Look, I admit that I don’t place any importance on these things and, therefore, don’t pay much attention to them, but I can’t remember ever seeing a president and First Lady attending a Christmas service. I’m sure I’ve seen footage and probably even read an article than mentioned it, but the following is quite a bit too much:
President Obama celebrated a low-key Christmas in Hawaii this year. He sang carols, opened presents with his family, and visited a nearby military base to wish the troops “Mele Kalikimaka” — the Hawaiian phrase meaning “Merry Christmas.”
But the one thing the president and his family did not do — something they have rarely done since he entered the White House — was attend Christmas church services.
“He has not gone to church hardly at all, as president,” said Gary Scott Smith, the author of “Faith and the Presidency: From George Washington to George W. Bush,” adding that it is “very unusual for a president not to attend” Christmas services.
Historically, watching the nation’s first family head to church dressed in their Sunday best, especially around the holiday season, was something of a ritual.
Here I have to ask, “ritual for whom?” Who are the people who gathered in front of their televisions on Christmas, breathlessly waiting to see the president and First Lady enter or exit a church? Anybody? Even one single family in the whole wide country?
It can’t be just me for whom this “ritual” doesn’t and never has existed. So, why is Ashley Parker writing this in the New York Times? What is the point? What agenda is advanced?
Because it certainly isn’t selling any papers or educating the public. It’s basically just a way of raising public doubt about the sincerity of the president’s professed Christianity. At the very least, that is the only effect is can possibly have.
Aside from angering liberals, that is.
More like repeating a Republican meme. Muslim socialist and all that nonsense.
The only people who care about this stuff is those interested in tearing him down.
In other words, republicans.
.
“Why Is This in My New York Times?”
Whaddayou? Kiddin’ me or what!!!???
The real question here should be:
Why on earth do you think that the New York Times is “yours”? Are you that far gone? That accessible to branding? “Progressive newspaper” my royal Irish ass!!! Or have you finally come to the point where you passively identify with a newspaper that (among many other crimes) actively supported the totally false runup to the Iraq invasion? It supported that Big Lie to the point that it assigned and front-paged an obvious CIA asset, Judith Miller, to be the lead reporter on the whole false “We found WMDs!!! We gotta go in, now!!!” disnfo campaign. It was the Wanton Grey Lady that gave respectability and gravitas to that terrible set of lies and consequently it is that newspaper that is to blame for much of the bloody murder that happened…and continues to happen…there.
Why is it in the New York Times? C’mon, Booman. The so-called centrist media…center, left-center and right-center, the media that built Obama up when he was the designated winner in 2008 + 2012…are now busily tearing him down in preparation for the next fix. That alone is evidence enough that an uninterrupted Democratic presidency in the person of Hillary Clinton is not necessarily the way things are going to go.
Watch.
He’s a lame duck.
What’dya expect?
Serenades of homage?
Please.
WTFU.
AG
Clearly the purpose is to feed their conservative readers and prove they are fair and balanced too, just like Fox.
Is there no byline of the guilty reporter? Is it filler picked up from a newsfeed?
Sounds like pushing Gary Scott Smith’s new book. Is there payola going on here?
ding ding ding. and i think we have a winner.
I know very few people who are not elderly or with small (very small) children that attend church, and I’m in MN, a pretty big church-going state. Basically people here attend “for the kids” or older folks attend because they have nowhere else to go on sundays, or out of habit.
Around here we’ve seen the rise of McChurches, which are popping up all over the Twin Cities metro. They seem to primarily serve these families with smaller kids, and to a lesser extent, teens. They offer a bland, homogenized “christianity” rooted in stale Christian pop and reside in newly constructed 4-wall warehouse style structures that are clearly not meant to last. There are usually many other existing churches with similar ideology nearby, often desperate for members, but these “church for the kids” people seem timid about joining an existing community, so they choose the churches that remind them of Best Buy or Target. And there’s usually a charismatic young preacher that needs a job, so a new church it is, popped up in a few weeks. Presto! You can get the bed and bath over at the mall, but they’ve got the BEYOND.
To please those people, Obama would have to attend that sort of church. Episcopalian, not good enough. African American churches – oh, good lord, he can’t do that. Catholics? Suspect since the commie took over. No, he’d have to go to a McChurch to convince them.
Problem is, if he did, ten minutes in someone would mistake him for a janitor and ask him to take out the trash.
Hmm, to my knowledge the Christianity on offer at those is neither homogenized nor bland.
I call them the “Debby Boone” churches – homogenized pablum, “inspirational”, no disturbing examinations of the actual Bibble, no fire and brimstone for the most part. They are run like a business, and pull in the suckers in droves. No one there actually examines their faith. It’s a social network, evangelized.
… something they have rarely done since he entered the White House…
So why is it now a story after his years in office? A slow news cycle?
The NYT article is subtly pointing out that Obama is a Democrat, and a black one at that.
He’s probably a Muslim or an Atheist, or both even.
The NYT is pretty much fucking useless at this point. If you want to read it, just open a NYT page in Google Chrome and then open that up incognito, and no paywall.
I don’t see the racial component to this article unless you think that anytime the president is criticized it’s racial. And it’s not the first time that someone has pointed out that he doesn’t go to church, he doesn’t except on rare occasions. ent.
Dog whistles, dear Watson.
“So, why is Ashley Parker writing this in the New York Times? What is the point? What agenda is advanced?”
It would seem the more fundamental question should be, “is it even true?”.
From personal experience, I know many churches don’t even HAVE any services on Christmas day (many have them on Christmas Eve).
Somebody with Lexis-Nexis access should do a fact-check of Parker’s claim, searching for media references to Presidential/family church attendance on Christmas. My bet would be the Obamas are not even slightly unusual in this regard.
As a rehash of a story from five years ago — facts were assembled by Media Matters’ Walzer. Reagan and GWB rarely went to church on Sunday. Nothing noted for GWHB. Clinton was a regular.
Thanks, Marie. That’s interesting, even if it doesn’t get directly to the question of what Presidents do on Christmas (even if I suspect that Sunday church attendance and Christmas day church attendance may be significantly — even if not strongly — correlated).
When I was young, there were plenty of Christmas and Easter Mass only Catholics. That’s not what the fundies expect of Presidents or anyone else.
Funny, as I wrote that I had the thought that Catholic mass might be the exception to the rule (ok, generalization) I stated. Still guessing it holds pretty well for protestants, at least.
Sunday morning in America: the most segregated time of the week.
enough said
Well the President and I have one more thing in common.
To the NYT GFY
What is the real statistic for Americans? Surely at least 50% of us don’t go to a church. At 25% of the ones that do- do it without thinking.
Yes, it is complete non-news and total bullshit. Maybe this would have been “newsworthy” during the Kennedy Administration, when JFK was burnishing his family-friendly credentials as “America’s first Catholic President” by publicly attending Mass with Jackie and the kids (while boinking innumerable bimbos on the side, in connivance with a silent press) but today it’s just more lyrics for the right wing Wurlitzer.
It’s another (small) reason why I refuse to contribute a cent to a NYT subscription.
I am sure the Times failed to notice that his spiritual advisor the right Rev. Wright no doubt visited him for a private Chtpristmas service.
Actually, Security was surely an issue going to church and it would have been disruptive to other church goers on the holiest day ( actually Easter is supposed to be more holy)
I seriously doubt that more than half our presidents regularly went to church services.
Even in the last few decades, when so many voters seemed to decide this really matters to them.
So?
Even the Times is full of beans, now and again.
“He has not gone to church hardly at all, as president,” said Gary Scott Smith, the author of “Faith and the Presidency: From George Washington to George W. Bush,” adding that it is “very unusual for a president not to attend” Christmas services.
This might actually be true.
Historically, watching the nation’s first family head to church dressed in their Sunday best, especially around the holiday season, was something of a ritual.
Historically? I see. History began with television.
Good last line, philo.
As for the rest: There’s this thing called the Internet; it is our friend.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZDZOe5LUMo
There’s other film of Obama and his family attending. And it’s not like examples of other Presidents going to church on Christmas are abundant online. So why has the Times concocted this strange poison? Especially because WHO CARES REALLY??