About Wright: Barack Obama's latest dilemma

[AndyA]

First of all, I will go on record as stating that I am not a Barack Obama supporter. Nor am I a Hillary Clinton supporter.

While the Democratic primaries have been interesting to say the least, I keep seeing Barack and Hillary getting tripped up time and again by things they've said or done in the past, things their camp has said or done, or things their friends and family have said or done.

Barack's latest damage control event involves his religion, and that has made me wonder whatever happened to separation of church and state? Religion has its place, but it is not in our government. Our government is supposed to represent the PEOPLE.

ALL OF THEM.

Not just Christians. EVERYONE. We can all see where Christianity has gotten us with George Bush in office. The pResident who invites charismatic leaders into the Oval Office for advice and discussion. We currently have without question the most corrupt administration in our history in office right now. An administration that started a violent war based on lies. An administration responsible for thousands of deaths of American soldiers, and tens of thousands of other innocent people. And this is an administration supposedly led by a Christian man.

There is nothing Christian about lying.

There is nothing Christian about war.

There is nothing Christian about killing.

But that's exactly what our Christian leader has given us. Incredible debt, death, and destruction all because of a war he started based on lies.

I would think that alone would be enough for the American people to realize that those who said separation of church and state knew what they were talking about.

But back to Barack's latest dilemma. Would he have been able to avoid this issue altogether had he stated from the very beginning that his personal religious beliefs will have no place in an Obama Administration? That he intends to represent everyone, not just Christians, but those of every faith, and to include those who have chosen to not believe in any organized religion? And in order to do so, he cannot force his religious beliefs upon others, or govern based on those beliefs?

I remember a time in our history when church and state got together, and there were public hangings of innocent people in the town square. And now we've had the George Bush years, which have been even worse in the sheer number of people who've died needlessly.

If anything, I believe this proves the point that there is no place for religion in our government. One cannot expect to force his or her religious beliefs on everyone else, as not everyone shares those same beliefs. And by attempting to govern with religion, you are forcing your own beliefs on everyone else, and in essence you are excluding and discriminating against those who have different beliefs. And freedom to believe or not believe, as a person chooses, is a fundamental right given to all citizens.

Perhaps if Barack had made this clear from the very beginning, and not allowed people like McClurkin and Wright to represent him, things would be better all the way around.

I consider myself a Christian, but I do not expect others to share the same beliefs and ideals I have. There must be a place in this world and in this country for others who do not look like I do, or believe the same things I believe. There is no right or wrong here.

[SammyWinstonJack]

1. K&R!

[nxylas]

2. I think it's an overreaction to the "God's Own Party" meme

For so long, Republicans have been painting Democrats as godless baby-killers who want to ban the Bible and make everybody gay that Dem candidates who want to implement the 50-state strategy have been more or less forced to stick some God talk into their campaign in order to reassure red state voters. Not sure it'll work, but I can see why they would do it.

[SammyWinstonJack]

3. I really wish they wouldn't. I am sick and tired of "God talk" from politicians.

Keep it to yourself! Isn't that how it is supposed too be? :argh:

[nxylas]

4. Supposed to be, yes

But when you're trying to get votes from people who homeschool their kids with history books that teach that "America was founded as a Christian nation", saying so doesn't necessarily make for good electoral politics.

[Igel]

5. Here's one problem.

"That he intends to represent everyone." Fine.

I was in student government, and I tried to do precisely that. I ran unopposed for a VP slot, so felt honor-bound to hold that position.

It didn't take long before I realized this is a silly view in many cases.

First off, much of what I had to do wasn't obvious to the students. They had no views to represent; I had to poll them if I had time and formulate their views in a coherent way, or try to guess what their views were.

Second, if their views overall were contrary to my views, I caught myself not fighting nearly as hard on the issue.

Third, how I presented things in "second" was simplistic. Often there'd be a multiplicity of views. I could pick the majority view, but then I clearly wasn't representing "all" the students. I could pick a minority view, but that was even more clearly not representing all the students.

Fourth, since I had more issues than I had time, it was easy just to avoid issues that I didn't agree with the majority of the students over. In a very few cases I was morally opposed: Avoidance was easier than doing something, and I had a ready excuse.

Fifth, issues were often moving targets. What I learned was the majority view last week could be irrelevant this week: public opinion might change, or the facts on the ground might change. Do I poll and triangulate? (Isn't that a bad thing?)

Sixth, there were times when I realized that I thought the majority views were simply stupid: A student saw his little portion of the universe and had access to a lot less information than I did, who got to talk to people in many parts of their universe, as well as looking at data that the administration didn't make public. Moreover, often I'd talk to the same outspoken students as "opinion leaders" when there was no guarantee they weren't just louder? What to do? Support the students, or what I think the students wanted, or think for myself?

Seventh, was I to support the students currently attending school? How about future students? On more than one occasion I had to weigh in on a decision that would privilege currently enrolled students over students who were applying. Currently enrolled students were usually clear in what they wanted; should I have backed them or fought for the majority of students in 4 years?

Anybody who has said s/he will be everybody's representative either hasn't given it thought or knows he's spouting a cheap platitude; perhaps s/he simply hasn't represented a sufficiently diverse and large community.

[DS1]

6. 0

0