Are we going to be able to discuss things like this... ("lightworker")

[BigBluenoser]

After GDP goes away in a critical way.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/06/06/notes060608.DTL

Yes this article has been posted three time already (that I have counted so far), but this is not about this article in particular. It is about this way of thinking.

I am an Atheist. Even more, I personally reject all forms of spirituality. I am a person who is devoid of a spiritual component. I do not consider this to be lacking in any way.

My support of the Democratic party is primarily based on the fact that I see it as the only viable party that will protect my right of "freedom FROM religion". Yes I also align in many ways with major planks of the Democratic Party (equality, freedom of behaviour, protection of constitution, government "softening" of the rough edges of the market economy etc.) but these are secondary concerns of mine.

I do not want to criticize Senator Obama for articles such as these. I think he would wish people were not writing things like this. What worries me is the question of... Is this a foreshadowing of how a "progressive" spiritual regime would look? Our leaders work with "higher energy" our enemies with "lower energy"? What I have seen today on DU scares the shit out of me. Seriously. I am not flaming, spamming or "concern trolling".

I just want to know if we should be allowed to critique and work against this kind of thinking even if it is considered to be "pro-Obama".

Thanks. My first and hopefully last OP in GDP.

[cliffordu]

1. Thanks for your concern!! welcome to DU!

[rug]

2. After Wednesday, no slams on the presumptive Buddha.

[grantcart]

12. superficial and limp as usual

[rug]

13. Better get to the urologist pronto.

[grantcart]

56. sounds like you speak from personal experience

[rug]

61. No, I've just known a lot of dicks like you.

[me b zola]

67. Maybe you were just unable to inspire those dicks

:evilgrin:

[enough]

3. I wondered about that -- why is this "higher/lower" notion any better than the idea

that George Bush is in power because God wants him there, and anyone who disagrees with him is evil?

[KittyWampus]

35. you mean to suggest that Republicans appeal to our Reptilian Brain using sumbols and code words

in an effort to divide us is somehow religious?

That Obama appeals to our Higher brain functions to get us to work together towards the common good is somehow verboten?

Get that freaking chip off your shoulder.

[enough]

54. Boy it looks as if you are the one with the chip. What in my remark made you resopnd

so negatively and personally?

What I am trying to say is that I don't think any way of looking at the world that divides human beings into the higher (us) and the lower (them) is going to help us very much with our human predicament. This is exactly what the religious fundamentalists of all stripes have been doing for centuries.

By the way, I don't ascribe this notion to Barack Obama. That does not seem to be his vision at all.

[patrice]

4. All Revolution BEGINS with self-critique. So I'm eager to see this kind of discussion. Just don't

frame the discussion in loaded personal attack language and DON'T respond to those kinds of Replies.

It is possible to say completely Negative things without trying to hurt people and it is also possible to respond to those who ARE hurt by what you say in a manner that helps them understand (though not necessarily agree with) you. And even, perhaps, help them with a different orientation on the Pain that they are probably causing themselves and others.

[BigBluenoser]

21. I do not want a revolution...

I just want a Democrat to be the president for this land I have chosen to immigrate to. I am just uncomfortable with type of "framing" the argument.

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by revolution (spiritual, economic etc.) so I am not sure I understand that part of your post.

I do not want to hurt anyone, they are welcome to thinking as they do, but I will argue strongly against their worldview if it is delivered in a prescriptive fashion.

[KittyWampus]

46. Well, unless you've lived in a cave for the last 50 years, you'd have noticed that the Republican

party has mastered the art of using symbolism and psychology to divide people against themselves to prevent a cohesive movement for change.

The human brain has a base, reptilian center that responds with either fight or flight behavior.

We also have higher brain functions where reason and empathy enter the equation.

Thus, the dichotomy between Higher/Lower and Light/Dark.

It's human, it's ancient, it's effective.

If YOU are uncomfortable hearing us talk about these things using terminology that happens to be the most efficient and descriptive, too bad.

The Right wing KNOWS how to use social psychology and symbolism to activate our baser instincts and responses.

The Left has sucked at this. And a big reason is because of "atheists" like you.

[BigBluenoser]

62. I apologize for my sins against the cause...

[JoFerret]

74. Whatever

Mighty dangerous to play with either way.

And your comment on "the left" and "atheists" makes one wonder.

[BigBluenoser]

78. While I do not seem to agree with "cryingshame" in this discussion...

I do not get the same impression of hu's previous post as you.

But I agree with your first line assertion.

[undeterred]

5. Don't try to control the way other people think

or you will make enemies very quickly here at DU. Some of the atheists on this messageboard seem to be incapable of simply ignoring a topic which speaks in a language they do not relate to. Instead they spend an enormous amount of energy trashing other Democrats who happen to have spiritual beliefs.

Its fine to be an atheist. Its not fine to attack people who have spiritual beliefs- for many people those beliefs form the basis for political values. You're not going to change anyone by ridiculing them, anymore then you are going to stop being an atheist because someone on a messageboard attacks you for it.

[grantcart]

9. the OP made no effort to "control" thinking

In fact he was asking, politely, if responding to articles that include new age symbolism would be considered against the rules.

[undeterred]

15. And I did not accuse the OP of it.

I politely warned the OP not to let fear turn into judgment.

[Bluenorthwest]

30. You said he was attacking

That is not a polite warning, that is an accusation. The OP poses a very important issue, and that is not an attack. You characterize a question posed for discussion as an attack.

[undeterred]

32. ok you're right

and I'm wrong

[ClassWarrior]

47. Then what does "allowed to ... work against this kind of thinking" mean?

NGU.

[ContinentalOp]

14. So let me get this straight.

It's fine for spiritual people to express their point of view. It's fine for their political opinions to be shaped by this spiritual point of view. But it's not fine for atheists to express their point of view or to criticize the political values that result from those irrational spiritual beliefs. Gotcha.

[undeterred]

16. That's not even close to what I said, in fact its the opposite.

:shrug:

[ContinentalOp]

65. You said it's not fine to attack people who have spiritual beliefs.

The problem is, it's very difficult for an atheist to communicate his point of view without the spiritualist feeling that it's a personal attack. What if I said that there no such thing as a lightworker and that such beliefs are absurd, naive and unhelpful? Would you take that as a personal attack? That's about the extent of what I've seen the rationalists here saying. It seems like you're saying we shouldn't be free to speak our mind if it happens to hurt the feelings of the believers.

[OzarkDem]

19. Agree, so keep religion out of the presidential race

because thats exactly what happens when you mix religion with politics.

[Shakespeare]

6. Yes, but also keep in mind who the author is.

This is just Morford's everyday vernacular. His entire point--stated in his usual post-new-age way--is that 1. Obama is a good person, and 2. his popularity is more a reflection of us and what we want than it is about Obama himself.

[grantcart]

7. The energy/light analogy is confusing and unhelpful

If people want to talk about how his metaphysics impact his perspective and how his epistemology impacts his political instincts those are legitimate topics.

The main concern in some of these articles however is the adoration that they seem to generate.


I admire Senator Obama greatly but adoration is, like you say, not something he would wish.


(and ironically adoration is something that the figures that are now worshipped also did not want.)

[KittyWampus]

49. Why is talking about energy confusing or unhelpful? YOU never talk about what kind of energy

a person brings into a room or situation?

YOU have never discussed "dark" behavior?

Learn some simple psychology and how symbolism is used.

And then learn some simple biology about the brain and how it reacts to symbols.

[rucky]

8. We're Democrats.

We're tolerant.
We don't fear or reject what we don't understand.

You may be wary of them, and they may be wary of you - That works both ways.

My advice is to take the progressive religious movement at face value, and you have a mobilized force for economic and environmental justice, a much-needed message of compassion in circles currently dominated by hate. There's no hidden agenda. I'm not part of the movement, but I welcome it.

The ends justify the means. It's a good use of energy.

[suston96]

10. No slams against Obama but the trashing of Hillary Clinton wll continue. They cannot stop the hate.

Your post is reasoned and thoughtful and surely out of place around here.

[merh]

11. Why do you want to work against another's belief?

I don't want to change your beliefs. You are free to feel as you do and it would be wrong for me to try to change it.

Why do you want to "work against this kind of thinking"? What good will it do, what will it benefit the political process and/or society or our nation?

Believe as you wish, please allows others that same right.

[OzarkDem]

18. Wrong frame

No one is working against anyone's religion or spiritual beliefs and its dishonest to attempt to frame the argument that way.

We just don't need to mimic the GOP by making religion a centerpiece of this campaign. Its wrong when the GOP does it, same for Dems.

[undeterred]

23. Religion is a center of value for many people

so it naturally comes up in political discussions, GOP or Dem. You can't simply command it to go away or make other people stop speaking in religious terms because it isn't your thing.

[OzarkDem]

27. It usually doesn't come up in political discussions

unless someone is trying to use religion to manipulate the opinions of others.

We've had this discussion many times as we watched the GOP remove the boundaries between religion and government to the detriment of all. Its not appropriate for anyone to do it.

[merh]

25. Not the wrong frame at all.

That is exactly what the OP posted. As I quoted:

I just want to know if we should be allowed to critique and work against this kind of thinking even if it is considered to be 'pro-Obama'.

To discuss and criticize is one thing, to "work against a kind of thinking" is to work against a spiritual belief of another which in turn would be contrary to the religious freedom right that OP claims to value.

If you don't like the subject of the OPs feel free to ignore the thread, that is the best advice for those not comfortable with the topic.

You like Hillary for your reasons, not every Hillary supporter shares your reasons. You probably know of some Hillary supporters that are, shall we say, "over the top" and you don't share that enthusiasm. That doesn't make them wrong, their views and enthusiasm are not attributable to all hillary supporters, why can't you see that about those who support Obama?

[BigBluenoser]

28. Yes I do want to work against this kind of thinking...

and I make no apologies for it. I recognize that I am part of a tiny minority that is "tolerated" by the bulk (and even some of the fringes) of society. I will be discriminated against if I voice my beliefs in both subtle and covert ways. I must scream against this kind of thinking because it is DOMINANT and oppressive.

[merh]

38. But you see, your "working against" violates the thinking you

allegedly support - religious freedom - you are free to have no religious or spiritual beliefs just as those who do hold beliefs are free to hold them.

To work against one's right to believe works against your right to not believe. It would be rather counter productive.

Challenge them, ignore them, dispute them, but don't work against them.

[BigBluenoser]

45. One must create a space from which to resist...

The status-quo is not acceptable to me. Spirituality is pervasive, it is conquering and it is limiting. In any form it is mental imperialism no matter how benignly it is phrased. In our society the spiritual is celebrated and those who fail to find a "truth" (or at least are "seeking") are at best tolerated, and are often not given even that regard. We rejoice in religious & spiritual diversity as an accomplishment to be proud of. I am not included in that paradigm. How can I not fight it?

[undeterred]

48. "Spirituality is pervasive, it is conquering and it is limiting."

For me and for many other people spirituality is inclusive, expansive, and empowering.

[merh]

50. Why fight it? How does it affect you, personally?

There are those that believe in UFOs and/or angels and ghosts. Their beliefs give them something, benefits them in some way. I don't share them and I don't have a need to try to take away their beliefs. It doesn't serve any purpose. That would be like me trying to convince you that you are in fact spiritual. I can't change your mind and my trying to do so will serve no purpose. And to work against your belief, as if to make it "wrong" for you to have no beliefs, would be working against the religious freedom rights that I enjoy.

Live and let live. I love the color green - blue may be your favorite color. My liking green doesn't make me any better than you or vice-a-versa, it is just a preference, just what I choose to like.

[BigBluenoser]

52. When people who believe in UFOs and Ghosts...

Begin to be the majority and have the ability to marginalize me and shape policy and our culture, I will fight against them too. And didn't we just see a poll on DU where the majority of Americans believed in "Angels"?

[merh]

55. There is a huge difference between working to make the laws fair

to work to continue the policies of "separation of church and state" - and working to destroy another's belief. I'm all for and have worked to maintain the all important "separation of church and state" policies.

You want respect but you don't seem to be willing to afford it to others. I respect your right to have no belief, why can't you respect my right to hold beliefs?

And why does it matter that so many believe in angels? Have they tried to force you to believe in them, are they working to ensure that folks like you will adopt those beliefs or are they just believing?

[OzarkDem]

17. Its disappointing to see religion being pushed by some Obama supporters

We've learned harsh lessons from the GOP about using religion to manipulate the voting public. Its wrong when they do it and our party's candidate's shouldn't stoop to the same level. Its a very bad idea, very bad, and has a big potential to backfire on Obama.

I for one will continue to speak out on it when I see it crop up. Keep religion out of these races.

[MH1]

20. Articles like this are probably politically unhelpful

But I think the author is on to something. (Maybe on something as well, but that's neither here nor there.)

For whatever reasons - and I think there are reasons found in history, psychology, and circumstance rather than necessarily "spirituality" - there is something "special" happening with Obama's candidacy at this moment and place. I think that for some people, terms like "lightworker" are useful constructs for describing what they see happening. That term evidently doesn't work for you, but I can look at it and even though I don't consider myself a follower of that belief system, I think "yeah, that makes sense as a way to describe it".

I think Obama has a very rare combination of personal attributes for a politician, and that is what is being remarked on. What is sad to me is that we had something very similar - even better, in my opinion - in 2004, but not enough people saw it. I think in 2008 there is a little less substance, but more saleability than we had in 2004. But in both cases we have a candidate who, in my opinion, is special in politics. If someone wants to call people like this "lightworkers", that's okay by me.

What would you call it, or do you not see it?

[BigBluenoser]

22. I see a decent politician who is...

better than any available alternatives. Since I am recently from Canada I am unused to any "hero worship" in politics (beyond the vilification/deification of Pierre Elliot Trudeau perhaps). It is weird to watch. It gives me the heebie jeebies just like I get when I see American flags on almost every house, subdivision entrance, shopping mall etc. and the incredible amount of churches. Maybe it is just a cultural adjustment I need to make.

[MH1]

36. Well, I added to this thought in another post: "competence and synchronicity"

I think there is a "phenomenon" going on here and it is not really of Obama's making; but he has the competence to wisely use the opportunities that are handed to him. If he were of lesser competence and integrity, then I think it wouldn't be happening, so in sensing that his character traits are a necessary ingredient, people are attributing the entire phenomenon to some "specialness" in Obama.

By "synchronicity" I mean the coming together of certain historical and cultural threads.

For just one example that sent a little bit of a chill down my spine when I realized it: I am sure Hillary in no way planned that the effective end of her campaign would coincide with the anniversary of RFK's assassination, and all the emotion and historical significance attached to that. But it did. Figuratively speaking: An incredible amount of media attention was focused on Obama winning the nomination, for many intense moments before the camera shifted to the intense emotion of RFK's assassination. Wow. Can you imagine the effect on the American psyche, at least among those who are emotionally invested in the Kennedy legacy - and most of us are? (and I believe if they had tried to plan it, it wouldn't have come off right. It was too perfect.) Even if the media didn't harp on the parallel (and as far as I could tell in my limited viewing, they harped much less than I expected), anyone who lived through that period would, at a minimum, subconsciously absorb it; and it could have a big (positive) effect on the way people think of Obama.

I don't know if I've been clear, but to sum up, it seems that something special is happening. I think it is wrong to attribute it to the person of Obama, and I don't think it necessarily indicates any spiritual master plan or anything like that. I think if you look at history, all these threads pretty much have to come together sooner or later, and it's just that Obama is someone who can step up to the moment. But it's not surprising to me, or particularly troubling, that some people attribute it to Obama.

As long as Obama wins in November, it's all good. :)

[ecstatic]

24. I don't view Obama as this surreal figure

But I sense that he has that effect on many people, which is amusing. It could be that I'm never looking directly at the TV most of the time when he is on, always multitasking, and I'm extremely non observant (when it comes to visual scenes/events).

I have my own reasons for supporting his candidacy, and none of them involve goosebumps or chills. He's just an ordinary guy. He campaigned better than Clinton.

[NashVegas]

26. From 1974, the prophecy of Jerry Brown

"People want a dictator these days, a man on a white horse. They're looking for a man on a white horse to ride in and tell them what to do. A politician can do anything he wants so long as he manipulates the right symbols." (hmmm, that'll make a great sig)



Anyway, anyone who thinks Obama is an enlightened being hasn't read this:

http://www.dallasobserver.com/2008-02-28/news/obama-and-me/

[OzarkDem]

29. Excellent post, Crisco

[Shakespeare]

37. Okay, I read the story. What's unenlightened or even negative about it?

:shrug:

[NashVegas]

39. Enlightened Beings Generally Don't Scream At Journalists

[RichardRay]

43. And how do you know that?

[Shakespeare]

44. I'm a former political reporter. That Obama only yelled at the guy ONCE is notable.

:rofl:

The recent Newsweek cover story on Obama's campaign noted from several people that he rarely, rarely raises his voice, btw. I believe it was Axelrod who said he's only heard Obama yell twice over the course of the campaign.

My previous :shrug: still stands.

[RichardRay]

42. And someone who makes that judgement that easily

may want to spend some more time determining just what 'enlightened' might or might not mean.

If you don't believe that there is any such thing as 'enlightenment', then calling him 'unelightened' seems a misnomer, but there's no argument to be made. If you have a definition of 'enlightenment' by which he fails to acheive that state, then please state it so I can see how everything lines up.

[BigBluenoser]

31. And please.. do not make this a Clinton / Obama thing...

My OP is in no way a knock on Obama or props for Clinton. Let's have one thread in GDP free of that garbage.

Edited: I spelled Clinton "Clinto" :)

[Davis_X_Machina]

33. Is he a member of IBEW or IATSE?

I'm only interested in a union lightworker.

[RichardRay]

34. I am also an aetheist,

but as a practicing Buddhist have some core perspectives some would term 'spiritual'. If there is a post that explicitly raises issues of interest to a Buddhist from a perspective that a 'Buddhist' reply is appropriate, then I might choose to reply in that fashion.

(on edit - That includes misue of terms like 'enlightenment' and 'karma' that are pretty well-defined and tend to get bandied about pretty wildly.)

I don't see how any of that impacts my support of Senator Obama on a political message board. Neither do I perceive how someone's choice to advocate against my practice belongs on a political message board. I'd say feel free to advocate for whatever spiritual (or non-spiritual) perspective you care to; just don't use that perspective to attack the nominee.

[KittyWampus]

40. You have a chip on your shoulder. Get over yourself. Humans have a reptilian & higher brain

The Republicans appeal to our baser, reptilian instincts to divide us with fear.

Democrats appeal to our higher brain functions to get people to work together toward the Common Good.

This is a dichotomy of biology, psychology, symbolism and intent.

The words light/dark, higher/lower are perfectly adequate and descriptive.

And some people happen to have a more developed capacity to sway people. Using both symbolism and personal charisma. Such people choose to either lead people using reptilian prompts and others choose the path of unity.

If you have a problem with those of us who grasp the simple physical and psychical truths, too bad.

[BigBluenoser]

51. I do indeed have a chip on my shoulder...

but I see no need to "get over myself".

I have no problem with Senator Obama at all. In fact he is the only US politician I have heard that has mentioned us "un-believers" in a non-negative way. It is one of the reasons I hope he wins the GE.

Since I appear to be unable to grasp your "psychical" truths, I'm not sure how spirituality is required for unity and the common good.

Obama is charismatic. He gives a good speech, and he seems likable. He well represents the party platform and will curb the excesses of the last 8 years. Is that what you mean by physical and psychical truths? Or am I missing the "deeper" truths?

[Bluenorthwest]

41. Take a look at the campaign so far

I want the Democrat to win. Look at the campaign so far. Almost all of Obama's problems have sprung from clerics and religionism. And what have these associations gained for him other than trouble?
If we want to win, it is time to stop with this magical thinking. It is time to stop with the religionism. It is off putting to many, including many people of strong and private faith. Many Christians object to the vain use of divine things for worldly ends-in fact, some call that blasphemy.

The President is our servant. Obama is a public servant.

Do we really want to send months talking about preachers and such instead of our economy, the war crime that is Iraq, the peril of the planet?
Religoinism just took the GOP to the trash heap, no need to allow them to do the same to us.

[BigBluenoser]

53. This has gotten a little hotter than I wanted it to be...

And I realize my ideological purity in this matter is not helping things. My apologies to anyone who is finding me a bit ogreish.

[crankychatter]

57. people that buy that crap buy that crap... the candidate isn't putting it out there

how are you going to control people?

jeezus

you want him and his supporters to embrace your beliefs?

pretty evangelical of you I think

[calmblueocean]

58. I've been saying this too. Calling Obama a "lightworker" is like saying GWB was sent by God.

It makes each candidate a quasi-spiritual, quasi-religious figure, and all it does is make it harder for some folks to really hold them accountable.

I speak out against this kind of thing whenever I see it.

[TexasObserver]

59. You are free to believe as you wish, not free to be free of opposite opinions

I believe those who are atheist are entitled to those views, just as I believe the religious or spiritual are entitled to their views. And you're all entitled to speak those views. None of you are entitled to require others to stop giving their point of view, and none of you are entitled to have your point of view superior to the others.

None of us can possibly know if there is a God, and if so, what his, her or its nature and requirements are. ALL beliefs about God are based upon faith of some kind, even atheism, which is faith in logic and reason.

You have IGNORE to rid your screen of things you don't like to read, and HIDE THREAD for that same purpose. When you read things that disturb you, at least here you can make them disappear.

[Cleita]

60. Just because you are an atheist does not give you a right to impose your

beliefs on others. Freedom FROM religion also means freedom to practice religion for those who are believers. You just don't want it imposed on you, so please return the favor and don't impose your beliefs on others who don't think the same as you.

[BigBluenoser]

63. I'm not looking to impose...

I'm looking to oppose. There is a rather big difference.

[Cleita]

68. You said the article was posted three times before so why didn't you

oppose in those threads instead of starting one of your own? I personally believe that ascribing these traits to any candidate as a chosen one is ridiculous however if people want to believe that he is, what is there to argue about? As long as Obama himself keeps himself grounded in reality, then we have no worry. Bush was the person who brought religion into the White House and whom was proclaimed from many pulpits as having been chosen by God and Bush used it to his advantage by bringing these people into his cabinet and staff.

[BigBluenoser]

71. I'm not worried about Obama...

I doubt this crap will go to his head. If he starts believing it, then I'll be worried (and scared).

I did reply in thread to one of those three other posts. But those were about the article. This thread is about this type of article and what I believe is a very important question in my OP.

Cheers.

[calmblueocean]

64. Who is imposing beliefs on anyone by arguing against them?

Seriously, I don't understand that. I've seen this line trotted out many times now over the course of this discussion. In essence, "You have the right to believe what you believe, but not to criticize my beliefs."

What kind of commitment to free speech is that? I don't understand that way of thinking at all.

No one is imposing their beliefs on you just because they're denouncing your beliefs.

[ContinentalOp]

66. It's freedom of religion.

You're free to believe in any religion you like, you're just not free to be a non-believer! If you dare question religion you're somehow infringing on another person's religious freedom. This kind of thinking is what happens when religion and politics mix and politicians cultivate a feeling of righteous victimhood among the religious majority.

[Cleita]

72. People seem to be confused about what the separation of church and state is.

It's not attacking the beliefs of others, but making sure that those others don't impose their beliefs in government. We know what that is. Pro-lifers who attack women in the name of religion. Attorney Generals who drape naked statues in the Hall of Justice. Cult leaders who are allowed to be crowned the Messiah in a government building with members of Congress attending. This last administration has been an egregious offender about this. Right now this belief about Obama being a deliverer from some other dimension is just that a belief that all are entitled to. No one is saying you have to believe. I would also be the first to object if after Obama takes office, if there are lightworkers conducting ceremonies in the White House or Congress and if Obama starts hiring astrologers and tarot readers to make decisions. Then we have a problem.

[Cleita]

73. Delete

Dupe

[Cleita]

69. Actually, I'm defending the right of other to believe what they believe.

There seems a lack of this even here at DU. If Obama loads his staff and cabinet with people who don't leave their religion at home like Bush did, then we have a legitimate gripe but not until then.

[quaker bill]

70. You may find yourself

devoid of spiritual components, and others may not see you in the same way.

Having a spiritual component is not a profession of faith or belief, nor is such required. Personal denial of its existence is truly not relevant. It either exists or it doesn't and neither proposition can ultimately be proved.b

Secondly, most folks confuse the spiritual with the supernatural. No faith in the supernatural is required and generally such beliefs serve as an unhelpful distraction.

Some folks will refer to desirable traits they see in another with spiritual language, others will choose different terms to state pretty much the same thing. You may call it blue-green and I may call it Teal.

Chill out, it really does not matter.

[2rth2pwr]

76. Words matter. Don't tell me that words don't matter.

[quaker bill]

77. They matter to the extent

we choose to hear them as intended. Honestly, if some people want to vote for Barack because they believe he is the second coming of Elvis, I will still drive them to the polls to do so, and I will spend absolutely no time taking issue with it.

[2rth2pwr]

75. What is this blasphemy?! And why is it allowed in the hallowed halls of GD:P?

[MattBaggins]

79. Do you really need to discuss this?

What does this have to due with Obama? Is this his world view or just writings of a New Age Spiritualist examining Obama from his own world view?

I really don't see any need for concern here at all.