A sceptical White House?
Ian | 10 November, 2008 | 08:00Here’s an interesting bit from a recent interview with president-elect Barack Obama:
JIM ANGLE: He was asked what he’s been doing to get ready for office and whether he talked to any previous Presidents.
PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA: I have spoken to all of them, that are living, obviously, President Clinton — I didn’t want to get into a Nancy Reagan thing about, you know, doing any séances. [emphasis added]
Obama later apologized for apparently mocking the supernatural belief system, but that doesn’t remove two facts:
- It was Hilary Clinton who did séances, Reagan used astrology, either way, superstition. (I imagine Laura and George just used good ol’ fashioned prayers).
- Obama is willing to make fun of superstitions. People who generally buy this stuff don’t do that. This means there is potentially a sceptic in the White House. Imagine the ratifications of that – a president who consults knowledgeable advisers before acting. It’s the most promising thing I’ve heard about him so far.
Exciting times.
Subscribe to posts
I’m not so sure I follow the logic. Sure, he /could/ be a skeptic. But I’m one of those who use “good ol’ fashioned prayers” and I’d be quite likely to say the same thing as he did about seances.
That’s like saying you heard someone say that pork is disgusting therefore you draw the conclusion that he’s a vegetarian.
[...] (Cross posted) [...]
barack obama march 2008 interview…
I found your post interesting and share most of your views, but just dont get your second point….
Late adendum: Obama skips church, heads to gym. Consider the source, which may explain the wording chosen (“Both [previous president-elects] managed to attend church in the weeks after they were elected.”) and the Wright namedrop.
Also, compare Obama’s response to election to Dubya’s (which is painstakingly recounted in the article), or if you prefer, the Call to Renewal speech (the pertinent clips, accompanied by a summary from Wingnuttia, can be seen here) as opposed to pretty much any of this.
This reminds me vaguely of how my family tried to raise me (also in the United tradition) — religion being defining but not enslaving, belonging to faith but not bound by it, where church is as much (or more so!) social as it is spiritual for its congregation.
I wouldn’t say it’s a freethinker in the White House (we can all agree that this would cost a candidate the substantial Jesus vote), but I would say it’s a good jump closer to secular humanism.