How much should a politician's faith be scrutinised?
James Forsyth 7:14pm
Today both George W. Bush and Barack Obama find their faith under scrutiny. A new book questions Bush’s conversion narrative and suggests that Bush is highly aware of the political benefits of his faith. While Obama is under fire for some extreme statements from his preacher.
I must admit that reading an extract from the book and watching the video segments on Obama’s pastor, I felt rather queasy. It seems rather under-hand to attack a man for his religious beliefs. I know that people argue that both Obama and Bush have exploited their faith for votes but it still strikes me as an out of bounds attack.
The coverage of both men’s faith also has a rather unpleasant whiff about it. In Bush’s case it is the constant desire to sneer at him or at the very notion of belief itself. While with Obama there is a definite hint of racism in some of the talk about his faith, a belief that Obama is too good to be true—that there must be some hidden secret to be revealed that will show him to be no different from Al Sharpton.
Previous
Comments
Verity
March 13th, 2008 8:42pmI simply don't agree that suspicions about Obama's faith are racism. People are genuinely concerned that the church to which he belongs is, oddly, a big supporter of Louis Farrakhan, a nasty piece of work and founder of the Black Muslim movement. There's something about Barack Obama that just doesn't ring true. And it's not just the messianic rubbish he spouts, or the fact that he spent, essentially, the two years since he was elected to the Senate planning his campaign for the presidency. It's all too odd.
Fergus Pickering
March 14th, 2008 2:19amWhy is it underhand to attack a man for his religious beliefs. Such a sentence could be written only by someone who had no imaginative understanding of what religious belief could possibly be. Do you think itunderhand to attack a man for his political beliefs? Well then. You must suppose that religious beliefs are like race or (perhaps) sexual orientatin, something ver which you have no control. Do you believe that? because it's rubbish. Were Ia Christian, which I am on Tuesdays and Thursdays, I would be prepared to defend what I thought. If Bush's or Obams's beliefs are tripe then they are fools for believing them. If they really do believe them, which is another question.
Tapsearch Com Editor and Artist
March 14th, 2008 3:26amPresident Bush says Jesus is his favorite philospher. Then he brings the world his pre-emptive wars. Hillary Clinton spins most everything like her husband did in the land of "is" where everything depends on what your definition of "is" is. View the Clinton Years American Dream Reversed artwork by Ray Tapajna at http://www.bizarrepolitics.com/clinton-years-american-dream-revered and explore philosophy and religion in the global economic arena at http://www.therationale.com - Jesus was not a philosopher. Philosophy is a study of being and and Jesus claimed to be all being - the alfa and the omega.
mark
March 14th, 2008 6:47amVerity - rest assured that the scrutiny BA is coming under from the Clintom wing in the primaries is to nothing compared with the scrutiny he will come under in the general election!!!!
THX1138
March 14th, 2008 7:45amFrom the 20th Democratic Debate just before the Ohio primary This was Obama's answer after being confronted by Hillary Clinton about his support of and from Farrakhan OBAMA: Tim, I have to say I don't see a difference between denouncing and rejecting. There's no formal offer of help from Minister Farrakhan that would involve me rejecting it. But if the word "reject" Senator Clinton feels is stronger than the word "denounce," then I'm happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce. Can we please park this issue.
Veritas Berlin
March 14th, 2008 8:18amQuestioning Obama's links to a black nationalist and undeniably racist preacher is prudent, not racist.
Those who suspect these motivations might just be the same racists who are voting at over 90% for 'one of their own."
Veritas Berlin
March 14th, 2008 8:19amQuestioning Obama's links to a black nationalist and undeniably racist preacher is prudent, not racist.
Those who suspect these motivations might just be the same racists who are voting at over 90% for 'one of their own."
Max Kaye
March 14th, 2008 10:03amJames, Why should it seem "under-hand" to attack a man for his religious beliefs? Most political positions can be argued and rationalised (even horrible, flawed systems like fascism, communism and socialism). Most religious belief are just that - a 'belief': no reason, no objective demonstration of proof - just divinely inspired revelation (or a common psychological flaw, or brain damage as a result of too much acid.... ).
Should we really trust someone whose morality and ethics are based on the word of some bearded old bloke in heaven? (or reason why their bearded old bloke in heaven is better and truer that their opponent's bearded old bloke in heaven?).
N. J.
March 14th, 2008 10:12amJacob Weisberg is a left-wing hack columnist for Slate Magazine, who has spent the last 8 years abusing George W. Bush, including calling him a 'theocrat' and 'Christian fundamentalist' etc. Now he expects us to believe it's all for show for political reasons. Nonsense. If anyone is interested in an honest (and non-partisan account) of Bush and his religious belief, then read – GOD AND GEORGE W BUSH by Paul Kengor, THE FAITH OF GEORGE W BUSH by Stephen Mansfield or A MAN OF FAITH by David Aikman. Weisberg’s attempts to re-write history are ironic, considering he wrote a stupid column last year accusing the historian Andrew Roberts for just the same thing, in his last book. But I guess an award-winning conservative historian being invited to the White House for lunch really must irritate those leftist ideologues.
Ian C
March 14th, 2008 11:16amImagine what would have happened to Huckabee or Romney if they had got further in this race. There is no reason for their religious beliefs not to be scrutinised. The beuaty (wrong word I know) of the American system is that the scrutiny canidates have to go through is relentless and there have been very few American Prsidents regarded as a failure as a result. Just look at the scrutiny one G Brown got.... We need to have a system that does this too.
mike
March 14th, 2008 11:48amAnyone who believes in a god, needs to be given plastic knives and forks. To give these people power over the sane is just daft. However anyone who tells you he believes in a god to get your vote is acceptable. It shows them to be deceptive and dishonest. Those are the requirements of high office and should be looked upon as a plus.
leo solomon
March 14th, 2008 12:11pmAt the age of twenty eight,just prior to his adventure into politics,Obama became a Christian. Of all the churches and denominations available he selected an exclusionist,anti white,vociferously anti American and anti Zionist church for his conversion to Chritianity.It wasn't just the nearest church -a church around the corner.It had to have been the one that best reflected his point of view.With that church he acquired a minister,mentor and friend who makes Farakhan seem moderate even timid in his expressions of hatred.How can this history be reconciled with his current presentation of himself?How can such a man be considered fit to be president?
Verity
March 14th, 2008 8:32pmLeo Solomon - Agreed. It just doesn't ring true. Naturally, this post brings out the fundamentalist atheists like Mike who absolutely cannot tolerate anyone holding an opposing view about a diety. They want to tear down everyone's faith so everyone is equally impoverished and everyone is on the flatlands, like Mike. He writes: "Anyone who believes in a god, needs to be given plastic knives and forks." Well, I'm going to buy into the plastic knife and fork business, because around 4.5bn of the world's population (6bn)claim to adhere to a religion. That's a lot of plastic knives and forks.