Despite the lingering discussions about Pres. Obama’s religion, let’s all reflect back at former Sec. of State Colin Powell’s answer.
Bro. Scott Walker? Buy a vowel, my friend.
-
Follow
Following
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Dating Jesus 
I have to agree with Walker on one thing: WaPo shouldn’t be asking him about Obama’s religion or patriotism. They should be focusing on Walker’s history as a public servant, like the effects of policies he’s pushed through in Wisconsin…like the $238 million dollar deficit attributed to his tax cuts there. (Will Wisconsin default on $100 million in debt payments this June?) WaPo should investigate Walker’s Tea Party affiliation(s) and ask him whether such affiliation connects him, in any way, to the sphere of “sovereign citizen” activism the DHS wants everybody to worry about now that DHS funding scrutiny in Congress has become “bipartisan.” And then there’s his position on labor.
WaPo is…willfully…participating in the politics of distraction: employing sensationalism to reinforce the false consciousness of difference between political rivals when…substantively…none actually exist. The last thing the secular clergy wants potential voters to think about is actual policy…where it comes from and who actually benefits.
I disagree with Powell. While, in theory, religious affiliation should not play a role in American political opportunity, the fact is…it does. In the case of Obama, if he had admitted to being a Muslim, he never would have been elected President. I find it hard to believe that Powell wasn’t cognizant of that reality while crafting the flowery rhetoric.
I think the “confusion” concerning Obama’s religion, as reported by York, can be attributed to how questions are posed in the polls being cited. When you ask an American, the vast majority of whom are Christian, “What religion?”, they’re thinking denomination, as in Christian denomination. York hints at this, citing the Pew poll, but following through on it would, of course, deflect from the sensationalism he wants to promote as “news.”
I don’t know. I think Colin Powell has it right. What if he was? I think he raises that not just as a flowery flourish but as an acknowledgement that when it comes to religion — freedom of, or freedom from — we haven’t evolved very much.
It seems to me, when there is a large segment of Walker’s party who claim to hold dear their Christianity, and dispute the fact that Obama is Christian, he should be able to clearly answer this question. Has he not been listening to our President? (How anti-American of him!) “Told that Obama has frequently spoken publicly about his Christian faith, Walker maintained that he was not aware of the president’s religion.” That’s a ridulous answer. The real question: is he on the side of conspiracy theorists who think Obama is a secret anti-American, Muslim, incapable of defending America because he sympathizes with Muslim terrorists? It’s important for the public to know his clear answer on that.
See, I agree with that. I don’t think it’s a bad thing to bring up to one potential candidate his knowledge of his president. It’s not Trivial Pursuit. This is something many of Walker’s party takes very seriously. I also don’t think this precludes exploring his woeful behavior as governor of Wisconsin.
And I of course think the question of “which religion” shouldn’t even come up. The suggestion that having a specific religion, or having any religion at all, makes one more moral and acceptable than someone without religion is offensive and ignoring very clear evidence that “there’s good and bad in everything.”
It does come across as a question of, “is he or is he not in the (Christian) club”.