The cheating wall game

Herbert Thornton

This made me imagine Gordon Brown doing the same thing.

Michael B

Let us all make our prayers and hopes and wishes known, that we might be thought of highly - and as being earnest and sincere.

Formulaic politics as life; life as formulaic politics. Aka "change".

HY

This is dire stuff.

Ahad Ha'amoratzim

Apparently Sen. Obama is not familiar with the English language convention (Hebrew does not use capitals) of capitalizing nouns and pronouns that refer to the Deity. Shouldn't it have read "make me an instrument of Your will"?

Then again, given the man's view of himself, perhaps we should be glad he did not write "make Me an instrument of your will".

Ahad Ha'amoratzim

In the immortal words of Flanders and Swann, "Always be sincere. Whether you mean it or not."

Bill M

I think a more appropriate remark, Melanie, would be, Quel whorreur!

The cynicism does not get any more base than this sick, repulsive, and offensive act. This guy and his handlers are nothing short of political prostitutes.

Of course he knew it would be yanked from the Wall and published (it was no prayer at all), but that the "prayer" was released to the press is beyond belief. And that they respond with they won't confirm or deny? What world are these people living in?

God have mercy on us all.

ndm

Zvika Krieger of The New Republic writes:

-- I just got off the phone with a Ma'ariv spokesman who says that the accusation is "completely false," and that he has no idea who these papers were quoting from Ma'ariv. "No official spokesman for Ma'ariv told this to any of the papers."

Krieger made the same rush to judgment Melanie Phillips made. However, having aspirations to be a real journalist Krieger followed up the story only to find out it was bogus.

field

Well like him or loathe him, you can't fail but be impressed by his political skills. He's up there with Tony Blair and Josef Stalin!

I'm beginning to think that not even revelation of the truth about his education as a Muslim in Indonesia will derail his campaign. He's a phenomenon.

But I think he will be bad for world peace.

Dave M

The frightening thing here is all American politicians have to find ways to profess their belief in God publically. They have to stand up and publically share with the voters how God has meaning in their life and why God is on their side. Bush claimed God was on his side. Hilary Clinton professed her faith. Her hubby went so far as to publically repent of his "sins" on national television. So too did Obama feel a need to profess his faith. Even Schwarzennegger had to lie and try and convince the public he was Catholic, although if you read his autobiography he shares how he refused to accompany his parents to church back in Austria. Therefore, my own view is the fact these politician have to profess a belief in God is profoundly worrying. The fact is were Obama to stand up and say he was an atheist who chose to make rational, political decisions based on human judgement and logic, he'd not stand a cat's chance in Hell of making it to the Presidency. Neither would the Clintons or McCain as the U.S. has become a highly religious country over the decades.

paul hill

Whoops

jose garcia

"Krieger made the same rush to judgment Melanie Phillips made. However, having aspirations to be a real journalist Krieger followed up the story only to find out it was bogus."

Melanie phillips is a real journalist, probably the best in britain, the point of the story anyway is to show The real Obama , Master of Oportunism and of telling everyone exactly what the want to hear (his declarations about jerusalem as capital of a jewish state and then inmediately saying that that capital may be actually split in 2 in the "final agreement" is as cynical and two faced as you can get as a politician)

Also just as any sane person i would say the last thing i would EVER do! is to place a private prayer(note ,paper bill, whatever....) in a wall while i am being photograghed by a 100 cameras.

Obama is a 2 face cynical oportunist.

is this what he calls "the end of old politics?"

what a joke

Commondog

ndm.

Ma'ariv got any unofficial spokesmen do you think?

Byron in Wahroonga

what a phony! Obama makes Blair look like a man of substance.

Leon

Melanie,
There have been no "howls of outrage from the rationalist media" about Obama's communication with the Divine because they are well aware that it embodied the same degree of sincerity as many other Obama pronouncements.

elixelx

Dave M.
What's so frightening about believing in a Supreme Being?
How did G-d become a bad word for you?
No, really! I'm not scoffing at you! I really want to know why you are frightened of a word and would deny it to the world.
Are we to refer to the G-word as we now talk about the N-word

Eva SK

Senator Obama is a menace to Western Values.
He outrageously spread the rumors (only once, mind you, he is a quick learner) that "Nobody is suffering like the Palestinians". He is no friend of Israel and should not be allowed anywhere near American centers of power. All this talk of taking down walls is dangerous. It may be vailed threat to the glorious project of Eretz Israel.

S Harvey

A beautiful, simple prayer, childlike and - possibly - honest! It made me think of a child's letter to Santa.
However, I'm surprised he didn't take the opportunity of praying for peace in the Middle East. It seems that even a visit to Afghanistan, Iraq and Israel cannot stop him obsessing about his own person. And what's 'despair' doing there?

Byron in Wahroonga

***Bush claimed God was on his side***

Utter claptrap, Dave M. I challenge to produce a scintilla of evidence. The President is a committed Christian who wants to do God's will, not the other way around.

Jack Wak

Melanie accuses Obama of hypocrisy. Yawn. A polititian guilty of hypocrisy? Never. We know what you think, Melanie. Why be a stuck record?

Dee Ranged

Melanie

Manifestly noteworthy!

Dave M

"What's so frightening about believing in a Supreme Being?
How did G-d become a bad word for you?"

Well, clearly America today falls into the same vicious circle as mediaeval Europe and Russia under the Tsars, so Obama is being forced to make religion an issue. How did the Russian Tsars maintain control over the peasants and working classes, for example? We know the Tsar managed to unify his reign with God in such a way as peasants were taught that to oppose the Tsar was to oppose a supreme being. Also, according to Shakespeare, the most hideous crime was to oppose the King as the King was supposed to represent God. This is exactly what George Bush has been up to over the years, of course. He convinced the religious voters in his country (a vast majority) that he had divine backing so a vote for Bush was a vote for the Church. This is a deeply worrying set of circumstances for anyone who believes in democracy and the secular State. It's specifically why the ancient Greeks opposed any notion of Kings and personality cults and replaced it by collective decision making and popular participation. To quote an example of how ridiculous this situation has become, not too long ago I heard Bush Junior talk of shining palaces in Heaven at the State funeral of a former president! If religion is a private, personal matter, it should never be projected into politics or be seen to reflect political decision- making, which is something the Turks seem to have grasped, having clamped down on political Islam. It's precisely why we've gotten into such a mess lately because people who hold political power are being influenced by their own religious convictions. Personally I think we should go back to science and natural selection teaching in schools and make sure faith issues are relegated always to personal choice. Therefore, I agree with Melanie in a certain way. Yes, Obama shouldn't be writing these so-called personal messages but neither should he be constrained to even discuss religion at all. America is becoming a non secular State and it's specifically that state of affairs that caused mediaeval Europe and the modern Middle East to stagnate and fall behind. And finally, on a personal note, to choose evolution and natural selection over religion these days is to choose minority status. Years ago, it was quite acceptable to quote Darwinism but these days such an outlook is viewed with astonishment. Thus, again, let me stress if Obama were to even so much as quote Darwin his hopes for the Presidency would be pretty much scuttled. All he's doing is manipulating the voters just as the Clintons and Bush have done.

THX1138

As god doesn't exist Bush couldn't have spoken to god & obama's prayers wont be answered.

Robin

Psalm 14 v1

THX1138

Robin- a man wrote that verse not god, as god doesn't exist god couldn't have written it.

Miliband Mischief?

If you want to comment on Coffee House today you'll have to leave a message in the Western Wall; it's up the pictures apparently. What's going down Pete?

jose garcia

"Robin- a man wrote that verse not god, as god doesn't exist god couldn't have written it."

so THX , ENLIGHT ME, ?WHERE DOES MATTER COME FROM?

WHAT SCIENTIFIC PROOF DO YOU HAVE THAT GOD DOESNT EXIST.?

atheistic bigot.

Byron in Wahroonga

***if religion is a private, personal matter***

Sheesh. Has there ever been a website as infested with bossy atheists, as this one? We know you and THX don't believe in God (oh, how we know) and we know why, too. But does it have to be the reference point of every argument you make?

CK

Yes Melanie. It's all a fiendish plot by the Obama campaign, funded by the Rand Corporation, in league with the sucerpeople, supervised by the reverse vampires.

Verity

Byron in Washroonga - The fundamentalist atheists infesting this blog labour under the notion that they are preesenting us with an illumination on matters we hadn't really thought about before.

"Oh, gosh, thanks TNX1138! I'd never thought of it quite like that before! I'd been wasting my time meditating on the thoughts of Moses, Jesus christ, Guatama Buddha and other messengers from the diety. But after reading your words on a blog, looking around me, I know realise that all the evidence of a supreme spiritual existence is misleading!"

Jesus Christ,Moses, Buddha and the Hindu dieties never posted on a blog, yet their message has been accepted by billions for thousands of years. We just never had THX1138 to point us in the right direction before!

Now, with blogs, you don't have to have any charisma or air of natural authority at all to inform the world of your considered opinions on the great belief systems of mankind.

My question: why are militant atheists so angry? So hungry to destroy? Follow-up question: Do they really think they are clever enough to plant the smallest seed of doubt in the minds of people who know there is something higher than us?

I would be so depressed if I thought THX1138 and was as high as it gets.

Adam Holland

Why on earth do you care what Obama prays for? Especially considering that the contents of his prayer seem completely sensible.

And why spread ridiculous (and false) conspiracy theories about his releasing this prayer to the media? The privacy of a prayer is something that should be determined by the person uttering it.

Your standards for Obama's behavior are absurdly higher than those for Bush and McCain. After the reign of illegality and deception we've witnessed from the Republicans, this stuff seems completely beside the point -- small potatoes.

I've noticed a determined effort on the part of Obama's opponents to repeatedly change the subject from substantial policy issues -- the ones where the Republicans fall short -- to rumor mongering.

Wouldn't it be better for everyone if the Republicans would actually debate the issues? That would be a change I could believe in.

Byron in Wahroonga

Well said, Verity! They buzz around this website like mosquitoes. Unable to do any real damage, just a constant drone in the background.

I note some research has just been published showing the Left are 50% as happy with their lives, relative to conservatives. Not exactly a revelation to anyone posting here.

Verity

Adam Holland, writes: "Wouldn't it be better for everyone if the Republicans would actually debate the issues?"

Since when was "Change you can believe in" an issue one could debate?

Since when was "This was not the Tony Retzo [or fill in blank] I knew ..." an issue one could debate? Since when were all the vague, ill-defined wish lists that Obama thinks he is going to get through a Congress whose workings he does not yet understand and in which he has no allies "issues" one could debate?

Obama - whether he's got any ideas other than vague,feel good slogans in mind, or not, he hasn't a snowball' chance in hell of getting any of them through because he has never got one single issue through Congress even as a junior senator, because he is too green.

One issue that should be debated though, is Obama lying in public that he is a member of the House Banking Committee ("That's my committee") when he is not. That is a lie no one can believe in, but that he claimed it, at a public meeting, demonstrates an amazing moral vacuum and breath-taking naiveté.

And - I intuit that you are not an American - but I think refusing to open up new drilling areas in the US - specifically Alaska and offshore the W Coast and rendering America more dependent on foreign oil is a change no American can believe in. In fact, almost every American would love to have that notion debated.

The guy's got an ego the size of the Ritz, but he's an achievement-free charlatan.

Dave M

"My question: why are militant atheists so angry? So hungry to destroy?"
It's being assumed here that those of us who accept the science behind evolution and adaptability of species as a better alternative to religion are atheists. To believe in evolution isn't the same thing as being an atheist. There are people who believe in recognised science, are not atheists, but also disbelieve in established religion for whatever reasons. Therefore, to be skeptical over religion is not the same thing as outright atheism. But to address the issue in question: Obama, Mrs Clinton and John McCain have been forced to demonstrate to the electorate in the U.S. that they are bona fide Christians. Each candidate has made some kind of public proclamation. In Obama's case he figured a humble note left on the wall would be a positive move. He was doing the same as Schwarzenegger who felt obliged to let it be known he was officially Catholic, same as Bush Junior. My question is this: Why should any political leader be forced to equate religious denomination with State office? Also the point is it's the denomination of belief in God that carries weight. For Obama to have come out and stated he was a Gnostic Kabbalah convert would have put him at a huge disadvantage. America wants an Orthodox Christian at the helm. So, this is getting very like the situation with the Roman Empire under Constantine - a connection of State religion and State. Or, if you like, theocracy in place of democracy. Creationism - the idea God created the world in six days - has also displaced evolution teaching in schools. I think America is wading into very uncertain waters here (which you can find echoes of in European history) or even ancient history. This whole idea that God has chosen a King or leader to keep the faith and that the said leader must be a champion of the faith is nothing new. It has led in the past to dictatorships such as the Tsars or Franco in Spain. If Obama really does have religious convictions this should be left aside in his political campaigne and be kept as a private matter. All that matters is whether he's honest, sincere, stable and a believer in free democratic principles.

Not Even Likely

Not to defend a politician, but in the US, a note left in public is not considered private.

Also, the habit of capitalizing pronouns that refer to God is dying out. The name "God" (as refering to a particular god) is capitalized, as are the names of all individuals, and "Lord" is usually capitalized also. But capitalizing pronouns is becoming achaic and quaint.

Verity

DaveM - Your points are fairly put and are well taken, but that is not what we are referring to. We are referring to the fundamentalist, militant atheists who are not content to be atheist, which is completely their own business, but want to extend their business to tearing down the faith of others. They cannot, because faith in a diety is more powerful than faith in a void.

I have absolutely nothing against any belief system, and that includes atheism. It's the would-be destructiveness of the aggressive militant atheists that is so irritating. They're like mosquitos that you can't brush away, with that dull little whine in your ears all the time.

George Steiner

I suspect that the five years McCain spent in the Hanoi Hilton were helped by something in addition to physical couage and a sense of honour.

This is not really relevant to the discussion here but who would you rather have behind your back, Obama or McCain.

Ann

Reign of 'illegality' ... yes, the standard baseless smears one would expect from that quarter.

Byron: nonsense. I am an atheist, and anti-Left. Next time you try to conflate issues in order to pull a fast one, choose one that's harder to counter - this one is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Byron in Wahroonga

Puh-leez.

'Bossy' doesn't *begin* to describe your online demeanour, Ann.

Adam Holland

Verity:

With respect to your argument that Senator Obama is too inexperienced to govern effectively: that argument could have (and in fact WAS) used against Abraham Lincoln during his first presidential campaign.

With respect to which candidate has a better handle on the issues, that should become clearer to you as the campaign continues. We can expect the Republicans to plumb the depths of dirty tactics and pepper the debate with irrelevancies. The Democrats, on the other hand, will offer positive mood music (as your post indicated), but also address the sort of bread and butter issues that (for good reason) are just killing the Republicans in the polls this year.

Verity

Adam Holland addresses me: "With respect to which candidate has a better handle on the issues, that should become clearer to you as the campaign continues."

No. It's already clear to me. Obama's a Blair. An empty chancer. A charlatan. Worse, he's a product of the corrupt Chicago Democratic machine.

Worse, he's taken dodgy loans. Worse, he patronised a militant black preacher, a pal of Louis Farrakahn, for 20 years before throwing him under the bus. He's now thrown Tony Retzo under the bus, too. "This isn't the Tony Retzo I knew." These two sub-bus internees joined the space under the bus after he had thrown his white mother under the bus some two or so months previously.

Blair would have loved to do a pre-election tour of Europe in 1997, but he didn't think of it. But if he had, it would have been up his alley. Instead, he just went to Holland and got the TV cameras out to watch him ride a bicyle. ("See? I'm European! It's the beginning of a NEW DAWN!!")

Obama's been in the Senate all of two years. He hasn't a clue how Washington works. Obama slept deeply through a debate on national security. Obama has falsely claimed to be on the House Banking Committee ("That's my committee, and here's what we've been doing ...")

Obama has as little connection to the truth as he does to reality.

Adam Holland, "... that should become clearer to you as the campaign continues." No, Adam Holland, it should become clearer to you that you are backing a vacuous, self-regarding opportunist who has no track record of doing anything but running for public office during his 25 years of adulthood. I will look forward to your gracious admission in two or three months' time.

Thank you.

Adam Holland

Verity:

You sound a bit cranky...and off topic. You really pour on the diversionary attacks and have nothing at all on policy. Is this all the Republicans have? I dread the thought of three more months of cranky attacks.

Try talking policy for a change. If you do, then, win or lose, at least the arguments have been framed. Is that what scares you guys?

Verity

Adam Holland to me: "Verity:
You sound a bit cranky...and off topic."

Given that I addressed the issues you raised, perhaps you'd better explain that statement. Best to stay away from dismissive insults because you won't win.

"You really pour on the diversionary attacks and have nothing at all on policy."

I addressed Obama's lack of policies, other than he wants to make the world a better place with a bunny and a rainbow for every child. I addressed the fact that he is a proven charlatan. On the record. As I noted, he claimed in public to be a member of the prestigious House Banking Committee and even said, "Here's what we've done", which is a straightforward lie. I addressed this issue. You came back with a personal insult.

"Is this all the Republicans have? I dread the thought of three more months of cranky attacks."

How the hell would I know? Best address your strange question to a Republican. Or at least an American. Very weak.

"Try talking policy for a change."

Don't advise me on how to talk. I do very well. I've bested you, haven't I? Call Obama's office and ask why they're not addressing policies. Don't ask someone posting on a British blog.

"If you do, then, win or lose, at least the arguments have been framed. Is that what scares you guys?"

The arguments have been framed for around six months. You must have missed that part. I'm not scared of anything - least of all you or, as you might phrase it, "you guys". By the way, you sound a bit cranky. Problems?

ndm

Verity -

No one needs to call Obama's office asking for his positions because they are easily available on his website in a section titled issues. You do know how to read, don't you?

But you don't really care about the issues, do you? You are far more interested in publicizing obvious gaffes such as:

-- As I noted, he claimed in public to be a member of the prestigious House Banking Committee and even said, "Here's what we've done", which is a straightforward lie.

Wow - the "PRESTIGIOUS House Banking Commmittee." Don't you do know the difference between the House and the Senate? In fact, Obama's staff told CNN that he meant to refer to "his bill," rather than "his committee." And he was, in fact, referring to a bill he co-sponsored.

Any reasonable being would surely excuse a trivial gaffe like that rather than harp on about it. However, there is really no excuse for the guff your comments comprise in their entirety.

Verity

ndm - No. I don't know how to read. Yet I can post! It's a miracle!!

From Powerline, quoting your boy: "Now, in terms of knowing my commitments, you don’t have to just look at my words, you can look at my deeds. Just this past week, we passed out of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, which is my committee, a bill to call for divestment from Iran, as a way of ratcheting up the pressure to ensure that they don’t obtain a nuclear weapon."

As Pwerline notes: But Obama is not a member of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee. Obama just made that up so he could count the committee’s action as one of “my deeds.”

raymond joseph douglas

When I visited Israel in 1992,I was un-married.So,I put a prayer into the wailing/west wall asking God for a wife.One year later I was married!I am now the happy father of two lovely girls!So don't knock Obama's prayer,he might just get it answered!

John Jay

The more I learn about Obama, the more concerned I become.

He is a cunning operator, skillfully manipulating the excessive immature idealism of Lefties. He is drawing them more and more into emotion, and away from their minds.

Danger. Big danger.