A sour taste - a measured response to Obama

I want to sound a note of caution here.

There's nothing wrong with Barack Hussein Obama, and his ascension to the highest office in his land is nothing short of a fantastic gesture that shows how far equality has come in America since, as he himself said, his father's time - when said gentleman couldn't get served in many places.

But you know all this - it's all we hear on the news and read in the papers (or in my case on the BBC's excellent website)

I remain concerned however, by the proximity of religion to the office of President. I wrote last year about how disappointed I was that despite everything Obama is supposed to represent...

not by himself, but by the world's starry eyed media - except Fox of course

...The USA will have had both an African-American president and probably a female president before it has an atheist president. Actually, let me rephrase that - an openly atheist president.

Many of the world's most intelligent powerful people must have significant doubts about their supposed religions and I have no doubt that Obama is amongst them. An intelligent educated person must at least have some major questions about the sort of God that allows a whole town or a whole country to be drowned or allows women and children to be bombed for weeks because of a few militant nutters.

That is, unless they subscribe to the argument that New Orleans was flooded because of gays being tolerated there. Although if that's the case, given San Fransisco's proximity to the San Andreas fault I'm surprised it hasn't been dropped into the sea already by this twisted psychopathic logic.

This is beside the point, however.

All I wanted to say was that if a man must outwardly display religion to be voted President of The United States, what sort of separation of church and state is that?

I am hopeful, as most people are, that this new regime will not fall into the trap of equating religon with "right" and secular arguments as "wrong". That's no way to go forward.

A