Obama's Prayer and the Problem of Religious Leaders

The act of prying Obama’s written prayer from the Western Wall in Jerusalem and handing it off to an Israeli journalist was unquestionably an invasion of privacy.  Forget the condemnation of the act as sacrilegious and as an affront to the relationship between a man and his god.  Those criticisms only make sense, of course, if that god exists and the religious claims about him are true.  In the event that Yahweh is fictitious, the piece of paper pulled from the Western Wall is nothing more than Barack Obama’s internal mutterings to an expansive fantasy.  But they were his own and the privacy of the words ought to have been respected.

That said, their content is troubling.  Obama wrote,

Lord – Protect my family and me. Forgive me my sins, and help me guard against pride and despair. Give me the wisdom to do what is right and just. And make me an instrument of your will.

I’ve added the emphasis because the mainstream press hasn’t.  There are two explanations for Obama’s words.  The first is the cynic’s take.  He knew the prayer would be leaked to the press and used it as an opportunity to demonstrate the strength of his faith to religious voters.  Obama was raised without belief and so must make every effort to convince the nation’s faithful that he shares their reverence for things unseen.  An expressed lack of such faith would mean the immediate failure of his campaign.  But what if he’s not playing politics?  What if he genuinely believes what he wrote?  This second explanation, then, is that he was using the holiness of the Western Wall as other pilgrims do, to send a personal plea to the universe’s sovereign.

The possibility should deeply disturb all rational people.  It ought, in fact, to make Obama’s more thoughtful supporters reconsider their November votes.  To demonstrate why, we need only play a brief thought experiment.  Imagine for a moment that the god Obama hopes to be an instrument of doesn’t exist.  This would mean that any guidance he thinks he’s receiving from that deity in fact is a product of his own mind.  That, in and of itself, is fine.  We want our leaders to act on their own thoughts.  That’s why we elect one President over another.  But if Obama is acting through his own volition but believes he’s acting on the will of his god, then no amount of evidence and argumentation will sway him from his path.  What is evidence in the face of omniscience?  What is argumentation in the face of omnibenevolence?  This is a terrifying prospect.  And it’s one we’ve already rejected when the instrument of divine will is George W. Bush.  Why should we give Obama a theological free pass when his professed belief is just as dangerous?  Let us not forget that we are currently in a war, justified or not, with fanatics who themselves act in accordance with the will of their god.

If you enjoyed this, please consider following me on Facebook:

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest

Frankly, I see that line as a fairly standard theistic request. The path to heaven is achieved through, at least in part, by submission to God. So to say "make me an instrument of your will" doesn't leap out and strike as something that millions of Christians (and others) do every day.

Not that I particularly like it, just that I don't see it as anything particularly frigthening. It is when you start justifying your behavior as divinely inspired, especially in public, that you transcended the line between private prayer and zealotry.

Frankly, I see that line as a fairly standard theistic request. The path to heaven is achieved through, at least in part, by submission to God. So to say "make me an instrument of your will" doesn't leap out and strike as something that millions of Christians (and others) do every day.

Not that I particularly like it, just that I don't see it as anything particularly frigthening. It is when you start justifying your behavior as divinely inspired, especially in public, that you transcended the line between private prayer and zealotry.

I also have a hunch that Obama is agnostic at his core.

But not much can compete with the effect of somehow getting into your head the idea that you're acting out the will of a god. Self-criticism applies in every case except when you're encouraged to believe that your ideas aren't your own. That they're telepathically transduced from an omniscient supernatural consciousness to you and that you should not question them.

Agnosticism just says "maybe, maybe not - I dunno" with its hands in its pockets and lets the show go on. It means to avoid taking a practical point of view on the question of the existence of gods. Pascal's Wager often accompanies it, so it's practically on the theist side of the fence.

The observed and conceptually necessary evolution of consciousness, as well as the observed and conceptually necessary complexity of the same phenomenon, means that any idea about a physically detached consciousness floating around in the universe should be assigned an incredibly small probability. This is maybe one of the strongest arguments to make when skeptically examining the claims of any religion, in my mind.

"Needless to say, I find Obama’s religious pandering repulsive. The suspicion that he is pandering, out of obvious necessity, and not quite as religious as he makes out, is somewhat comforting, however. But even if Obama were precisely as religious as he appears, he is not a Creationist, Rapture-Ready blockhead."
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/sam-harris...

Related: http://thesciencenetwork.org/the-science-studio/ has a very nice and long video interview with Dan Dennett on his book "Breaking the Spell: Religion As A Natural Phenomenon" that should interest anyone with a fascination for the workings of religion in today's society and how it came to be.

I also have a hunch that Obama is agnostic at his core.

But not much can compete with the effect of somehow getting into your head the idea that you're acting out the will of a god. Self-criticism applies in every case except when you're encouraged to believe that your ideas aren't your own. That they're telepathically transduced from an omniscient supernatural consciousness to you and that you should not question them.

Agnosticism just says "maybe, maybe not - I dunno" with its hands in its pockets and lets the show go on. It means to avoid taking a practical point of view on the question of the existence of gods. Pascal's Wager often accompanies it, so it's practically on the theist side of the fence.

The observed and conceptually necessary evolution of consciousness, as well as the observed and conceptually necessary complexity of the same phenomenon, means that any idea about a physically detached consciousness floating around in the universe should be assigned an incredibly small probability. This is maybe one of the strongest arguments to make when skeptically examining the claims of any religion, in my mind.

"Needless to say, I find Obama’s religious pandering repulsive. The suspicion that he is pandering, out of obvious necessity, and not quite as religious as he makes out, is somewhat comforting, however. But even if Obama were precisely as religious as he appears, he is not a Creationist, Rapture-Ready blockhead."
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/sam-harris...

Related: http://thesciencenetwork.org/the-science-studio/ has a very nice and long video interview with Dan Dennett on his book "Breaking the Spell: Religion As A Natural Phenomenon" that should interest anyone with a fascination for the workings of religion in today's society and how it came to be.

I think that you have left out one possible option in considering the impact of the prayer above. You have both an atheist and a theist perspective, but not one considering an agnostic view. You assume that he will believe that he is acting on the will of his god. This does not necessarily follow from either his words, or anything above that utilizes his words as a premise.

Specifically, you are concerned that "he genuinely believes what he wrote". Notwithstanding that belief in "what he wrote" is nonsensical, as he wrote a request; What if the words were in fact offered in a agnostic frame of reference? Offered without knowing if there is a god? If the prayer were offered , and there were a god, and the prayer is answered, then he is given wisdom and made an instrument of (at the very least) an omniscient being. If there is no god, and thus the prayer is not answered, then he is no worse off than he was before (same goes for god exists but prayer goes unanswered).

Your concern is that he might interpret something that he thinks as having come from god, and believe it so strongly that he would be unable to listen to reason, seems rather contrived, as there are a multitude of reasons that one might act in this manner (not the least of which is the possibility that one might decide that they are simply smarter, and more knowledgeable than the rest of society).

I think that you have left out one possible option in considering the impact of the prayer above. You have both an atheist and a theist perspective, but not one considering an agnostic view. You assume that he will believe that he is acting on the will of his god. This does not necessarily follow from either his words, or anything above that utilizes his words as a premise.

Specifically, you are concerned that "he genuinely believes what he wrote". Notwithstanding that belief in "what he wrote" is nonsensical, as he wrote a request; What if the words were in fact offered in a agnostic frame of reference? Offered without knowing if there is a god? If the prayer were offered , and there were a god, and the prayer is answered, then he is given wisdom and made an instrument of (at the very least) an omniscient being. If there is no god, and thus the prayer is not answered, then he is no worse off than he was before (same goes for god exists but prayer goes unanswered).

Your concern is that he might interpret something that he thinks as having come from god, and believe it so strongly that he would be unable to listen to reason, seems rather contrived, as there are a multitude of reasons that one might act in this manner (not the least of which is the possibility that one might decide that they are simply smarter, and more knowledgeable than the rest of society).

Thanks. Spellcheckers don't catch the really stupid errors... The article's fixed now.

Thanks. Spellcheckers don't catch the really stupid errors... The article's fixed now.

Is Hillary any better?

Btw, "diety" = "deity"... (I figure you could at least spare yourself of any badwill that might register in the minds of your readers by stupid spelling mistakes, and let it be limited to the actual content of your immoral, God-hating ramblings ;)

Is Hillary any better?

Btw, "diety" => "deity"... (I figure you could at least spare yourself of any badwill that might register in the minds of your readers by stupid spelling mistakes, and let it be limited to the actual content of your immoral, God-hating ramblings ;)

Thanks. Spellcheckers don't catch the really stupid errors... The article's fixed now.

Is Hillary any better?

Btw, "diety" => "deity"... (I figure you could at least spare yourself of any badwill that might register in the minds of your readers by stupid spelling mistakes, and let it be limited to the actual content of your immoral, God-hating ramblings ;)