marches to the countryside, purges, anti-intellectualism, famine, etc., etc., *every* *single* *time*.

      • Correlation is not causation.

        • I used to think that correlation was causation, then I took a Canadian university statistics course and now I know better. Did the course help? I can never be sure…

          • Probably 19 times out of 20 it did.

          • I’ll certainly agree that innumeracy is a social disease, an epidemic in fact.

          • Ha, ha. You’re at the top of your game today. A nice inversion of some fatuous “academic” arguments that one often sees being deployed against conservatism.

      • Nonsense. Utter nonsense, for two reasons: First, many rulers have been very smart people… smart enough to realize that priests are in the same business as politicians, since religion is obviously nothing more than a form of political theatre meant as a mechanism for priests to exercise social and psychological control over people. We don’t know how many rulers were secretly agnostic, but you can bet that a great many have been smart enough to realize religion is bunk, yet also canny enough to realize that they mustn’t point this out to sheeple, given that the priests would recognize this bullshit-calling on them as a threat to their power and immediately go around telling anyone that the agnostic or atheistic politician is “of the devil” to ensure he loses support.

        Second, the handful of rulers who were explicitly atheist in the sense of a Mao or Stalin (Hitler was not an atheist) were not actually non-religious. They were all too religious -they just had a different religion. Marxism is a religion of which Marx, Engels et al. were prophets, and Stalin, Mao, etc. were set up as successor prophets, in the same way as the Popes were successors of the (entirely mythological) Jesus, or the Great Imam is a successor of Mohammad. The god-idea of the Marxists was some notion of “history” and “the proletariat”, etc. The results were neither more nor less inherently sanguine than whatever bullshit Genghis Khan told his horse-riding nihilist horde to theologically justify their cultural modus vivendum of mass murder, rape and mayhem (Khan’s Horde makes the Hells Angels look like a troupe of the littlest of little old ladies in comparison).

        True believers of almost any kind are dangerous, because they are much more attached to their dogmas than to reality, and if reality (or some group of people with a different dogma) doesn’t conform to their dogma, they are quite willing to try to force reality (or unbelievers) to bend to their dogma, rather than adjust the dogma to reality. Marxism was a religion; so was Nazism (even though Hitler never quite let go of his Catholicism). All totalitarian dogmas are nasty and dangerous.

        If you want a safer polity, go find some pragmatists, preferably principled pragmatists with loosely humanist viewpoints. These are people like Obama, clever enough to realize they have to pretend to believe in the mainstream God-idea to get elected, and intelligent enough to realize all religions are fundamentally bunk. Nobody knows the nature of the creator of the Universe – but there are reasons to suspect the creation was an automatic physical process, and there are no reasons to suppose that many universes aren’t inflating into different directions in metaspace on a constant basis. Our anthropocentric ideas of a humanoid God-person are just projections and longings for an imaginary Father – and Jesus is a longing for a perfect archetypal Brother and our Imaginary Friend – these are psychological artifacts of the human mind, and the stories told by priests are manipulations of those archetypes. And of less than intelligent people who are suckers enough to believe in the stories of priests.

Sign in to comment.