Sunday, November 23, 2008

Gasp! Obama has not been to church and what about that school choice...

The reality is it's clear like a majority of Americans, the Obama family is not really that religious and attending church on Sunday is not something that they do. I don't go every weekend and so far it's not been a problem for me. Yet, I'm not under a microscope, which appears to be a contradictory one. If the real reason for not going to church is:

"Because they have a great deal of respect for places of worship, they do not want to draw unwelcome or inappropriate attention to a church not used to the attention their attendance would draw,"

Then this makes no sense:
the family "look[s] forward to finding a church community in Washington, D.C

As president whatever "church community" they find in DC will have to deal with the "unwelcome or inappropriate attention to a church" it can't be both...It's similar to the reasoning behind their daughters not going to public school. The reality is they didn't want their children attending public schools, for a variety of reasons including the level of education and safety. The commentary on this decision has created quite a range of posts, from those out there giving the reasons why it should be public schools and even those who realized the Obamas already used private schools in Chicago hoping they would not in DC.

Should children be used as a message is a valid point, though anyone who focused on Sarah Palin's children would have no right to try to state that the Obama children should be off limits. I find it ironic that some of those who were so quick to make very negative comments about Palin's children are now magically concerned about the Obama children. Some will believe this is Continuing a tradition among Washington's power elite in picking a school that costs more in one years worth of tuition for just one of the girls than many of us earn in one year. Frankly I'm not surprised, I would have been shocked had they picked the public school because Barack Obama and Michelle Obama are elitists, anyone who truly believed they would act any different in relation to the church or school issue, probably bought the whole line about "new politics" too...

They did not live in the same world we lived in, expecting them to now? Is a bit unrealistic...

5 comments:

Robin said...

I just assumed that they would be sending their kids to a private school.

Alex said...

I think they ought to go to public schools, but I recognize - although I challenge them - the reasons for not doing so. But this is disconnected from the "new politics" line of reasoning some appealed too. To assume non-elitism as a characteristic of "new politics" is not considerate of our actual political system; it's absurd. For those made such an assumption ought to be disregarded; however, I think this assumption is made in the post more than in the discourse itself.

Lisa Renee said...

Your comment was not exactly clear Alex, there is a connection to the "new politics" as far as this demonstrates the pattern that this is not new at all, but a continuation of how politics is. Those who are wealthy and who are elite traditionally do not send their children to public schools.

The Obama family is not a middle class working family that struggled financially to provide the basics that had no choice but to use a public school or a charter school. Those who believed he would represent the middle class any better than any of his predecessors, which include Democrats were not being realistic. Most of the elected officials even locally are like him in that they understand that it's difficult to be poor or to be middle class in one small sense but they really don't understand it as far as real life experiences.

The same can be said for the religious expectation, he was not religious before, so expect him to magically become religious is also unrealistic.

He is a politician who rarely went to church and sent his children to private school as a Senator. Anyone being shocked or surprised that is still true as President elect was unrealistic.

I've found it interesting that he is following more in the footsteps of the Clintons, when it comes to his children and when it comes to his choices in his administration as opposed to Jimmy Carter who did send his child to the public school system in DC.

Granted it will be "new politics" in that it will not be done by a Republican, but not in the sense of "new politics" that eliminates the old boy network of DC that supposedly was part of the problem. That said, I never expected that to be done and I did not expect the media to make an issue out of it not being done. Which is exactly what has happened, with the exception of a few blogs on the left and a few pieces here and there, the take over by the "Clintonistas" has happened without a great deal of outcry.

Alex said...

F.D.R. was wealthy; he acted and lives as such. So are the Kennedy's, and John Edwards. However, they champion(ed) the poor and middle-class. "New politics" is not connected to pretending to belong to a class that you do not belong.

Jason R. said...

I don't find myself often agreeing with Obama at this point, but I don't fault him for wanting the best for his children and as LisaRene points out, it is expected.