Comments on: Prayer at Jerusalem’s Western Wall

By: helenl

helenl — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 15:52:34 +0000

RG, It doesn’t mean Obama should be the president of the US. What it does mean is that we ought not judge Obama’s spiritual condition. Same thing as before we ever saw it. Or find out he didn’t write it. Or whatever.

By: renaissanceguy

renaissanceguy — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 15:39:16 +0000

I think we have to take the prayer at face value. It’s impossible to judge Obama’s motives. On it’s face it is a fine prayer, and it has the ring of sincerity to me.

That doesn’t mean that Obama should be the President of the United States. As far as I’m concerned, the President can be an atheist, as long as he or she is qualified for the job and supports my right to practice what I believe.

By: helenl

helenl — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 14:24:42 +0000

Hi Wendy, I took it the way you menat it.

But I think the prayer is sincere.

By: Skittles

Skittles — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 03:09:47 +0000

Dear Helen,

I don’t mean to insinuate that you violated BO’s privacy. It was the Israeli Press.

And, sorry, but to me there is a bit of disingenuousness about the prayer itself.

By: Helen Losse

Helen Losse — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 23:48:41 +0000

WW and RG, I agree that it should have remained private. But it was already published when I got there. This should prove his spirituality,but, of course, it won’t be enough for some people.

By: renaissanceguy

renaissanceguy — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 10:00:57 +0000

I wanted to mention what Skittles did.

It’s a great prayer, but it should have been a private thing between Barack Obama and God. I don’t fault you for posting it, since it is already in the public sphere, but I do fault the Israeli paper that published it.

By: Skittles

Skittles — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 04:42:15 +0000

Dear Helen,

I’m probably in the minority, but this publication (by the Israeli press) of BO’s prayer was a gross invasion of personal and religious privacy.