Obamas Should Choose National Cathedral

The doctrine of the separation of church and state does not require that a president compromise deeply held beliefs by adopting a civil religious orientation that essentially denies, obscures and undermines a person's faith perspective. As a supporter of the President Elect, I am appreciative and supportive of the President Elect's distinct and particular faith orientation that comes out of the prophetic, black church tradition. Mr. Obama is sophisticated enough to hear and appreciate the diversity of religious perspectives in America, and under obligation to be true to his own faith convictions. One should expect and respect the Obamas decisions as they follow their religious faith tradition even as they work out what that means in the obvious plualistic religious context that is America.

Ms Quinn,

FYI>..not to be an alarmist, though there are those who will react to this as such...but it might be a good time to start a question in the On Faith section about Jesus' Olivet prophecy in Matthew 24. We are in the beginning stages of embarking upon the worst turmoil and trouble (tribulation?) this world has seen over the past 6K years since the world was (re)created (Gen 1:2)..Just a suggestion. Now may be a good time to get a jump on that discussion.

To presume to recommend where the Obamas worship? To do so on grounds that include symbolism and convenience? Believers belong to denominations whose tenets they hold -- at least those who are serious about the difficult effort to know God and truth. It's disappointing, and emblematic of the way the Post (and most of the secular media) dismisses religion that one of those in charge of the Post's religious coverage (at least as embodied by this website) would treat the Obamas' actual beliefs so cavalierly. But this is the same writer who is so contemptuous of serious, sincere religious beliefs that she elected to take communion at Mr. Russert's funeral mass -- just for the experience -- despite knowing that Catholic faith strictly prohibits it.

Isn't there anywhere in the mainstream media where we can go for religious coverage that is not delivered by those who disdain religion and religious?

According to Obama's1st book, Memories, his maternal grandparents were Methodist/Baptist. The Obama's probably picked Trinity because of Michele. So, best let Ms Obama do the picking again. The National Catherdral is a very good choice,but there are many very good choices in the D.C. area. One thing for sure, the republican & religious right propaganda re Obama beig a muslim aught now be put to rest especially if the family joins National.

They should attend a church that teaches the bible and love for all people. My suggestion would be Mount Pleasent Baptist Church, 215 Rhode Island Ave., NW Washington, DC. We would welcome the first family with open arms.

P.S. I resent those racist and negative comments from some of the previous responses. That is so Un-American.

So... Sally recycled this BS article from Saturday for the Sunday WaPo, but didn't recycle the comments. I wonder why. Could it be because the Prozac Princess got crucified (no pun intended) Saturday for this nonsense?

Don't you have a tea party or something to go to, Sally, instead of writing this drivel?

And this is important because?

I would like to know how one can possibly assume to be in the position to "recommend" a religion as one would a Doctor or for that matter,a reliable carpet cleaner. Religion is personal and private and quite frankly nobody's business and I would be very offended if my neighbour began to advice me on what Church I should attend. People writing on these columns are assuming the Obama family are floundering around searching for a religion and I find it presumptive and extremely offensive.

The President should not be a member of any specific church. He can be a practicing Christian by attending services at different denominations that avoid spewing out hate and anti-American rhetoric. That would mean that any church that Rev. Wright, or Fr. Pleger or Louis Farrakhan head up should be anathema the our president.

BO rode to Blood-Red House on the backs of 35+million aborted womb-babies!!!

(The fastest growing USA voting bloc: The 70 million "mothers and fathers of aborted children" whose ranks grow by two million per year.)

i.e. the Immoral Majority with BO as their leader now rules the land and will do so in the foreseeable future. How very sad and disturbing!!!

BO as a member of the National Cathedral would simply add more bloody stains to an already stained nation.

pk- yes and in that time the Rev. Wright has done more for his community and his country (Marine, Navyman, on LBJ's medical team) than misguided sore losers like you have done in your lifetime.

Let;s see: they belonged for 20 years to Rev. Wright's church, and presumably listened to his paranoid rantings. Since Barack Obama is presumably an intelligent man & didn't believe a word of that stuff, I can't imagine that religious belief really matters to him. Therefore, I agree with Sally Quinn: the National Cathedral would be a suitable place to go on some Sundays-- very respectable!

Mr. Obama has lived (at least part-time) in Washington since 2005 when he took office as a member of the Senate. It is reasonable to believe that since his arrival, he has already found a local congregation supportive to his spiritual needs. Churches and congregations newly extending "the hand of fellowship" to Obama - President Elect appear to be motivated by opportunism rather than unwavering commitment to spiritual wholeness (or holiness).

Likewise, a Washington Post columnist is newly advocating the National Cathedral as the President’s family church. The National Cathedral is an Episcopalian church in Washington, D.C. Oh and on that little issue of the Obamas not being Episcopalian? The columnist says the Obama family can simply convert (perhaps like the conversion of Henry VIII and the Church of England). Yes that's right: just toss away those messy denominational ties from Chicago and step up to the altar with the Episcopal Church. The suggestion appears to lack primary and deep interest for the spiritual needs of said family; shading the concern for the Obama family as disingenuous.

Having the Obama family change denominations is not the change U.S. citizens voted for in 2008.

Frequently, as he campaigned for and now prepares to take the office of U.S. President, Mr. Obama has reminded us of President Lincoln . When the issue of church attendance arises, President Obama would do well to remind us of the Treaty of Tripoli.

Drafted during the last days of George Washington’s Presidency , "read aloud in its entirety on the U.S. Senate floor June 7, 1797 and unanimously approved", the treaty was signed by President John Adams and "proudly proclaimed to the nation ". We should all take note of Article 11 from the Treaty with Tripoli, which states:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. "

The Obama campaign slogan "Change we can believe in" was not a call to attend Sunday service at the National Cathedral, nor any other church in this great nation.

We have hired an executive to bring our woefully mismanaged federal government back to order. As employers, voters should not pressure (or advocate in a national publication) that our employees attend a certain church, or join a certain denomination. This is especially true of our employees who set and implement public policy.

Church attendance of the U.S. President and his family is not a function of government. Let's not play games that could misconstrue private family matters to be government dictates.

This is truly of the utmost importance. I can't imagine how any American could go one more day without this news.

Phhhhbt.

He can come to *my* house and do his thing, if that's what it takes for people not to politicize it.

Sally - aside from the fact that I believe the Obamas, like any family, should choose whatever is personally right for them, I really like your arguments for the national cathedral. I was most impressed when I heard "people of all faiths and people of no faith" at the cathedral - then heard it again and again - indicating that it was a cathedral-wide welcome and not just the random thought of a particular clergy.

My only complaint is your repeated use of the term "worship." I know it's a very common, accepted term in religious practice. But did even Jesus want to be worshipped? Are people in church actually seen worshipping anything/anyone, or are they just mumbling an occasional memorized prayer about it?

From what I've seen, Rather than worship, people go to church for community, ritual and music- things both people of faith and people of no faith can enjoy.

SPARROW4

At the end of Bigmet's post He wrote, " I hope that he operates as Jesus commands...to be in the world, but not of the world (ref John 15:19)."

Actually, what Jesus commanded was, "Love one another as I have Loved You". It is that simple and can be that hard. Love, in the way we humans express it, can be lots of things and sometimes it is an act of the will.

One day ALL will know that LOVE is a BEING which some refer to as God, some as the Creator and some not at all.

Another thing that I have repeatedly said, "It is important what one does and why one does it and what one knows", as it says in the bible, true religion is taking care of widows and orphans which basically means everyone.

Hang in there Lil Sparrow, you seem to have a good heart.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

As ever thomas, you have much more control over your temper than I. :-) I was appalled by bigmet's post. I thought a man of G-d would be a better person, not a divisive, intolerant proponent of the very things his people have dealt with for hundred's of years. Prejudice is ugly- against man, religion, skin color, gender- it is flat out ugly.

BIGMET

You wrote, "Who will I truly be worshiping if I attend there?", that is up to you.

If you truly believe that Jesus is God and believe what He taught then you should realize that we are the "building", the "living stones", not the building that is made by human hands that make up the Church.

Jesus did not become One of us to start a new religion or to set up a theocracy here on earth but to let us know just how much God cares for us and for all of His Creation.

It is a relationship that God already has with us that Jesus tries to open our eyes to. Also it is a relationship which has been expanded to where God has become our Brother in the Incarnation.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

And yours is exactly the mindset we don't need in this country. "Who will I truly be worshiping if I attend there? It really concerns me how America wants to be this "melting pot" of religion." As a Jew I am not comfortable with calling the cathedral the "national" cathedral, but you aren't being asked to park your religion at the door. the Cathedral is episcopal- they worship Christ, the last I heard, so I fail to see how it is a question who is worshiped there?

you wrote "Yes, I agree that we all should be tolerant, to some extent, when it comes to others beliefs. But that doesn't mean I should have to worship with them in order to prove I don't have a problem with what they believe"- But it seems you do. Faith means you carry your G-d in your heart, you must not be as strong in your faith if it intimidates you to worship with others. Your comment completely undermines your idea that you are tolerant. You sound like every other fundmentalist I've ever heard- paying lip service to equality,fairness and freedom of religion, while at the same time denying it. (And you, sir should be ashamed- as a Black man you know better than most what discrimination is like.)

Who would he be worshiping? My guess is the same Jesus Christ he worshiped in Chicago.
you wrote:" I hope that as a Christian President-elect Obama does have a tolerant spirit towards others and their beliefs, but I pray to God that he doesn't take that mindset into the sacred space of the God he worships."

I hope he does, or he doesn't deserve to be President, but in any case, you certainly shouldn't be a preacher.

I can understand why it would be advocated that the president elect attend a worship facility that welcomes all faiths, however as a Christian I must ask the question: Who will I truly be worshiping if I attend there? It really concerns me how America wants to be this "melting pot" of religion. Yes, I agree that we all should be tolerant, to some extent, when it comes to others beliefs. But that doesn't mean I should have to worship with them in order to prove I don't have a problem with what they believe. As a black preacher I've heard the mantra many times which Obama said in his speech on race about how Sunday morning is the most segregated hour in America, but that has to do with race, not religion. I hope that as a Christian President-elect Obama does have a tolerant spirit towards others and their beliefs, but I pray to God that he doesn't take that mindset into the sacred space of the God he worships. I hope that he operates as Jesus commands...to be in the world, but not of the world (ref John 15:19).