<p>So now it’s a revelation to some that Obama’s profession is politics? What did you think he was?</p>
<p>I think what sets Obama apart in this situation is that originally he resisted doing what was politically expedient. Reallly, he only denounced Wright when Wright started acting like a politician himself, and he only quit the church when it was obvious he was going to have to respond to every controversial statement made from the pulpit there, whether he was present or not. Of course, if you don’t like Obama, you’ll slam him for having ties to Wright, and then slam him again for cutting ties. That’s just politics, too.</p>
<p>I know that The Council for a Parliament of the World’s Religions used to be based in Hyde Park and was a wonderful resource for ecumenical dialogue. Don’t know if they’re still there; I thought I heard the relocated into the city.</p>
<p>I think that, yes, it was a revelation to many that Obama’s “profession” is politics. He sold himself as something both “different” and “more.” You can slam people for being naive for hoping for more, I guess and you can say that people who didn’t like him anyway were looking for a way not to back him, but I don’t think that was the case. The primary process is put in place to enable us to learn about the candidates. We learned more about BO than we knew, or maybe than we wanted to know.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Or perhaps more than he wanted to be generally known.</p>
<p>Here is as good a backgrounder on Obama’s faith as there probably is.</p>
<p>[The</a> Dude Abides](<a href=“http://falsani.blogspot.com/2008/04/barack-obama-2004-god-factor-interview.html]The”>http://falsani.blogspot.com/2008/04/barack-obama-2004-god-factor-interview.html)</p>
<p>I’m not slamming anyone for being naive, but politics is politics no matter the candidate. Every politician has to do damage control, and to a degree, pander to the perceptions of the public, and spin the rhetoric to their best benefit. The public demands it. The only way to be different where that’s concerned is to also be okay with not getting elected. </p>
<p>What more were you hoping for?</p>
<p>It’s really very simple. I think many people in this country (white and black) are sick to death of the racial divisions. Because BO is of mixed race, obviously intelligent, post baby boomer generation, etc. etc., they (even voters way to the right of BO politically) really did have hope that he could run a “post racial” campaign and be our first “post racial” president. Then we learned about Rev. Wright and that persona was blown to high heavens. Frankly, what I find really depressing about the aftermath of the Wright dust-up are the people one hears now who are accusing anyone who has trouble believing that 20 years of listening to political sermons of a certain slant does not or should not reflect on BO, as somehow being “racist” (which is how I interpret the phrase “would not have voted for him anyway”). We also have to believe, as I think you said, that the fundamental beliefs of Trinity are a media creation, and if we don’t buy that it too means "we wouldn’t have voted for him anyway. </p>
<p>I fear that in the aftermath of this election race relations will be at an even worse place than they were before Obama’s campaign began. And that is <em>really</em> depressing.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This could easily happen if the election is seen as a referendum on the question, “is America ready to elect a black president?” If Obama is NOT elected, does that mean the answer is automatically “no”, or simply that Obama came up short as a candidate for other than racial reasons? Can America accept the latter answer? Considering that many are still not able to accept the result of the 2000 presidential election, I think many Americans will choose to believe that bigotry is still rampant in the US. However, is that the conclusion the people of Maryland came to when Michael Steel was rejected by the voters, in favor of a white candidate, when he came up short for a US Senate seat in 2006? Or is it when black republicans aren’t elected it is because of their stance on the issues and when black democrats aren’t elected it is because of race?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If Obama doesn’t get elected, it DOESN’T automatially mean that America is not ready for a black Prez. Same w/ Hillary regarding gender. I will not be voting for either of those candidates - and it has absolutely NOTHING to do w/ race or gender. I just don’t like ultra-liberal policies. Colin Powell or some other female conservative could easily get my vote.</p>
<p>Obama doesn’t get my vote for the same reason I didn’t vote for Kerry. I can barely stand to listen to them speak, and I don’t like their policies. Sure, I started this election cycle w/ an open mind, studied the issues and then chose my candidate (and I haven’t had to change).</p>
<p>This country would be so much better off if minorities realized that it isn’t always because their RACE that they aren’t hired, elected, selected for admission, or picked first for kickball. White people should be given a LOT more credit for their decisions - most of the white people I know have gotten waaaay past race - which is more than I can say for many of the minorities in the area where I live. It’s always a “race” issue, because the minorities <em>make</em> it a race issue.</p>
<p>The interview that standrews posted a link to is very interesting. I wonder what will happen in the fall election when evangelical Christian voters realize that Obama is a born-again Christian, while McCain (apparently) isn’t.</p>
<p>It won’t matter, because Obama is a dem, and the fear of appointing a liberal justice will be their deciding factor. Evangelical voters want Roe V Wade overturned and they feel that with a Republican there is a better chance of getting the Supreme Court to swing more conservative.</p>
<p>Also his liberal voting record will make it impossible for evangelical to support him.</p>
<p>As far as McCain he converted a few years back…I believe he is a Baptist now, but was raisied a Methodist.</p>
<p>In regard to race, I do agree if Obama does not win, I feel the country is going to have a very heated discussion about race. For our last 2 elections there has been alot of hoopla over voting irregularities, add into the equation if there are issues in an area that is heavily populated by African Americans and wowla…disenfranchised voters who will believe the election was stolen b/c America isn’t ready for am African American president.</p>
<p>When asked if he’s born again, Obama responded by saying “I’m not sure.” (Chicago Sun Times January 19, 2007)</p>
<p>McCain has said that “he’s just a Christian” and not born again. (Christian Science Monitor October 18, 2007)</p>
<p>I think that evangelicals will focus more on the kinds of people that the candidates will choose for SCOTUS.</p>
<p>NY Time: Stark Contrasts Between McCain and Obama in Judicial Wars
By NEIL A. LEWIS
Published: May 28, 2008</p>
<p>Senator John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican nominee, has already asserted that if elected he would reinforce the conservative judicial counterrevolution that began with President Ronald Reagan by naming candidates for the bench with a reliable conservative outlook.</p>
<p>Senator Barack Obama of Illinois has been less explicit about how he would use the authority to nominate judicial candidates, but he would be able to and fellow Democrats certainly expect him to reverse or even undo the current conservative dominance of the courts.</p>
<p>Both have been resolute soldiers in their parties political wars over judicial nominations during the last several years. While Mr. McCain has supported President Bushs judicial nominees, including John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice of the United States and Samuel A. Alito Jr. as an associate Supreme Court justice, Mr. Obama opposed those nominations and favored Democratic filibusters to block many Republican nominees deemed too conservative. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/28/us/politics/28judges.html?_r=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1212498812-/lhmuVsR+vrd0GbzV3ozUw[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/28/us/politics/28judges.html?_r=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1212498812-/lhmuVsR+vrd0GbzV3ozUw</a></p>
<p>I believe Clinton’s views are similar to Obama’s on SCOTUS.</p>
<p>“As far as McCain he converted a few years back…I believe he is a Baptist now, but was raisied a Methodist.”</p>
<p>Not exactly. He attends his wife’s Baptist church, but hasn’t joined (perhaps because he doesn’t want to be baptised). He hasn’t been very specific about his religious beliefs, but the Baptist minister describes his theological discussions with McCain as “interesting.” In my experience, that’s code for skepticism about doctrine, but who knows what McCain actually believes, or what he will say about it when the campaign heats up.</p>
<p>As for Obama, in the interview linked above, he answers “yes” when asked whether he is “born again” and also states that he has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ–he says a number of other things that make it a bit hazy, though.</p>
<p>“It’s always a “race” issue, because the minorities <em>make</em> it a race issue.”</p>
<p>Why do you think they do that?</p>
<p>Yeah, if only those pesky minorities would stop their whining…</p>
<p>Yeah, they’re the REAL racists!</p>
<p>“As for Obama, in the interview linked above, he answers “yes” when asked whether he is “born again” and also states that he has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ–he says a number of other things that make it a bit hazy, though.”</p>
<p>It seems to me that the question was asked in a rather odd way and somewhat casually. Checking Wikipedia, it seems that there are different opinions on what Born Again means (I’ve never been clear on the meaning and it seems that there are three main meanings to the term). Obama puts a few caveats on his answer too. Perhaps “I’m not sure.” is the best answer. Or some kind of qualified answer, especially if he hasn’t studied the matter and the different meanings that it has in different traditions.</p>
<p>GG:
So you got yourself born again?</p>
<p>OBAMA:
Yeah, although I dont, I retain from my childhood and my experiences growing up a suspicion of dogma. And Im not somebody who is always comfortable with language that implies Ive got a monopoly on the truth, or that my faith is automatically transferable to others.</p>
<p>He goes (or at least went) to a black church. He knows what “born again” means there. He answered an altar call, according to the interview. I think he was hedging his answer a bit because he wants to avoid anybody thinking that he devalues other religions. Of course, I can’t say what he believes in his heart, but what he said in that interview is essentially what a lot of evangelical (but not too fundamentalist) Christians would say. Obama has thus made much more explicit claims to be a believing Christian with a personal relationship with Jesus Christ than McCain has done. As others suggest, this may not matter because of their respective positions on some hot-button issues. But I think it helped Carter in 1976.</p>
<p>I think you’ll get different answers on born again if you ask different people. Attending a church for a long time doesn’t mean that you know all of the doctrine and terms and what the terms mean in general usage as opposed to your own parish.</p>
<p>I don’t think that answering an alter call makes you an expert either.</p>
<p>What I’d like to see from Obama is some scholarly work in finding support for his positions based on Biblical support. Religion is clearly important in his life but I’d like to see where his foundations are. It’s a little easier to see Carter’s foundations on certain issues such as abortion which he objects to but finessed to some degree as the existing law of the land. And Carter lives many of the things that he believes so no one questions him. I disagree with some of the things that he advocates or does but don’t doubt his sincerity in belief. I can’t say the same for Obama.</p>
<p>"Frankly, what I find really depressing about the aftermath of the Wright dust-up are the people one hears now who are accusing anyone who has trouble believing that 20 years of listening to political sermons of a certain slant does not or should not reflect on BO, as somehow being “racist” "</p>
<p>ilsa, Do you know for a fact that Wright’s sermons were politicized each week for 20 years? Do you know anything about Trinity’s theology or how they conduct their services, or the core values of the church or the people there? Or do you mostly just know the looping sound bites? </p>
<p>My point is that most people insisting Obama sat up under 20 years of “political sermons” as characterized by those media clips don’t really know what they’re talking about. To suggest that that’s all that goes on at that church year in an year out, and that it’s the way everyone who attends is indocrinated above all else smacks of a certain type of ignorance, and some of it intentional (not you of course). </p>
<p>Moreover, I think some are rightfully insulted that people with little or no experience with any African-American church, or in some cases, any church at all, so quickly and easily assume that Wright defines every member, the culture, and belief system of the entire congregation, as if it is imprinted on their DNA just for having sat on a pew.</p>