Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

On race and religion

• Justin Webb
• 20 Mar 08, 02:42 PM GMT

Here is the answer to the Democrats' Michigan and Florida difficulties: turn to ! I am serious: these people conduct fair elections for organisations in the UK and no-one (I think) has ever questioned their impartiality or efficiency.

On the Obama pastor controversy, thanks to all those who have contributed: apologies again for the technical issues. Steve C makes an interesting point about timing (suggesting that if this had been happening early in the primaries, he would be toast) - I wonder whether the actual timing though is not rather wonderful for him, way ahead of the general election and coming just before a primary he is going to lose anyway?

Edward S claims: "It is an illusion to suggest that conflicting interests can generally be transcended. One ends up trying to be all things for all people. It's a recipe for indecisiveness - the risk: 'a mind so open that one's brain falls out'."

Well, let's see what happens now with Obama: if anyone can do it he can. Liz, meanwhile, makes a point that I am sure others will have sympathy with: I heard someone suggest on the airwaves the other day that if the Rev Wright's comments had been made calmly by an academic (white, perhaps) they would have been considered a reasonable contribution to open debate. The fact that he is shouting in the clips, and swaying about, does not do him any favours. Luc Zagbo wants the candidate to be allowed to move on: well, that might well happen if he gets through this period. But I do not think that questioning him is the same as seeking white dominance, as you put it.

Ghazamfar Khan raises the issue of bigotry more generally. Well, we live in a highly religious age, so I see no way round it - it seems to be to be (sadly) more than an invention of the mainstream media. As Harriet makes clear, many individuals in many churches are guilty of bigotry but we tend to accept that they do not speak for the whole church.

David Ginsburg asks about religion and the answer is yes, it matters; as someone once said: "You don't have to be a saint to run for president but you have to be a pilgrim." To venture into dangerous waters, I must say I simply do not understand, though, why Obama ever had need of a "spiritual advisor" or whatever he called Mr Wright. You can address ethics and morality without turning to the church: I suggest any of the works of the wonderful .

Alasdair Bovaird raises an interesting issue about how to cover moments like this in the race: I must say, if he had made this speech without needing to, as it were, I would agree with you - but given the discussion among his team and the tactical effort they were making to see off a potential calamity, I think it is reasonable to frame it in those terms. Having said that, I wish I had added a line about the risk he was taking and the unusual richness and complexity of the actual speech.

Jon asks about Rush Limbaugh. He matters, but not as much as he thinks, I would venture to suggest. With no candidate he can support, this might be a post-Rush election.

Richard Berry is right; this blog is impartial in the sense that I have no preference for any candidate or any policy. But impartiality in the modern world means more, I think, than simply presenting "information" with no commentary, or analysis, or humour. This medium is also more sophisticated than radio and TV and, if you are reading this, you are seeking it out and probably reading it alongside all manner of alternative views: you do not expect the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ to be biased, and we should not be, but nor do you want us to be dull... And Martin - I predicted a McCain victory months ago, long before you!

• Permalink
• Comments