To listen to talk radio these days, you’d think that Barack Obama and Rev. Jeremiah Wright of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago are the same person. They think the same thoughts, and they have the same motivations. And if Obama gets elected, he’s going to advocate for Civil War reparations.
Right. And Mitt Romney was going to spread Mormonism across the U.S. and advocate polygamy. And John Kennedy was going to let the Pope tell him how to run the country. Haven’t we been through this gauntlet enough times that we don’t have to keep rehashing it every election… multiple times?
I guess not.
We’ve got to remember that we live in postmodern times. Just because someone attends a particular church is not necessarily an indication that they believe or practice what that church teaches — at least, not in toto. John Kerry was Catholic, but pro-choice. Bill Clinton was a Baptist, but, well, we all know what Clinton did.
People attend church these days for any number of reasons — because they were raised in that church, because they are rebelling against the church in which they were raised, because they are seeking God or what certain religions are about, because they feel that the church is authentic even if they don’t agree with everything that’s being preached, because it’s politically expedient, because their wife/husband wants to go there, etc. Some people even attend church because they believe the doctrine the church teaches, but that isn’t as prevalent as it once was.
So, I think this whole thing about what church Obama attended and what his pastor said is a big bunch of nothing. He’s denounced the things Rev. Wright said that were extreme and inflammatory. Let’s take him at his word and move on. He’s not Rev. Wright. Rev. Wright isn’t running for President.
You old softy. 😉
If – let’s say Romney’s pastor – said what Wright said while Romney listened without comment – substituting “white” for “black” and vice-versa (proclaiming the congregation in solidarity with Europe, instead of Africa, etc.) how many minutes would Romney have lasted in the national race? If a member of a radical mosque ran for office, would his “religion” matter? There is a difference between religious prejudice (which some exhibited against Romney) and legitimate questions as to what a candidate believes. Everyone knew John Kerry did not adhere to Catholic tenets; he was a known quantity. Obama is not a known quantity, and so the organizations he belongs to (and donates money to) are a starting point for inquiry into his beliefs, which is what the electorate has a right to know. Wright went well beyond preaching religion, of course, but the piont is, I don’t think a single voter in Pennsylvania cares what Rev. Wright thinks about anything, but I’d guess a lot of them want to know if Obama believes any of that venomous stuff that Wright spewed out.
Do any of you care that Ms. Clinton lied about her entry into Iraq (bullets flying around her, had to wear protective gear while they ran to the car)-all of which proved to be false by means of the video. Do you care that if she would unnecessarily lie about this , she will necessarily say anything in her mind in order to be elected? Wise up folks!! “Misspoke?” Sure!
Do we count all the times that Bush has “misspoken” over the WMDs in Iraq to get us in the war over there?
Do we count all the documented Democrats who said the same?
(1) Wacko, Hillary’s trip was to Bosnia-Hercegovina, not Iraq.
(2) Bush lied about nothing. Saddam Hussein’s WMD’s were never accounted for so we really don’t know what happened to them. And whether he actually had them doesn’t matter as he retained the ability to manufacture them. By 2001, the sanctions regime was collapsing. The failure to contain Saddam could have been catastrophic. Whether Iraq was involved with 9-11 or not is irrelevant as the War on Terror is a war on all terrorists and their state sponsors.
We were right to oust Saddam Hussein.
(3) Barack Obama’s church mixes Afrocentrism and Christianity, which is no different than mixing Ku Klux Klown beliefs and Christianity. It’s like mixing oil and water. Sen. Obama will survive this controversy, as it is still early; the real problem for him is how monstrous Hillary Clinton chooses to be.
” AMEN, CJ! “
Or to quote Dick Cheney, “So”.
Would you want the President attending a church that spews out hate for America and those “RICH WHITE PEOPLE”? I know he’s gone but what he represented at that church was not the words of Jesus.
wacko, I think everybody in the free world knows by now that Hillary and Bill are liars, and that she will say anything to get elected. File her under “known quantities”. As for WMD’s, the record shows that Saddam WAS seeking WMD’s, & there is pretty good evidence that components were shipped to Syria (some of which were hopefully blown up in the recent Israeli air raid on Syria’s nuclear facility). You can still argue whether that was sufficient justification, but let’s stop repeating the left-wing spin and get the facts straight.
“Seeking” and actually “having” are two different things Mouse.
That’s not “left-wing spin”.
It’s O.K. to admit a mistake.
Has anyone bothered to listen to the whole Wright speech other than the 2 minute soundbyte? I haven’t, to be honest, but some who have point out that those soundbytes don’t portray the true context of what he was trying to say. Pastors say some pretty strange stuff — Falwell, Robertson, bishops, popes, imams — we all don’t go running when someone says something inflamatory or even wrong. We just haven’t the benefit of youtube for all of Clinton or McCain’s pastor’s words.
Mazr wrote:“Seeking” and actually “having” are two different things Mouse.
Capability to manufacture biological and chemical weapons is far beyond the “seeking” phase, Mazr. Iraq’s first use of chemical weapons against Iranian troops occurred in 1983. After UN weapons inspectors were kicked out of the country in 1998, not all of Saddam’s WMD’s had been located and destroyed. That formed the basis for bi-partisan support for regime change. After the “Bush should have prevented 9-11” rhetoric, he felt he had no choice but to preempt potential terrorist attacks by our enemies (Al-Qaida isn’t the only one) and oust Saddam from power.
How come Hillarity isn’t renouncing, denouncing or rejecting her adulterous husband? Sounds like the pot calling the kettle black … oh jeez is that racism … on no was that blasphemous?!
Did any of you (and the Public at large) take the time to go look for Rev Wright’s full sermons from which those ‘snippets’ were taken? I did. Taken in their full context, they are far less controversial.
Right wingnut radio has been dangling these snippets for months and finally the mainstream press, like a big fish, snatched the waiting bait. What an embarrassment this will prove to be in the long run. You can count on Right Wingnut radio to fan the flames of race because that is what really is behind this. Put some out of context snippets from a fiery black preacher onto TV and radio to scare all those white folks who don’t have a clue what goes on in a black church. Made to order instant controversy.
The silver lining is that this is happening now and not in August. But the dirty pool playing GOP will likely stir it again closer to the election.
Mahkno, they are just doing the country a favor.
There is no way anyone could top the job this current administration has done. Textbook political stuff.
Just imagine the Reverend Wright were white…and maybe the President of a Conservative Christian University…
This is a blatant attempt to smear Obama because he isn’t “white enough” to be “our” President. McCain didn’t distance himself from the right wing ideologues when they were accusing homosexuals and abortionists of being the cause of 9/11.
To David P Jordan,
We ousted Saddam because the President felt he was a danger. Suppose another country felt GWBush was a danger, so they came and ousted him. Would that be ok with you? The administration knew the yellow cake incident was not true, but disregarded the truth. Iraq was not a haven for terrorists until after we went in there. Either Bush lied or he disregarded the truth. If he really wanted to fight the war on terror, he would have sent those 140,000 troops into Afghanistan, where we knew there were terrorists hiding.
Sen Obama’s pastor, quoted a white US Ambassador when he said “God damn America”. That was a 10 second sound bite out of a 60 minute or so sermon. My own pastor here in Peoria has said he wishes the Par A Dice casino would sink. Preachers say alot of things and if you do not know the context of the sermon, you can not take a sound bite out and castigate him for it. I, as a Christian, feel God is probably appalled at what at what is going on in the world, and this country today. If you are a Christian, you should be too.
To Ben,
We ousted Saddam because the President felt he was a danger. Suppose another country felt GWBush was a danger, so they came and ousted him.Would that be ok with you?
Moral equivalence is the mark of someone who has already lost the debate. As for your question, I say let them try. The Air Force, Marines, Army and Navy might have something to say about that:)
The administration knew the yellow cake incident was not true, but disregarded the truth.
Ben, here are those controversial sixteen words in Bush’s 2003 State of the Union Speech:
Ben, notice the word, sought. Bush never stated that Iraqi agents actually purchased uranium from Africa – he said, based on British Intelligence, that Iraqi agents sought to purchase uranium from Africa. It is likely the allegation made by Bush in his address is true.
Iraq was not a haven for terrorists until after we went in there. Either Bush lied or he disregarded the truth.
Incorrect again, Ben. Saddam Hussein himself was a terrorist who plotted revenge on the US and other countries for his defeat and withdrawal from Kuwait in 1991. He harbored Abu Abbas and Abu Nidal, and funded Palestinian suicide bombers, some of whom killed American citizens in Israel. Abu Musab al Zarqawi fled Afghanistan for Iraq in 2002 and led Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) until we killed him in June 2006. Furthermore, Iraq need not have been behind 9-11…the War On Terror is on all terror threats to our nation’s security.
If he really wanted to fight the war on terror, he would have sent those 140,000 troops into Afghanistan, where we knew there were terrorists hiding.
Okay, Ben, how would we have done this in a landlocked nation bordered by Pakistan, Iran, Kazahkstan and China? A large military buildup would have taken months of preparation by which time Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants would have fled (long before they did). The idea was to work with the Northern Alliance and help them defeat the Taliban/Al-Qaeda government.
>BR>Sen Obama’s pastor, quoted a white US Ambassador when he said “God damn America”. That was a 10 second sound bite out of a 60 minute or so sermon. My own pastor here in Peoria has said he wishes the Par A Dice casino would sink. Preachers say alot of things and if you do not know the context of the sermon, you can not take a sound bite out and castigate him for it. I, as a Christian, feel God is probably appalled at what at what is going on in the world, and this country today. If you are a Christian, you should be too.
Ben, you’re not thinking for yourself. You’re repeating what you’ve heard pundits say on CNN and MSNBC. The fact is Rev. Jeremiah Wright is a racist and hater. At least Sen. Obama is trying to distance himself from Wright’s views.
Yes, I am a Christian, and yes, I’m sure God is saddened by what goes on in this world, but He’s in control and allows all of this for a reason. People are what is wrong. That is why there can be no world peace. When people don’t abide by God’s laws, bad things happen..
I respectfully disagree with those who dismiss what Obama’s pastor said as being not enough to question the character of someone who follows him.
Yes, none of us is responsible for the most extreme statements of our pastors. But this is way beyond a few nutty comments or somethings taken out of context.
Wright’s focus in life and in his ministry goes far, far beyond wacky statements by Falwell, Robertson etc.
He preaches hate and has acted un-Christian from a Christian pulpit. I have listened to two entire sermons and they had little to do with Biblical teaching, instead being all about resentment, pandering, political partisanship and demagoguery.
This whole controversy goes to two separate concerns with Obama. First,is about his judgement. No one I know would sit there and not get up and leave when confronted with the outrageous things Wright said from a Christian pulpit. Further, no one I know would go back to that particular church so long as that pastor was still preaching there.
Secondly, Obamamania is deliberately vague allowing everyone to fill in the blanks however makes them feel good about Obama. The level of outrageous, disgusting, lewd, bigoted things Wright has said from the pulpit most certainly did not just pop out of his mouth a couple of times. It is how he sees the world. If Obama has listened to Wright preach for 20 years that fills in some of those blanks for me about who Obama is and what he beleives deep down.
Rev. Wright did not feel restrained to simulate a sex act (Bill Clinton humping Monica Lewinsky) right on the altar. If Wright has been Obama’s inspiration in life, and been included in many of Obama’s most significant moments in life, it is most certainly not racist to question how Obama could attend a church for 20 years listening to that kind of hate from a preacher with no sense of appropriateness of what is worthy of being preached from a religious pulpit.
People who reject Farrakhan and those who follow him are not racist because they reject the hateful extremism of Farrakhan or the sensibility of his followers. The same for Rev. Wright and his follower Obama.
It is legitimate to question Obama’s honesty that in attending Wright’s church for 20 years that he never heard such things from Wright. Come on. The two full sermons I listened to were longer versions of the angry, hateful, anti-Christian rants that the world has now heard snipets of. Those snipets were not isolated outbursts.
While I am sure racists who oppose Obama simply because he is half African-American are relishinig in this, not everyone who is disturbed with Obama for listening to this type of preaching for 20 years is racist. This is not guilt by association. It is about sensibility, judgement, values, honesty and character.
DAV: First of all, IMHO, your assertion that Rev. Wright is un-Christian is an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy. He may not line up with your definition of a True Christian, but that doesn’t make your labeling of him any more informative or useful.
Secondly, I can’t believe you’re holding up Falwell, Robertson and their ilk as [relatively] positive examples. Those men are the very definition of hate-mongering bigots.
P.S. George (THE ORIGINAL): It looks like we could both use more creative nicks. At least the new-Ben capitalizes his name so we can be told apart.
“He may not line up with your definition of a True Christian…”
Nor mine. Thou shalt not use the Lord thy God’s name in vain. I think that would include the statement “God damn America”. I want to go scrub my hands with anti-bacterial soap for just typing that.
ben, first, my previous comment in no way held up Falwell, Robertson as relatively positive examples. Falwell is dead. But just for the record, in my opinion Robertson is a meglomaniac and a lunatic who has said outrageous things from the pulpit and I condem it. I wouldn’t vote for a candidate for President who went to listen to Robertson preach for 20 years either.
I also never used the phrase “True Christian.” I said it was un-Christian to preach hate from a pulpit and to simulate a sex act on a Christian altar to get across a partisan political point and pander to the audience.
Ben, John 13:34-35 says:
A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.
Question…what is the Rev. Jeremiah Wright known for?
First Wright jumps all over the white race (justified in some aspects), and now he is on the Italians. Senator Obama has to reject this man in his entirety and make a clean break or it is going to hurt him. Has Barack ever thought that perhaps Wright is doing this intentionally because he does not want him as President?
Wacko, you may be on to something there. He condemns most all successful & well respected African Americans… except for himself. The suppression of African Americans, is, after all, how he has gained his notariety and fortune. Have you heard of the multi-million dollar home he is building for himself in the Chicago Suburbs?
I’m with CJ – the Rev. Wright controversy is all a big bunch of nothing. DAV, have you sat listening to all 20 years of Rev Wright’s sermons? Two sound bytes and two sermons do not define a man of faith. Faith evolves and changes in everyone’s life.
And until you can prove to me that in your own 20 years of attending church your pastor/priest/ minister never ever said something you disagreed with, something that expressed hate of another (gynecologists as murders is one example I can think of from my Catholic background) – I don’t think any of us can throw stones.
And, in my experience of faith, hearing someone express this kind of hate helps me to define my own beliefs, and define myself against hate. Helps me to think about how I can peacefully resolve an issue.
Listening to the heirarchical dogma of the Catholic Church for 20 years, and really thinking about those values and rules, most of which I find hateful and misogynistic, helped me define my faith and spirituality as it is today. If you sit listening to someone simply recite scripture, without thinking about it, without analyzing it in the context of it’s opposite, and this applies to math or sociology or cooking, doesn’t help develop your intellectual capacity. Listening to someone you might disagree with is what helps define your own thoughts. God himself hands out tests in the bible, remember? God himself apparently espouses exposing yourself to the “bad” things in order that you may understand the “good” things.
Sitting and listening to ONLY those you agree with, ONLY those who think exactly as you do, makes you a sheeple. I’m pretty sure that’s why Rush Limbaugh’s followers are called Dittoheads. They simply parrot his speech without any thought or research into it themselves. A drug addict and lecher. Nice.
I’m not saying Rev. Wright is a “bad” thing, or trying to compare him to Rush Limbaugh or anything. I’m simply saying, there is value to hearing the opinion of others, even if you disagree with it. And it’s really sad, IMHO, to see so many people, on this blog I highly respect, condemning probably the most intelligent politician to come down the pike in years for the simple act of attending church, faithfully, for a few decades, because of a handful of quotes. For being willing to accept a person despite the fact that he disagrees with him on some issues. We need more of that kind of acceptance in the US today, and less bitter divisiveness. That’s why I’m working for Obama.
gisselle, that is very eloquent. but ya know, it kind of reminds me of the old adage that if you put perfume on a pig, its still a pig.
CGisselle wrote “…Sitting and listening to ONLY those you agree with, ONLY those who think exactly as you do, makes you a sheeple.” Using this model that you have constructed, all parishoners of every church,temple, and mosque are mind numbed robots and do not have an independent thought. The reason people attend a church is because they agree with the teachings of that organization.
Yes it is not the only reason for attendance but it is the reason the group was formed and has remained so up to this day.
One does not have to sit in a church and listen to a pastor say God damn America and say our government created AIDS to decimate the black population, and simulate a sex act to be an enlighted person willing to “listen to people they disagree with.”
Cgisselle has such an open mind her brains have fallen out. It is hyper-partisan lunacy to think we have to treat Wright’s rants as legitmate points we just happen to disagree with.
It is definitely fair for people to question Obama’s judgement, sensibility, honesty, values and character when he chose such a hateful man as his pastor and then lied and said he never heard the pastor preach such things…Rev Wright only said the types of things we have all heard when Obama was not there.
I listened to 2 full sermons by Pastor Wright and they focused on hate, not love.
I listen respectfully on a daily basis to plenty of people and viewpoints I disagree with. But I also know when the talk goes past a sensible line. Obama only found that line after 20 years when he felt the political heat and conveniently said well he would have left the church after all if Wright had stayed. Sorry, that’s just too cynical for me.
Cgisselle condems people who “sit and listen to ONLY those you agree with.” As if she listens to Rush Limbaugh just to get a healthy dose of the point of view of those she disagrees with. I won’t listen to Limbaugh either. Come on, Cgisselle you listen to only those you agree with and are a shameless apologist for the horrible judgement of someone you agree with-Obama.
She tries to make people who thing Obama’s following of Rev Wright for 20 years are nothing but right-wing Christian nuts. I’m not and most people who find Wright’s behavior evil are not either.