Jeremiah Wright: Why does Mr. Obama support him? [Archive]

Ivan Seeking

Mar17-08, 11:26 AM

This is one of Obama's statements:
SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL): I did not hear such incendiary language myself, personally, either in conversations with him or when I was in the pew. He always preached a social gospel and was sometimes controversial in the same way that many people who speak out on social issues are controversial. But I, I--these particular statements that have been gathered are ones that I strongly objected to, strongly condemned. Had I heard them in church, I would have expressed that concern directly to Reverend Wright. So I didn't become familiar with these until recently.

But I thought that Michele Norris had some interesting comments.
...MS. NORRIS: Well, I think, I think they have no escape from this because it keeps coming up. And Barack Obama dealt with this directly yesterday, saying that this is sort of a generational shift, that certain people who are, come out of the 1960s and talking about Jeremiah Wright, carry with them--I think he said that men of ferocious intelligence who came out of the 1960s, whose, whose ambitions were stymied, carry with them the anger and the baggage of that in trying to explain some of the rhetoric there.

You know, I should say, though, where Jeremiah Wright is concerned, it's interesting. If you--or introduced to him for the first time just based on the clips that you showed on this program and that have been in heavy rotation, particularly on cable news and on talk radio, you don't get the full measure of, of, of this man and who he is and a sort of full understanding of why Barack Obama may have been attracted to him. Barack Obama is in a difficult position because he has said repeatedly "Words count." And so he can't diminish these words or, or easily step away from them.

But if you just focus on the words, it seems that you ignore something very important. When Jeremiah Wright makes these statements, the amen chorus in that church was very loud. His words resonate with a large number of African-Americans, and the blunt language that he used makes people uncomfortable, you know, when he talks about America's inglorious record on race. And yet many people find, find something that they relate to in those words, and that's what Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton may want to start focusing on, is this chasm that both Ferraro dustup and the Jeremiah Wright dustup seems to point to in this country.

MR. RUSSERT: And yet many African-Americans have said to me in the last 48 hours that their concern was that Obama be seen not as a new kind of African-American leader and that we get caught up in those kinds of climates, comments and hyperbole, which will frighten white Americans and create difficulty for Obama in uniting the country.

MS. NORRIS: That's part of why he was so fresh and new is that he was a voice that was without anger.

MR. BRODER: Well, and I said, I said to Michele a moment ago that what's striking to me is that I don't know Reverend Wright except for these clips, and that's not a basis for judging his whole approach or personality, but his tone seems so far removed from the tone that Obama has tried to strike, not just in this campaign but throughout his political career, that it raises a question in my mind: What was it about Reverend Wright that attracted Obama when he had, as a newcomer to Chicago, choice of any of the number of churches or pastors to go to?

MS. NORRIS: You know, when you talk about tone, though, it's interesting. You're talking about his tone and not his words. The, the sort of fire from the pulpit...

MR. BRODER: Yes.

MS. NORRIS: ...is, is not something that is unusual in an African-American church. That is, that is some--and in fact, in many churches in America. And so what you're dealing with in these, in these statements is in part the words, but also in, in the way that they were delivered. And you're right in noting that is very different from, from what Barack Obama hears. But it's not altogether different from, from what many people are hearing at this moment in churches all across America. [continued]
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23658548/page/4/

Art

Mar17-08, 12:51 PM

I find it hard to fathom how a candidate is responsible for the reported preachings of a minister of the church he is a member of.

Where does guilt by association end? Should all catholics be excluded from running for public office because of the child abuse scandal in that church?

Should jews be banned from seeking office because a jewish Israeli minister recently threatened the Palestinians with a holocaust?

Should protestants be banned because some preachers of their church support racist policies?

I think if you judge people based on things said by people who happen to share some of their views then you would quickly reach the point where the entire poplulation would fail the selection criteria.

Evo

Mar17-08, 01:06 PM

I find it hard to fathom how a candidate is responsible for the reported preachings of a minister of the church he is a member of.If the viewpoints that are in question are known to the church member, then it would stand to reason that the member agrees with those views. If he was not aware, as Obama claims, then it's a non-issue, up to the point that he has become aware. I would expect Obama to change churches now that he has denounced the reverand.

Poop-Loops

Mar17-08, 01:25 PM

Where does guilt by association end?

I see what you are saying, but there's a difference between "I am Religion X and Mr. Fred is Religion X, and he killed a man, therefore I am a bad person for being of Religion X."

and "Mr. Fred is my spokesperson for religious people." If you let a preacher endorse you, you get (generally) the support of that preacher's umm... parishoners? Whatever they are called. In turn, that lets the preacher speak for you a bit. You are essentially weakly coupled and you can't take X and Y separately. The preacher being bat**** insane and you welcoming his support means you welcome his ideas.

I mean honestly, you don't tend to associate with people you have nothing in common with. If you hung out with Stalin or Hitler because they liked to play chess, you'd still be seen as a bad person for hanging out with them, even if you didn't want them to kill anybody. It's just how it is.

slugcountry

Mar17-08, 08:30 PM

This is just pathetic grasping for straws by the corporate media, and bears no real significance.

The only thing wrong with this is that this is yet another story of someone preaching politics from the pulpit - stupid.

As for what this preacher actually said: I've got to say its hard to disagree with any of it on a factual basis.

For that matter is there any proof that this was actually a speech delivered in a church??? This has been the suggestion but how do people know that he wasn't just making a political speech somewhere?

Gokul43201

Mar17-08, 08:41 PM

Some of it was from a Christmas eve sermon. That is definitely abusing the role of the church. That Obama still makes weak excuses for him is quite sad to see. If only Obama were more like his mom when it came to religion...

D H

Mar17-08, 09:29 PM

This is just pathetic grasping for straws by the corporate media, and bears no real significance.
To the contrary. This thread is chock full of pathetic grasping at straws by Obama supporters. The association between Obama and Wright lasted for twenty years. He was Obama's spiritual mentor. This reverend on let loose his wrong side when Obama did not attend services? Please!

As for what this preacher actually said: I've got to say its hard to disagree with any of it on a factual basis.
OK. Kool-aid time.

chemisttree

Mar17-08, 11:51 PM

The real problems for Obama are manifold. If he rejects his spiritual mentor, member of his campaign advisory committee, inspiration for the title and subject of his book "The Audacity of Hope", close friend, etc... it will look just like what it is. And he is throwing a close confidante under the bus in the process. That is certain to raise a few eyebrows. Now he is saying that he wasn't present at the sermons in question. If that can be refuted by an eyewitness, his campaign is through. He really (uncharacteristically) painted himself into a corner with that denial and it remains to be seen if it is believed by many.
The real problem is how he and his wife have been portrayed as behaving. Much has been made of his refusal to wear the American flag on his lapel and his wife's comment that for the first time in her adult life she is proud of America. It will be easy for his political opponents to leave those breadcrumbs lying about to encourage anyone who might have the slightest reservation in supporting him to support another candidate.

Ivan Seeking

Mar18-08, 02:56 AM

If this was an isolated event then I think Obama can ride it out. If not, then he's dead. It may depend in large part on what he says tomorrow [today].

Funny thing is the Jimmy Carter says much the same thing as the Reverend did, just not with all the damning. I think the message could survive, but the tone and language is devestating.

arildno

Mar18-08, 07:58 AM

Obama doesn't support him. In fact he denounced Wright and his statements.

No worse than McCain’s buddies [dispensationalists] who want to start WWIII in order to fulfill biblical prophesy.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=189445
The United States is pre-eminently the country where your religious affiliation is basically a commodity you choose, rather than a tradition you feel responsibility to uphold.

What that means is that a proper denouncement of Mr. Wright would be to quit his Church as a member, and find some better spiritual mentor.

Gokul43201

Mar18-08, 08:50 AM

Funny thing is the Jimmy Carter says much the same thing as the Reverend did, just not with all the damning. Most every conservative preacher in the country has denounced America for being the land of the gay and the home of the greedy. Falwell said that 9/11 was deserved, thanks to the ACLU, gay rights activists, women's rights activists, pro-choicers and evolutionists. And when Falwell died, there wasn't a single news network that could dare to call him the scoundrel that he was. By comparison, what Wright has said here is mild and much of it is true (just not PC to say out loud)!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20080317/cm_huffpost/091774;_ylt=Aq_lH72YCCxOlaE1vskCJXms0NUE
When Senator Obama's preacher thundered about racism and injustice Obama suffered smear-by-association. But when my late father -- Religious Right leader Francis Schaeffer -- denounced America and even called for the violent overthrow of the US government, he was invited to lunch with presidents Ford, Reagan and Bush, Sr.

We've got a preacher who says that America brought 9/11 upon itself through its interventionist foreign policy, and this person is evil. And then we have a preacher who said that America brought 9/11 upon itself for protecting the rights of gays and teaching evolution in schools, but this person is revered by the masses and the powers that be.

Wow!

Gokul43201

Mar18-08, 09:00 AM

I would expect Obama to change churches now that he has denounced the reverand.

What that means is that a proper denouncement of Mr. Wright would be to quit his Church as a member, and find some better spiritual mentor.

Wright is no longer with the Trinity Church. He (was) retired recently.

chemisttree

Mar18-08, 09:38 AM

Every conservative preacher in the country has denounced America for being the land of greed and the home of the gay. Falwell said that 9/11 was deserved, thanks to the ACLU, gay rights activists, women's rights activists, pro-choicers and evolutionists. And when Falwell died, there wasn't a single news network that could dare to call him the scoundrel that he was. By comparison, what Wright has said here is mild and much of it is true (just not PC to say out loud)!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20080317/cm_huffpost/091774;_ylt=Aq_lH72YCCxOlaE1vskCJXms0NUE

We've got a preacher who says that America brought 9/11 upon itself through its interventionist foreign policy, and this person is evil. And then we have a preacher who said that America brought 9/11 upon itself for protecting the rights of gays and teaching evolution in schools, but this person is revered by the masses and the powers that be.

Wow!

True but what we have with Obama runs much deeper than just having lunch together or accepting the support of a dispensationalist. Obama's relationship with this pastor spans over two decades not just a grip and grin or a lunch date. The good pastor has said much more than America brought 9/11 upon itself. The church itself has a web site that preaches some very disturbing doctrine. They have even changed their web page to hide the evidence...

Barack Obama's church is scrambling to undo the impression it is a ministry for blacks only with a radical message. The Web site of the Trinity United Church of Christ has been purged of a section which spoke of the church's endorsement of — "black ethics" that — "must be taught and exemplified....wherever blacks are gathered."

Among those black ethics are "commitment to the black community, commitment to the black family, disavowal of the pursuit of middleclassness and allegiance to all black leadership who espouse and embrace the black value system."http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/17/trinity-united-church-of-christ-makes-changes-to-web-site/

For these Christians, Jesus is not about salvation but is about Black Power. Jesus is more about favoring the poor over the rich, the oppressed over the opressor. That is not a sentiment that I believe will have resonance with most of America, Christian or otherwise.

Gokul43201

Mar18-08, 09:51 AM

They have even changed their web page to hide the evidence... c-tree, I hope that quote is not from NewsMax! Can you add the link as well? Cached versions of websites should be easy to dig up, I'd think.

For these Christians, Jesus is not about salvation but is about Black Power.For an athiest like me, neither of those ideas is particularly appealing, but if these claims are true, then I can see this causing a huge problem for Obama. And I'd be surprised to hear that he'd not planned for this before.

Jesus is more about favoring the poor over the rich, the oppressed over the opressor. That is not a sentiment that I believe will have resonance with most of America, Christian or otherwise.I thought these were things that are true, according to the Bible (what with all the stuff about the meek inheriting the world and the rich man...eye of a needle). I didn't know that the mainstream Christians rejected these views.

chemisttree

Mar18-08, 10:41 AM

From the only TV interview with Pastor Wright:

WRIGHT: The black value system, which was developed by the congregation, by laypersons of the congregation, 26 years ago, very similar to the gospel (INAUDIBLE) developed by laypersons in Nicaragua during the whole liberation theology movement, 26, 28, 30 years ago, yes.

HANNITY: All right, but we're not dealing with — this is on the Web site today. Let me just inform our audience, and I want you to respond, if you can.

It says, "Commitment to God." By the way, I'm with you, and I hope you'll pray for me, Reverend. Commitment to the black community, commitment to the black family, adherence to the black work ethic. It goes on, pledge, you know, acquired skills available to the black community, strengthening and supporting black institutions, pledging allegiance to all black leadership who have embraced the black value system, personal commitment to the embracement of the black value system.

Now, Reverend, if every time we said black, if there was a church and those words were white, wouldn't we call that church racist?

WRIGHT: No, we would call it Christianity. We've been saying that since there was a white Christianity; we've been saying that ever since white Christians took part in the slave trade; we've been saying that ever since they had churches in slave castles.

We don't have to say the word "white." We just have to live in white America, the United States of white America. That's not the issue; you're missing the issue.

As I was trying to say to you, liberation theology — and I thought Eric Rush has studied at a theological seminary that was conservative — I've come to find out he doesn't know anything more about theology than I know about brain surgery.

HANNITY: So here's my point to you, though.

WRIGHT: No, let me finish. No, here's my point to you.

HANNITY: I'm waiting.

WRIGHT: If you're not going to talk about theology in context, if you're not going to talk about liberation theology that came out of the ‘60s, (INAUDIBLE) black liberation theology, that started with Jim Cone in 1968, and the writings of Cone, and the writings of Dwight Hopkins, and the writings of womanist theologians, and Asian theologians, and Hispanic theologians...

HANNITY: Reverend, I've got to get this in.

WRIGHT: Then you can talk about the black value system.

(CROSSTALK)

HANNITY: I'm going to tell you this. Listen...

WRIGHT: Do you know liberation theology, sir? Do you know liberation theology?

HANNITY: I studied theology; I went to a seminary. And I studied Latin.

WRIGHT: Do you know black liberation theology?

HANNITY: I'm very aware of what you're calling black liberation, but let me get my question out.

(CROSSTALK)

WRIGHT: I said, do you know black theology?

HANNITY: Reverend, I'm going to give you a chance to answer my question.

WRIGHT: How many of Cone's books have you read? How many of Cone's book have you read?

You can google black liberation theology and investigate it for yourself. Here is an excerpt from one hit. (http://www.hwhouse.com/aninvestigation.htm)
The message of Christ, it is said, is black power.26 Cone elucidates this theme, "It is my thesis...that Black Power, even in its most radical expression, is not the antithesis of Christianity, nor is it a heretical idea to be tolerated with painful forbearance. It is, rather, Christ's central message to twentieth-century America."27 Similarly and more forcefully, Henry says, "Black Power is not the antithesis of Christianity. It IS Christianity."...

....Of what people is the kingdom of God composed? For God to be true to His nature, black theologian Cone says that His righteousness must be directed to the helpless and the poor. The rich, the secure, and the suburbanite cannot share in God's righteousness because they trust in things of this world .32 Only the one who becomes black can have this righteousness, for reconciliation makes one black. "To be Christian is to be one of those whom God has chosen. God has chosen black people!"
This supposes that 'black' is not merely a skin color but a status of inferiority in society. The term 'white' must therefore mean 'oppressor' and 'sinner'.
To be oppressed is to be black, and to be an oppressor is to be white. ("Black" and "white" relate not to skin pigmentation but to one's attitude and action toward the liberation of the oppressed black people from white racism.

No, this is not normal Christianity and it might greatly harm Obama. There is no amount of distancing from Wright that will change the fact that Obama attends a church based on black liberation theology. Very bad ju ju, I think.

slugcountry

Mar18-08, 01:04 PM

Wright is a product of radical oppression, and though I don't defend him making political statements in a religious context, the fact that people actually have the audacity to call him crazy for making statements like

"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God d--- America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people," he said in a 2003 sermon. "God d--- America for treating our citizens as less than human. God d--- America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

I mean, what part of that could you actually disagree with?? Is any part of that factually WRONG?? No.

The CIA smuggles cocain INTO the country. Historical fact. Just recently we found out that the USA has more people in prison than any other country on earth. Fact. The VAST majority of the prison population is comprised of blacks and other MINORITIES. FACT. The bible DOES say that you are damned for killing innocent people.

Does the government treat its citizens as less than human?? How about Japanese internment camps. How about fire hoses, police dogs, and black demonstrators. How about secret CIA prisons.

No, I'm sorry, but where does the reverend have his facts SO WRONG that this is headline news??

"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," Wright said in a sermon Sept. 16, 2001. "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost," he told his congregation.

Again... which part of this is inaccurate??

Ivan Seeking

Mar18-08, 01:12 PM

This supposes that 'black' is not merely a skin color but a status of inferiority in society. The term 'white' must therefore mean 'oppressor' and 'sinner'.

Historically, black is a status of inferiority. Certainly you're not denying the long history of oppression in this country. And he is using "black" as a metaphor for being disadvanted, and more to the point, meek; that is, unless one can actually "become black".

This is part of the basic philosophy of all Christianity that the meek will inherit the earth [which is how I know that I won't be inheriting much :biggrin:].

Ivan Seeking

Mar18-08, 03:18 PM

Well, I think he did a pretty good job today. He may get past this.

Ivan Seeking

Mar18-08, 03:57 PM

The problem in making this stick is that the issue seeks to portray Obama as a racist - a guy who is biracial - which makes it a pretty tough sell. The only other thing that I see sticking is a credibility issue. If more of this comes out and Obama is being deceitful, then I think he's in big trouble. If this is it, then I think it will soon be ancient history to all but the ardent Obama/liberal/democrat haters.

Gokul43201

Mar18-08, 04:23 PM

I just listened to the most gutsy, hard hitting and honest political speech of any I've heard.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23687688/

lisab

Mar18-08, 04:41 PM

No, this is not normal Christianity and it might greatly harm Obama. There is no amount of distancing from Wright that will change the fact that Obama attends a church based on black liberation theology. Very bad ju ju, I think.

Before making that your final call, watch the speech.

russ_watters

Mar18-08, 04:59 PM

Obama doesn't support him. In fact he denounced Wright and his statements.
I hardly call Obama's statements a denouncement of the man himeself. He said condemned those specific words, but still considers the guy to be pretty much family (page 4, paragraphs 3 and 4) and holds him in the highest esteem. Here's the whole speech: http://www.usatoday.com/news/mmemmottpdf/Obama-race-speech-3-18-2008.pdf

russ_watters

Mar18-08, 05:03 PM

I find it hard to fathom how a candidate is responsible for the reported preachings of a minister of the church he is a member of. I'm not following you here. How is this any different in principle from being a member of the KKK? The point is that you join the organization because it reflects your beliefs. You listen to the sermons because you like what you hear. He is absolutely accountable for that association. Where does guilt by association end? Should all catholics be excluded from running for public office because of the child abuse scandal in that church? Child abuse is illegal and is not any kind of policy of the church. The church condems it. Besides - no one said anything about banning anyone from runnning - Obama simplly has to convince people he doesn't believe the kinds of things this guy says. But that will be tough considering how close the association is - and you vastly understate the nature of the relationship.

russ_watters

Mar18-08, 05:11 PM

The United States is pre-eminently the country where your religious affiliation is basically a commodity you choose, rather than a tradition you feel responsibility to uphold. For a lot of people, it is much, much more than that, and I believe Obama is such a person. What that means is that a proper denouncement of Mr. Wright would be to quit his Church as a member, and find some better spiritual mentor. Perhaps, but chemisttree is right - Obama is trapped.

russ_watters

Mar18-08, 05:16 PM

Most every conservative preacher in the country has denounced America for being the land of the gay and the home of the greedy. Falwell said that 9/11 was deserved, thanks to the ACLU, gay rights activists, women's rights activists, pro-choicers and evolutionists. And when Falwell died, there wasn't a single news network that could dare to call him the scoundrel that he was. By comparison, what Wright has said here is mild and much of it is true (just not PC to say out loud)! People generally don't spit on the graves of others even if they deserve it. So that's a non sequitur.

Still, here's an article from the day he died that goes into detail about why people disliked him. It's a full third of the article: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/15/jerry.falwell/index.html We've got a preacher who says that America brought 9/11 upon itself through its interventionist foreign policy, and this person is evil. And then we have a preacher who said that America brought 9/11 upon itself for protecting the rights of gays and teaching evolution in schools, but this person is revered by the masses and the powers that be.

Wow! Wow is right: most of those statements are wildly inaccurate! Falwell was a very controvertial person and was certainly not universally admired. And Obama's preacher said things much worse than how you paraphrased it.

russ_watters

Mar18-08, 05:24 PM

The problem in making this stick is that the issue seeks to portray Obama as a racist - a guy who is biracial - which makes it a pretty tough sell. It really isn't a tough sell at all, it's a simple truth: Some of the worst racists are people who are racist against their own kind (I suspect, for example, many people here - myself included - have an automatic prejudice against certain types of southern whites). That's the point that chemisstree was making and you missed. By labeling blacks as automatically the "meek", he is putting them in a box and putting them down. That's stereotyping. That's racism.

But also, Obama pointed out in his speech today that his own white grandmother is racist against blacks.

Art

Mar18-08, 05:26 PM

I'm not following you here. How is this any different in principle from being a member of the KKK? .lol As a right-wing conservative supporter Obama must be really worrying you.

I think you will find membership of a group or organisation is based on sharing the core beliefs and mission statements of the group in question. If you do not see a difference between being a member of a group whose core belief is christianity against being a member of a group whose core belief is protestant white supremacy then that's pretty pitiful.

Ivan Seeking

Mar18-08, 05:35 PM

It really isn't a tough sell at all, it's a simple truth: Some of the worst racists are people who are racist against their own kind (I suspect, for example, many people here - myself included - have an automatic prejudice against certain types of southern whites). That's the point that chemisstree was making and you missed. By labeling blacks as automatically the "meek", he is putting them in a box and putting them down. That's stereotyping. That's racism.

But also, Obama pointed out in his speech today that his own white grandmother is racist against blacks.

My point was that it is tough to paint Obama as a racist. [Edit] Oh, I see what you were saying. I seriously doubt that anything will come out that supports that notion. This would be entirely inconsistent with his message and demeanor, and I doubt that anyone but extremists would believe it unless we see more evidence of this sort of thing.

As for how Wright was stereotyping blacks, yes, he is old school, and some old school blacks are angry. But what you see as stereotyping was not long ago the bond that united blacks. "We are the oppressed" [and we shall overcome] was the battle cry for the civil rights movement.

Meek? Know your place, boy.

Gokul43201

Mar18-08, 06:29 PM

People generally don't spit on the graves of others even if they deserve it. So that's a non sequitur. Did you miss that part where I did not restrict this to Falwell? Can show me any of the times that politicians had to hide the fact that they openly displayed support and camaraderie for people like Falwell?

Still, here's an article from the day he died that goes into detail about why people disliked him. It's a full third of the article: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/15/jerry.falwell/index.htmlI still don't see anything in the article denouncing him or his statements. Do you? It even quotes a conservative spokesman saying that people who disliked Falwell still admired him.

Wow is right: most of those statements are wildly inaccurate!Which ones?

Falwell was a very controvertial person and was certainly not universally admired.Who said anything about controversial? I claim that Falwell is a divisive, hate-mongering bigot and fraud. These are just the kinds of words being used to describe Wright (okay, he hasn't been called a fraud, yet), but I've never seen anything similar said (by anyone other than Christopher Hitchens) about the Falwell, Robertson, Schaeffer or the other revered megachurch pastors that win elections for the Republicans.

Also, I didn't say Falwell was universally admired. But it is clear that far from being the kind of liability that Wright has become, Falwell was an ally you needed to have in order to endear yourself to the conservative right. McCain, who previously couldn't stand Falwell had to suddenly become chummy with him when it came time to run for President.

There's a huge boatload of selectivity when it comes to denouncing godmen. Preachers that call feminists and homosexuals evil are controversial (though powerful election winners) while people that call rich, white folk evil are hateful bigots.

And Obama's preacher said things much worse than how you paraphrased it.Let's get into the details then. What exactly is much worse? The only thing I found notably different about Wright is that he's also a nutty conspiracy theorist.

chemisttree

Mar18-08, 09:54 PM

The debate here might be a moot point. The voters of PA are lining up in very interesting ways. Still too early to see if this trend will persist or begin to be reflected in the National polls.

A fresh poll from Quinnipiac (doesn't that sound like a character in a Herman Melville novel?) University finds Hillary Clinton adding to her lead over Barack Obama in the April 22 Pennsylvania primary. And you can't help but think some of this stems from the debate over race and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Race does matter, judging by the poll numbers. Overall, Clinton led Obama 53% to 41% among all likely primary voters, a widened gap over the 49% to 43% lead she had Feb. 27. The poll, conducted over six days ending Sunday, has an unusually tight margin of error of 2.7%, which means Obama's slide is within the margin but Clinton's gain exceeds it.

The most interesting stuff, as usual, is in the details. The poll found that the racial gap has widened. White voters preferred Clinton by 61% to 33%, a change from the 56% to 37% lead last month. Similarly, black voters backed Obama 76% to 18% percent, compared with a 69% to 23% earlier finding.
That is a blog from from the LA Times (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/03/hillary-clint-8.html), so believe it at your peril...

Gokul43201

Mar18-08, 11:31 PM

That's just the LA Times being sloppy. Clinton's lead in the 5 most recent polls before the Quinnipiac poll have been 13%, 19%, 14%, 18% and 15%. What is notable though, is a new PPP poll, conducted in PA entirely after the Wright incident (but before the Philly speech), which gives Hillary a 26% lead.

mjsd

Mar19-08, 04:45 AM

I find it hard to fathom how a candidate is responsible for the reported preachings of a minister of the church he is a member of.

I find it even harder to fathom how John McCain managed to shrink from Pastor John Hagee and Pastor Rod Parsley (who he did not even reject or denounce) so easily and with almost no media coverage, whereas Obama is losing so much popularity for this Rev. Wright whose comments Obama has repeatedly rejected.

Strange world? Or are we all a bit biased?

Ironically, Obama tried to boost his "christian" credentials (and counter any "is he a muslim?" talks) by pointing out to ppl that he has been attending that church for more than 20 years... ha, now he is in trouble for being associated with that church for too long.

God Bless America.

arildno

Mar19-08, 05:48 AM

Ironically, Obama tried to boost his "christian" credentials (and counter any "is he a muslim?" talks)
Well, has he denounced Louis Farrakhan yet?
And how about his close association with the Kenyan Odinga, responsible for stirring up the recent Muslim attacks on churches there?

arildno

Mar19-08, 06:20 AM

For a lot of people, it is much, much more than that, and I believe Obama is such a person. .
No argument there, russ.

But measurements of "absolute" commitment (i.e, how strongly you feel about your community) should be put into perspective relatively:

In the US, as long as you are member of SOME church community, then it doesn't mattter for your public standing whether you are a Baptist, Catholic etc. Nor, do I think, does it attach any particular stigma to leave one church and join another.

This is by no means the same in many other countries, where traditional belonging counts more than that the individual finds that church to which he or she feels the strongest affinity.

That is why it is extremely disturbing that Mr. Obama have had this person as his spiritual guide; he cannot have been ignorant of the hatred Wright has spewed out during his ministry.

If Obama had individually become repulsed by the rantings of Wright, no one would have thought the worse of him if he had changed his affiliation (which would in other countries have been more difficult).
But he didn't.
And he wasn't interested in distancing himself either, prior to external pressure.

Unfortunately, therefore, it is quite probable that Mr. Obama shares several of Reverend Wright's attitudes.

lisab

Mar19-08, 08:05 AM

Unfortunately, therefore, it is quite probable that Mr. Obama shares several of Reverend Wright's attitudes.

I don't agree.

I have a lot of friends who have points of view that I don't share. In fact, the older the relationship, the more likely our views will have diverged over the years. I choose to keep those friendships alive in spite of our differences, because old friendships have value.

Obama, a Harvard-trained lawyer and former editor of the Harvard Law Review, does not strike me as a person who conforms his opinions to those around him. Quite the opposite, in fact - he comes across to me like a person who can influence others to understand his point of view. And he can do that without roiling up emotions.

In his speech yesterday (3-18), he describes the complexity of his relationship with Wright. People don't seem to understand it...maybe, because they don't choose to have any friends with beliefs different from theirs.

arildno

Mar19-08, 08:10 AM

Well, do you sit in front of your friend lapping up the hateful rants he flings out from the pulpit?

That is what Mr. Obama has done for 20 years.

Art

Mar19-08, 08:15 AM

'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone'

Funny how the right-wing manages to suppress their righteous indignation when right wing ministers who are close friends of conservative politicians spew their hate filled rhetoric and yet fall over themselves to denounce a left-winger like Wright without actually being able to point out anything factually wrong with what he has said.

arildno

Mar19-08, 08:22 AM

"We are the oppressed" [and we shall overcome] was the battle cry for the civil rights movement..

No, it was not. "I have a dream" was the rallying cry.

Those who screamed "We are oppressed" joined terrorist groups like the Black Panthers.

arildno

Mar19-08, 08:46 AM

Furthermore, the despicable smearing Obama made of his granmother shows precisely what type of person he is. She didn't deserve this, she was not a public person.

Here is Bruce Bawer on that:
Watching Obama's speech, I winced at his equation of unspecified remarks by his maternal grandmother ("on more than one occasion [she] has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe") with Wright's twenty years of wacko racist harangues. "He's throwing his grandmother under the bus," I caught myself thinking. Reading online comments about the speech, I've been struck by the number of times I've run across that exact metaphor: "He threw Grandma under the bus!" This line from the speech has plainly resonated very strongly with a lot of people, and with good reason, for it says something important about his character - something that somehow managed to slip through all the painstakingly calculated image-mongering.

brucebawer.com

RonL

Mar19-08, 09:37 AM

Well I'm really on the fence at this time.
When i see, and hear the quality of presentation from Obama, and i then think what would George W. say to get out of the same situation, i cringe a little.
I remember almost the exact same controversy, when Kennedy ran for office, and every one said we would all be Catholic 6 months later.:frown:
This man seems to have the intelligence, and skill, to serve as a good mediator between the great divide we witnessed at the end of the OJ trial, to me this was a truly shocking revelation, of how our country is divided, even at this time and date.

There have been few that show the ability to accomplish some of the things this country needs to overcome this, deep, and strong separation. Maybe he is the first step to a better unity in this United States of America.

Who would he bring in ?

arildno

Mar19-08, 09:57 AM

Well, the problem is that actions tell more than pretty words.

If you are sincerely interested in reconciliation and mediation, you do NOT choose to associate yourself with a hate-filled divisive racist like Mr. Wright.

There have been numerous other reverends than him, with a lot more moral competence that Obama could have affiliated with, but he CHOSE to join the most hate-filled, bigoted church around.

Mr. Wright's generation was not, as Obama smears them, all filled with an irrational hatred and anger towards whiteys, there were lots of sane, moral persons around. Some of them even became reverends! Why did Obama not join them?

lisab

Mar19-08, 10:31 AM

...and, breathe!

You're a bit ranty right now, so I'm probably wasting my time. But if you think he threw his grandma "under the bus," if you think he has been "lapping up hateful rants," you totally missed the point he was making in his speech.

You have no idea if Trinity is "the most hate-filled, bigoted church around", but clearly you want to believe that.

Your mind had been made up and closed before Obama stepped onto the podium on Tuesday.

arildno

Mar19-08, 10:41 AM

Ranty?
Look at how Obama smears all blacks of Wright's generation to have the same racist, fascist attitudes as him:
This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What’s remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn’t make it – those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations – those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright’s generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years

That is, the type of bitterness Wright has was a perfectly "normal" , even necessary, thing.

Obama could have joined churches of Martin Luther King's version, there are many of these. He chose not to.

Art

Mar19-08, 12:02 PM

Ranty?
Look at how Obama smears all blacks of Wright's generation to have the same racist, fascist attitudes as him:

That is, the type of bitterness Wright has was a perfectly "normal" , even necessary, thing.

Obama could have joined churches of Martin Luther King's version, there are many of these. He chose not to.So people who were oppressed and discriminated against shouldn't be angry about it and if they are this is not normal behaviour? Such ingrates = it seems you just can't get good slaves these days who know and accept their lot. You must really miss the good old days :rolleyes:

Astronuc

Mar19-08, 12:09 PM

I don't see where Obama smears older African-Americans (of Wright's generation), but in fact, he provide a reasonably accurate assessment based on my experience.

What’s remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn’t make it – those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations That is exactly how it is. Obama seems to be praising/marveling about those who succeeded while acknowledging those who didn't.

My best friend and colleague during my undergrad NE program is African-American from the south side of Chicago. He survived the environment of the 60's and 70's, and was a mediocre student through high school. Then he bloomed in university and went straight-A (except for one B) in his undergrad program. The B came from a professor who didn't think blacks should/could be that successful (I know this personally). He made perfect marks in his MS and PhD programs.

And I've seen the other side where white kids insulted and taunted black kids, some of whom were my friends, and later as an adult, I saw the racism and segragation first hand. One summer, I worked with a group of African-Americans at one company, and the last day when I said good-bye (I was headed back to university), one of them thanked me for the time we spent together and said "You know, you're not like other white people." I was stunned and sad, but I expressed my appreciation for the time I spent with them.

Recently on trip to NY City, I sat behind a group of African Americans. I could help but overhear the conversation in the two rows of seats in front of me. One guy rambled on about how tough it was to be black, and that "the system" was still putting down black men/boys. I just kept quiet. There was not point in disputing that rant.

As for Trinity United Church of Christ, members dispute the reports that apparently characterize the church as hate-filled, bigoted.

Chicagoans: Reports Misrepresent Obama's Church
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88552254
Morning Edition, March 19, 2008 · The Rev. Jeremiah Wright's comments from the pulpit at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago have put the spotlight on his church and his relationship with Sen. Barack Obama. The church being portrayed in the media, however, is unrecognizable to many who are familiar with the congregation.

He [Obama] denounced the harshness of Wright's words — not because they were false, he said, but because they did not acknowledge the strides that the U.S. has made in the fight against racism. Obama said his own candidacy shows how far the country has come. A Closer Look at Black Liberation Theology (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88512189)

Ivan Seeking

Mar19-08, 02:00 PM

he CHOSE to join the most hate-filled, bigoted church around.

One video of one sermon makes this the most hate-filled bigoted church around? How do you justify that statement?

Have you seen what I linked about McCains buddies? They WANT to start WWIII!

Ivan Seeking

Mar19-08, 02:04 PM

Interestingly, one of the most common comments made about Obama's speech yesterday is that college students, and even parents and their children should watch it and get an education. He takes on issues that most politicians are afraid to touch.

Astronuc

Mar19-08, 02:07 PM

One should be careful not to equate one minister with a church. The church body is the congregation, not the minisiter.

Contrapositive

Mar19-08, 03:07 PM

At first I was really shocked and offended by Wright. But then I realized it really isn't anymore hateful than most other Churches supported by other politicians (gay hating, anti-abortionists, etc.). The only difference is Wright speaks with a higher volume in his rants, which makes it "hate-speech." But he at least has some merit in what he says (blacks are at a disadvantage in a lot of circumstances), although that does not excuse his vulgarity.

mheslep

Mar19-08, 03:20 PM

I just listened to the most gutsy, hard hitting and honest political speech of any I've heard.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23687688/Then you've never heard MLK's 'I have a dream' speech.

mheslep

Mar19-08, 03:24 PM

Historically, black is a status of inferiority. Certainly you're not denying the long history of oppression in this country. And he is using "black" as a metaphor for being disadvanted, ...I think this is why Sen Obama can't win the general election. He's a talented politician but as long as a large group of his supporters feel they have to preface descriptions of him this way the US will not elect him.

TVP45

Mar19-08, 07:44 PM

I think there may be three religious/theological points that help explain this situation. First, before anyone argues my defense of Reverend Wright, that is not my intention and I won't go there. In fact, I strongly disagree with at least 60% of what the Reverend said in those clips (9/11 was not in any sense our fault and I believe the atomic bombs, or something similar, became inevitable in 1922 when the Washington Naval Treaty was signed).

But, an understanding of how a mainstream church (UCC really is not a nutty cult) could allow or tolerate some of what Reverend Wright said requires a little explanation. One thing that startled a lot of people was the vehemence with which he delivered his message, but that is simply the style seen in most Black churches. I've seen the same arm waving and shouting used to announce an upcoming potluck dinner to raise money for youth fellowship.

The second point is that very few people in the pews actually listen to or obey the words in the sermon. At least once every three years, most Christians get told that they absolutely, positively must treat their neighbor as good as themselves. On the way out the door, most of those people gossip about the Jews or complain about the dirty panhandlers. Most church attendance involves only lip service and not even a lot of that.

The third point is that Black churches have a fundamentally different theology from most White churches - they are steeped in the last part of the Hebrew scriptures which many people call the Prophets. Even when the lexionary rolls around to Micah, most White ministers speed read through it and deliver their sermon on a topic from the New Testament (perhaps the woman at the well for the ninth time?). Very few White churchgoers can name more than a few of the prophets and almost certainly have not read their books. Yet, many Black ministers regularly deliver sermons on Micah or Amos or Isaiah, and those books are fully of angy condemnations and calling down of curses. I quote from Jeremiah where God tells the Israelites what he is doing to them for their perfidy,
"Dead bodies are scattered everywhere, like piles of manure on the fields..." Not a nice message like the woman at the well.

For what it's worth, I have heard a Reform Rabbi deliver an equally strong sermon, save in measured, scholarly words, and nobody batted an eyelash.

russ_watters

Mar19-08, 07:58 PM

I think you will find membership of a group or organisation is based on sharing the core beliefs and mission statements of the group in question. If you do not see a difference between being a member of a group whose core belief is christianity against being a member of a group whose core belief is protestant white supremacy then that's pretty pitiful. Um, I'm not sure if you are just choosing not to look at what's already been posted, but the "core belief" in question here is not christianity, it is racist, militant black nationalism.

And you know nothing of my beliefs on Obama in general. In fact, I vastly prefer him to Hillary. I actually like the guy. But this does seriously shake my opinion of him.

russ_watters

Mar19-08, 08:03 PM

I'll make a bold prediction here. Obama is finished. As discussed before, he's trapped by this and there really isn't any way out. A significant fraction of blacks are going to see him as a sellout and a significant fraction of whites are going to see him as a potential racist, militant black nationalist.

And I'll go a step further: he's going to take Hillary down with him. See here's the problem for the Democrats: With Obama likely to be leading heading into the convention, a late surge by Hillary and a loss of the confidence of his constituency will shift the superdelegates to support Hillary, which will push her over the top. This will disenfranchise the black community, causing them to stay home on election day.

He hasn't just trapped himself here, he's trapped his party.

Art

Mar19-08, 08:06 PM

Um, I'm not sure if you are just choosing not to look at what's already been posted, but the "core belief" in question here is not christianity, it is racist, militant black nationalism. Shouldn't you have prefaced that with an IMO or are you going to provide a source to substantiate your ridiculous slanderous claim that the core belief of the church Obama belongs to is not Christianity but racist, black militancy

And you know nothing of my beliefs on Obama in general. In fact, I vastly prefer him to Hillary. I actually like the guy. But this does seriously shake my opinion of him. It seems most GOP supporters think Obama is a far better candidate than Clinton which is why they are trying so hard to ensure Clinton gets the democratic nomination.

Evo

Mar19-08, 08:38 PM

This is a great article, from a link Zz provided on anoher story.

Was it Too Little, Too Late?

Why Obama's brilliant speech may not help him.

http://www.theroot.com/id/45336

mheslep

Mar19-08, 09:23 PM

This is a great article, from a link Zz provided on anoher story.

Was it Too Little, Too Late?

Why Obama's brilliant speech may not help him.

http://www.theroot.com/id/45336

per the author it's because
...it appears that only a candidate that is politically whiter than Senator Obama can win high national office...?
Could you say something about why you think this is a great article?

mheslep

Mar19-08, 09:58 PM

Shelby Steele piece yesterday.
The Obama Bargain (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120579535818243439.html?mod=mostpop)

His observation and comment on Sen. Obama's statement:
"I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views . . ." is relevant to the topic at hand in that as the 'screen' takes on nuance and contrast the free 'projection' must change as well.

russ_watters

Mar19-08, 10:18 PM

Shouldn't you have prefaced that with an IMO or are you going to provide a source to substantiate your ridiculous slanderous claim that the core belief of the church Obama belongs to is not Christianity but racist, black militancy No, the quotes were already provided. You really should read them. It seems most GOP supporters think Obama is a far better candidate than Clinton which is why they are trying so hard to ensure Clinton gets the democratic nomination. No, Clinton is so bad, the risk is too great. I'd much prefer a race between McCain and Obama because at least if McCain loses, we don't end up with Hillary.

rbj

Mar19-08, 10:25 PM

No, Clinton is so bad, the risk is too great. I'd much prefer a race between McCain and Clinton because at least if McCain loses, we don't end up with Hillary.

so if McCain loses and Clinton (i presume not Chelsea) is the other candidate, how do we not end up with Hillary?

typo?

russ_watters

Mar19-08, 10:26 PM

This is a great article, from a link Zz provided on anoher story.

Was it Too Little, Too Late?

Why Obama's brilliant speech may not help him.

http://www.theroot.com/id/45336 Not sure I agree that it's a great article. It's very one-sided and he shows the common militant black nationalist attitude that only whites can be racist and that there can be no such thing as reverse discrimination. Ie:
It was too little in that while addressing race it equated white racial resentment (which scholars know is really just a more polite label for white racism) with the black anger and skepticism that comes out of past and current racial discrimination. When I applied for the Air Force Academy, a recruiter came to my house to talk to me about it. He told me that with my test scores and grades, he could assure me that I'd get in -- if only I were black. But since I'm white, I'd have a tough time. He was black and was telling me for the sake of honesty and I believe he meant it when he said he found affirmative action offensive (I had a close black friend at the Naval Academy who also considered it offensive). How can it be ok for them to believe that it is unfair, but it must be racism if I agree that it is unfair?

He's right that a lot of whites won't go for Obama if they believe he's too close with the militants, but the author is one of them and doesn't recognize that there are a significant number of blacks out there who have grown past that -- and Obama is one who claims to be past it!

rbj

Mar19-08, 10:29 PM

russ_watters

Mar19-08, 10:30 PM

so if McCain loses and Clinton (i presume not Chelsea) is the other candidate, how do we not end up with Hillary?

typo? Yes.....corrected.

Caveat: I have a generally favorable opinion of Chelsea.

russ_watters

Mar19-08, 10:32 PM

wow! every commentator i heard that wasn't a dittohead or on Faux News said that Obama hit it out of the park. terms like "an historical event". Didn't you just provide your own other side of the coin? Of course the liberal part of the media said Obama hit it out of the park. They're liberal! And of course the conservative part said he didn't. They're conservative!

Yes, those are the two possibilities!

[edit] Btw, commentators are commentators, not reporters. They are not bound by even the promise or presumption of impartiality. They are not reporting the news, they are telling you their personal opinion. If you read the news stories, the news is not so overwhealming that he "hit it out of the park". Ie: Thursday's speech at 11 a.m. ET in Charleston, W.Va., addresses a third problem: his trouble expanding his appeal among working-class white voters, exacerbated by the Wright episode. These voters are a significant presence in coming primaries, and their concerns center on jobs and health care.

Obama has lost ground in several polls conducted as the Wright controversy exploded on TV and the Internet. A Gallup tracking poll Wednesday showed Clinton ahead 49%-42% in the nomination race — "the first time Clinton has held a statistically significant lead in over a month," Gallup said. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-03-19-politics_N.htm

The article basically says it is too early to know how much it will affect him, but that it certainly is a significant problem.

russ_watters

Mar19-08, 10:37 PM

Poop-Loops

Mar19-08, 10:42 PM

russ_watters

Mar19-08, 10:58 PM

No worse than McCain’s buddies [dispensationalists] who want to start WWIII in order to fulfill biblical prophesy.
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=189445 I let this go when I first saw it, but how about some substantiation to the claim and the implication that it this is a driver of McCain's philosophy or that they are his "buddies"? McCain attended a lobbyists' dinner and the only quote he gave was a joke. That implies to me that he was trying to cover his real opinion: that he thinks they are nuts.

Ivan Seeking

Mar20-08, 12:07 AM

Why is he kissing-up to people who state explicity that they want to start WWIII? He refuses to denounce them or their beliefs because he can't afford to lose the support of religious extremists. That's who got Bush elected, and without them McCain doesn't have a prayer [so to speak]. So either McCain agrees with them as a worst case, or at best he is a hypocrite.

Does McCain believe in bible prophesy? Does he feel a religious duty to protect Israel at all costs?

Gokul43201

Mar20-08, 12:25 AM

Well, has he denounced Louis Farrakhan yet? A long time ago.

And how about his close association with the Kenyan Odinga, responsible for stirring up the recent Muslim attacks on churches there?What "close association"? Incidentally, Kibaki is just as complicit in the Kenyan violence as Odinga; he was just more politically astute about covering it up.

That is why it is extremely disturbing that Mr. Obama have had this person as his spiritual guide; he cannot have been ignorant of the hatred Wright has spewed out during his ministry.Hatred for what? Hatred for racism? Hatred for US government policy decisions? Hatred for a culture that has marginalized blacks for decades?

Unfortunately, therefore, it is quite probable that Mr. Obama shares several of Reverend Wright's attitudes.Which ones in particular?

Well, do you sit in front of your friend lapping up the hateful rants he flings out from the pulpit?

That is what Mr. Obama has done for 20 years.And you have proof of this?

Furthermore, the despicable smearing Obama made of his granmother shows precisely what type of person he is. She didn't deserve this, she was not a public person.It is not smearing if it is true. And it is far from despicable if it was used with permission.

To make a case that this was despicable smearing you need to provide proof that :
1. it was a lie, and
2. it was said without permission.

Well, the problem is that actions tell more than pretty words.

If you are sincerely interested in reconciliation and mediation, you do NOT choose to associate yourself with a hate-filled divisive racist like Mr. Wright.

There have been numerous other reverends than him, with a lot more moral competence that Obama could have affiliated with, but he CHOSE to join the most hate-filled, bigoted church around.Your assertion suggests an intimate knowledge of the black churches in south Chicago. I'd like to see evidence that this is indeed the most hate-filled, bigoted church in the area. I'll even settle for anything that shows that this was among the more bigoted churches in the region.

Mr. Wright's generation was not, as Obama smears them, all filled with an irrational hatred and anger towards whiteys,I've read the portion you've quoted and I don't see this smear anywhere in it. Could you point out the exact words?

there were lots of sane, moral persons around. Some of them even became reverends! Why did Obama not join them?Maybe, during the week that Obama had devoted to pastor shopping, during the various interviews he held with different pastors, he didn't find anything particularly immoral or insane about Wright? Maybe he even found that his church had done a lot of good in the recent past, and had given hope and opportunity to more hopeless people than the other churches that he visited?

I don't know why he picked the particular church and pastor. I don't know what other churches and pastors he had to choose from, and what they were like. I suspect his choice would have been different if his first introduction to Wright was a Youtube video.

Then you've never heard MLK's 'I have a dream' speech.I misspoke. I was thinking only of speeches that have been made during my adult life, over the last decade or so. But it seems that one does have to go back to MLK to look for comparisons.

I'll make a bold prediction here. Obama is finished. As discussed before, he's trapped by this and there really isn't any way out. A significant fraction of blacks are going to see him as a selloutIf there's anything that Obama has shown in his speeches, he's shown that he is not a sellout. It would have been so easy for him to pander to the black community, as Hillary has been pandering to women, but he hasn't once done that. I strongly doubt that blacks will now suddenly see him as a sellout because of some words by his nutty pastor.

and a significant fraction of whites are going to see him as a potential racist, militant black nationalist.I suspect, that most of those that do, previously saw him as a militant Islamic nationalist, or a druglord, or a "nigger" anyway! I suspect there may be many fence sitters that now see him as either being a dishonest opportunist (i.e., no different from any other politician) or a spineless sucker to religious authority (again...).

And I'll go a step further: he's going to take Hillary down with him. See here's the problem for the Democrats: With Obama likely to be leading heading into the convention, a late surge by Hillary and a loss of the confidence of his constituency will shift the superdelegates to support Hillary, which will push her over the top. I'll call your bet on this one!

I'd also like to understand how it is that McCain does not have to denounce Falwell for saying that if he found his dog were homosexual, he'd take it out and shoot it; for the position of the Moral Majority that homosexuals should be executed by the government; for blaming 9/11 on feminists, secularists and gays; for claiming that AIDS is god's punishment to a society that tolerates gays...for saying that "good christians, like slaves and soldiers, ask no questions.

chemisttree

Mar20-08, 12:33 AM

The only thing I found notably different about Wright is that he's also a nutty conspiracy theorist.

The nutty conspiracy theorist, is being viewed by others as being a hateful racist. Believing that Bush and Cheney conspired to destroy the twin towers to start a war on terrorism by which they personally profited is a nutty conspiracy theory. Preaching (from the pulpit?) that White America brought AIDS into the inner city to kill blacks is both racist and hateful. How can that be acceptable to anyone of intelligence? Preaching that the inner city drug problem is a product of the US Government is equally hateful. Drawing 'colored' lines of black and white to replace the terms 'opressed' and 'opressor' and using the terms to mean these things and skin color interchangeably in the same sermon is equally divisive and offensive. And this isn't a fabrication of Wright's design, although he is an enthusiatic apostle, it is the central organizing principle of the church.

Personally, I am greatly offended by black liberation theology which equates my skin color with opressor, sinner.... at least as offended as the pastor is to the most negative of stereotypes associated with his own skin color. Should my reaction to his interpretation of scripture be any less vehemently negative than his own interpretation of what he calls White Christianity or White America? I think it is too late for Barak to react to this. His time was overdue about 20 years ago. He's trapped.

I would think that a good friend, confidante, advisor would let those sentiments slip out a bit in the most causual of conversation at least once in the perhaps thousands of times that Barak interacted with him over the last 20 years. Not once, if you believe Barak and frankly, I don't. Especially since he disinvited Mr. Wright from giving the invocation at his campaign announcement because, "You can get kind of rough in the sermons... (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/us/politics/06obama.html)". That doesn't sound like he hasn't heard it before from his pastor.

I don't think Obama's speech did much more than tune up the Choir... on both sides. This is a long way from being over, I think.

chemisttree

Mar20-08, 12:57 AM

AI'd also like to understand how it is that McCain does not have to denounce Falwell for saying that if he found his dog were homosexual, he'd take it out and shoot it; for the position of the Moral Majority that homosexuals should be executed by the government; for blaming 9/11 on feminists, secularists and gays; for claiming that AIDS is god's punishment to a society that tolerates gays...for saying that "good christians, like slaves and soldiers, ask no questions.

McCain has already done that.

wildman

Mar20-08, 12:58 AM

This is pretty common type of speaking for black preachers.

mjsd

Mar20-08, 05:57 AM

That is why it is extremely disturbing that Mr. Obama have had this person as his spiritual guide; he cannot have been ignorant of the hatred Wright has spewed out during his ministry.
........
And he wasn't interested in distancing himself either, prior to external pressure.

Unfortunately, therefore, it is quite probable that Mr. Obama shares several of Reverend Wright's attitudes.

Talking about spiritual guide. I am actually more worried about McCain's infamous televanglist Rev. Rod Parsley who said

"... America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion (Islam) destroyed..." quote from Silent no more by Rev. Rod Parsley

just how wrong can you be?

But then again, I guess, McCain was only using Parsley to win votes in Ohio when he was still fighting Huckabee, so it is quite probable that his association with Parsley is only a superficial one. Ok, to all conservatives out there, don't be fooled by McCain, he cannot be a true conservative! :eek:

Art

Mar20-08, 06:59 AM

No, the quotes were already provided. You really should read them. Is there a reason why you believe the forum guidelines do not apply to you?

2) Citations of sources for any factual claims (primary sources should be used whenever possible).
3) Any counter-arguments to statements already made must clearly state the point on which there is disagreement, the reason(s) why a different view is held, and cite appropriate sources to counter the argument.
4) When stating an opinion on an issue, make sure it is clearly stated to be an opinion and not asserted as fact.

Gokul43201

Mar20-08, 07:50 PM

McCain has already done that.He did that in 2000. And last year* he took it all back saying he had spoken hastily.

When McCain ran for president the last time, he denounced Falwell as one of America's "agents of intolerance." But now that McCain is gearing up to run for president as the GOP's establishment candidate, he has told Falwell that he spoke "in haste" in 2000.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=1779141

* Late Edit: That should read "a couple of years back" instead of "last year".

Evo

Mar20-08, 08:04 PM

He did that in 2000. And last year he took it all back saying he had spoken hastily.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=1779141Uhm, Gokul, that link is from 2006, you DO know that Falwell died in May of 2007?

Gokul43201

Mar20-08, 08:18 PM

Didn't you just provide your own other side of the coin? Of course the liberal part of the media said Obama hit it out of the park. They're liberal! And of course the conservative part said he didn't. They're conservative!

Yes, those are the two possibilities!Not every conservative - a few honest ones gave the speech its due. And most independents called it historic, as well.

Here's an example:

http://blogs.forbes.com/digitalrules/2008/03/a-speech-for-th.html

A Speech For The Ages

As a Republican who will vote for John McCain in November, I watched Barack Obama's Philadelphia speech with awe--as a New England Patriots fan might have watched the New York Giants' Eli Manning hit David Tyree with 75 seconds to go.
...
He stepped to the plate and swung for the fences. Obama gave the best, straightest talk on American race relations ever heard from a national politician.
...
The only conservative pundit who got it right was Charles Murray. He wrote:

Has any other major American politician ever made a speech on race that comes even close to this one? As far as I'm concerned, it is just plain flat out brilliant rhetorically but also in capturing a lot of nuance about race in America. It is so far above the standard we're used to from our pols...

Murray is dead-nuts right. Give Obama his due. This was a speech for the ages. It will live as long as America lives.

Astronuc

Mar20-08, 08:23 PM

My conservative colleagues were impressed with Obama's speech. These guys are real So Cal conservatives (bordering on libertarians). They all agree that Bush is a disaster, and for all intents and purposes, they'd no sooner vote for McCain than Hillary.

Gokul43201

Mar20-08, 08:24 PM

Uhm, Gokul, that link is from 2006, you DO know that Falwell died in May of 2007?Of course I know that - I remember rejoicing when I heard it (I even talked about the media coverage of his death in an earlier post in this thread). And naturally, McCain would have to make friends with Falwell while Falwell was still alive. I don't get your point.

PS: If you're saying I'm wrong about the "last year" part, okay, I was ballparking it. So, it was 2 years ago. Does that change anything?

Evo

Mar20-08, 08:28 PM

Of course I know that - I remember rejoicing when I heard it. And naturally, McCain would have to make friends with Falwell while Falwell was still alive. I don't get your point.You said the article was from last year. Just wanted to make sure you knew his waffling was 2 years ago, no telling where his loyalties lie now. I'm not for McCain as I am afraid of him succumbing to the religious right to gain a stronger hold with the Republican party

I don't trust any politician that touts religion. I am leary of Obama now because he seems to genuinely feel influenced by religion and racial issues he seems to be tied to that I wasn't aware of before. I thought before that it was a non-issue, now I have serious doubts. I'm not sure what to think of what is really in the back of his mind. I don't know if it is an issue as far as the Presidency goes. But I just have this innate distrust of anyone that's very openly religious as he seems to be. It's beyond that, he seems to not only look to others for guidance, but give himself over to it.

I haven't seen Hillary throwing religion around, have I just missed that? Hopefully there is one candidate that can stand on their own? Maybe not.

Poop-Loops

Mar20-08, 09:37 PM

Evo

Mar20-08, 09:53 PM

While I agree what you say about religious politicians being kind of scary to trust, Obama seems a lot different than your typical "God elected George W. Bush to be President" types. As in, he might deeply believe in it, but he's not bat**** insane.

As far as I can tell, it's only been an issue because his pastor or reverend or whatever made some news-worthy remarks. Otherwise he wouldn't have been talking about it.

Is Hillary religious at all, or is she just doing it so that she is electable? If her "spiritual guide" said something similar to Mr. Wright's remarks, she'd probably be talking about religion now, too.I don't trust politicians. The article I posted had an inside view from another perspective, which I thought gave insight not found in mainstream media, but I guess others didn't see it that way, oh well.

What disturbs me is the things I've read him being quoted on as far as him seeing this guy as a true sprititual guide and as a reason to become his follower. I'm trying to determine if this devotion and reliance is scary or superficial. It seems to be a very deep connection and he won't denounce the guy. That's a red flag for me. Sad, because I think he's intelligent and has some good ideas, but then again intelligence doesn't mean you aren't susceptible to being influenced and manipulated.

Poop-Loops

Mar20-08, 09:59 PM

Evo

Mar20-08, 10:24 PM

Didn't think of it that way.

Still, he's known him for some 20 years now and this is the guy who married him and his wife. If they are as close as he says they are, then it would be hard to turn your back on someone you've known for so long for your own gain. He'd suddenly get attacked for dumping his friend when it was convenient. I mean, how close is McCain to Hagee or that other guy he got an endorsement from (equally crazy)?

Do you think, though, that this could have something to do with reaffirming to people that he is in fact Christian and not a Muslim like his opponents (the crazy ones, at least) like to say?It's a no win situation for Obama, as you have pointed out. I'd like to hear him say more on what he does and does not agree with and just how far his devotion to this man goes. I've broken off long time friendships with people once I found out they were not what I thought. But that's not the case with Obama. He said that he heard these views in church from him and "didn't agree", but said nothing. Now that was "reported". I don't know how much of what is "reported" is true. So it seems like Obama was aware and agreed with, or at least condoned this guys views. I'm digging through everything I can to try to get a feel for what is going on. His speech and his actions aren't jelling for me. That doesn't mean he might not still be the best candidate, it's just that he's not what he appeared to be. I'm disappointed.

mjsd

Mar20-08, 10:26 PM

Do you think, though, that this could have something to do with reaffirming to people that he is in fact Christian and not a Muslim like his opponents (the crazy ones, at least) like to say?

That was exactly the whole point, as far as I can tell. This was to make sure that ppl cannot use the "is he a Muslim?" or "his middle name is Hussein" scare campaigne.

lisab

Mar20-08, 10:38 PM

Evo

Mar20-08, 10:58 PM

Well, it seems there is a strong emotional bond there.

Maybe Wright was his first black male role model. His dad left him when he was just two years old. That's kind of pop-psych, but he met this guy when he was in his twenties and I don't know if he had much contact with adult black males up until then. That could be a very large part of it. I've read so many articles lately I can't remember where I read what, but he said that his white grandmother was afraid of black men and afraid of walking down a street where there were black people and that she would use racial slurs that would make him cringe, but that she loved him. I don't know his lineage, was his white grandmother married to a white man?

I haven't heard anyone, yet, say they have heard Obama say anything that would indicate he agrees with Wright. If he does agree with him, I can't imagine he could go through life and never tell anyone outside of church what his core beliefs are.Good point again, what I've read is that he "didn't agree", and the father figure thing could be the reason what he didn't speak out against what he was hearing.

Astronuc

Mar20-08, 11:17 PM

It's a no win situation for Obama, as you have pointed out. I'd like to hear him say more on what he does and does not agree with and just how far his devotion to this man goes. I've broken off long time friendships with people once I found out they were not what I thought. But that's not the case with Obama. He said that he heard these views in church from him and "didn't agree", but said nothing. Now that was "reported". I don't know how much of what is "reported" is true. So it seems like Obama was aware and agreed with, or at least condoned this guys views. I'm digging through everything I can to try to get a feel for what is going on. His speech and his actions aren't jelling for me. That doesn't mean he might not still be the best candidate, it's just that he's not what he appeared to be. I'm disappointed. Does this help?

On My Faith and My Church (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barack-obama/on-my-faith-and-my-church_b_91623.html)
by Barack Obama
Posted March 14, 2008
The pastor of my church, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who recently preached his last sermon and is in the process of retiring, has touched off a firestorm over the last few days. He's drawn attention as the result of some inflammatory and appalling remarks he made about our country, our politics, and my political opponents.

Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.

Because these particular statements by Rev. Wright are so contrary to my own life and beliefs, a number of people have legitimately raised questions about the nature of my relationship with Rev. Wright and my membership in the church. Let me therefore provide some context.

. . . .

IIRC, Obama talked of his maternal grandmother during his speech. Obama's mom is white and the father was African, an immigrant from Kenya.

Obama's father and mother
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama%2C_Sr.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Dunham

Sorry about the Wikipedia references, but they'll have to do in a pinch. :rolleyes:

Poop-Loops

Mar20-08, 11:31 PM

Don't worry about it. My friend used Wikipedia as a source for one of his papers (we both go to the University of Washington) and it was accepted. Therefore, it's good. ;)

Ivan Seeking

Mar21-08, 12:45 AM

As for the impact on Obama's campaign: I was told that when it was announced that he would be here in Oregon, the tickets sold out within minutes.

Still may go see him in Eugene though...if I feel like standing in line for three hours - no tickets required.

Poop-Loops

Mar21-08, 12:46 AM

Who's opening for him?

Ivan Seeking

Mar21-08, 12:57 AM

Who's opening for him?

Opening what, his beer?

Just kidding. I have no idea.

TVP45

Mar21-08, 07:50 AM

You said the article was from last year. Just wanted to make sure you knew his waffling was 2 years ago, no telling where his loyalties lie now. I'm not for McCain as I am afraid of him succumbing to the religious right to gain a stronger hold with the Republican party

I don't trust any politician that touts religion. I am leary of Obama now because he seems to genuinely feel influenced by religion and racial issues he seems to be tied to that I wasn't aware of before. I thought before that it was a non-issue, now I have serious doubts. I'm not sure what to think of what is really in the back of his mind. I don't know if it is an issue as far as the Presidency goes. But I just have this innate distrust of anyone that's very openly religious as he seems to be. It's beyond that, he seems to not only look to others for guidance, but give himself over to it.

I haven't seen Hillary throwing religion around, have I just missed that? Hopefully there is one candidate that can stand on their own? Maybe not.

Senator Clinton is a Methodist. We are {this is a generality and is not true of all Methodists}, in the words of St. Paul, a "luke-warm" denomination of non-evangelizing, non-dogmatic, do-gooders. Our typical response to war is to collect bottled water for the troops and to knit blankets for the wounded. Our response to poverty is to gather used clothing barrels for Appalachia. We have a social principle of separation between state and church and we rarely talk about religion in public, possibly because we have so little dogma and possibly because we are so undemonstrative (old, old Methodist joke - Q: Why are we opposed to sex? A: Because it frequently leads to laughing and dancing).

RonL

Mar21-08, 08:33 AM

Senator Clinton is a Methodist. We are {this is a generality and is not true of all Methodists}, in the words of St. Paul, a "luke-warm" denomination of non-evangelizing, non-dogmatic, do-gooders. Our typical response to war is to collect bottled water for the troops and to knit blankets for the wounded. Our response to poverty is to gather used clothing barrels for Appalachia. We have a social principle of separation between state and church and we rarely talk about religion in public, possibly because we have so little dogma and possibly because we are so undemonstrative (old, old Methodist joke - Q: Why are we opposed to sex? A: Because it frequently leads to laughing and dancing).

In my opinion, a reason why there is so much confusion in the world over religion, and politics.

Remove the words ("in the words of St. Paul" ) which would lead someone to believe that the St. Paul in the bible is describing the methodist church as "luke-warm".

Maybe i'm overreacting, but this is a play on words that shifts focus to where it does not belong.

And yes the old joke if very cute.

Astronuc

Mar21-08, 08:52 AM

Senator Clinton is a Methodist. We are {this is a generality and is not true of all Methodists}, in the words of St. Paul, a "luke-warm" denomination of non-evangelizing, non-dogmatic, do-gooders. Our typical response to war is to collect bottled water for the troops and to knit blankets for the wounded. Our response to poverty is to gather used clothing barrels for Appalachia. We have a social principle of separation between state and church and we rarely talk about religion in public, possibly because we have so little dogma and possibly because we are so undemonstrative (old, old Methodist joke - Q: Why are we opposed to sex? A: Because it frequently leads to laughing and dancing). I grew up in the Methodist church, and my father and his father were Methodist ministers. I've never heard that joke. Of course, there are now several flavors of Methodism, which vary across a spectrum of political views.

Gokul43201

Mar21-08, 08:53 AM

Every biography of Clinton out there describes her as deeply religious. But biographies are a long read. The most revealing investigation of HRC's recent religious history that I've read is found in this article: http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/hillarys-prayer.html

When Clinton first came to Washington in 1993, one of her first steps was to join a Bible study group. For the next eight years, she regularly met with a Christian "cell" whose members included Susan Baker, wife of Bush consigliere James Baker; Joanne Kemp, wife of conservative icon Jack Kemp; Eileen Bakke, wife of Dennis Bakke, a leader in the anti-union Christian management movement; and Grace Nelson, the wife of Senator Bill Nelson, a conservative Florida Democrat.

Clinton's prayer group was part of the Fellowship (or "the Family"), a network of sex-segregated cells of political, business, and military leaders dedicated to "spiritual war" on behalf of Christ, many of them recruited at the Fellowship's only public event, the annual National Prayer Breakfast. (Aside from the breakfast, the group has "made a fetish of being invisible," former Republican Senator William Armstrong has said.) The Fellowship believes that the elite win power by the will of God, who uses them for his purposes. Its mission is to help the powerful understand their role in God's plan.

TVP45

Mar21-08, 12:31 PM

In my opinion, a reason why there is so much confusion in the world over religion, and politics.

Remove the words ("in the words of St. Paul" ) which would lead someone to believe that the St. Paul in the bible is describing the methodist church as "luke-warm".

Maybe i'm overreacting, but this is a play on words that shifts focus to where it does not belong.

And yes the old joke if very cute.
I take your point. Note that the exact words were ", in the words of St. Paul,", making that a parenthetical phrase which changes the meaning but little. That is fortunate since I made a booboo and ascribed the words to St. Paul rather than St. John. (I didn't think it worthwhile to walk over to the National Aviary and retrieve my sole remaining neuron, so you see what happens...:rolleyes:).

rbj

Mar21-08, 12:42 PM

I'll make a bold prediction here. Obama is finished.

according to the delegate count at the NY Times (http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/delegates/index.html), for Hillary to surpass Obama, she will need in the rest of the primary campaign and superdelegates, to get 41 delegates for every 30 that Obama gets. she needs 554 and Obama needs 405. it's still a little early, but with so few left, with Obama ahead by 149 delegates presently, with the Richardson endorsement siphoning Clinton's earlier Hispanic support, i think your bold prediction is simply not wise.

but anything can happen, maybe they'll turn up that Obama eats babies or something like that.

wow! every commentator i heard that wasn't a dittohead or on Faux News said that Obama hit it out of the park. terms like "an historical event".

being bold sometimes is profitable, but not always safe nor always wise.

Didn't you just provide your own other side of the coin?

NO! not how you put it. Russ, your name ends with an "s", not an "h". please don't debate (disingenuously) like the guy who is, but for one letter, your namesake.

Of course the liberal part of the media said Obama hit it out of the park. They're liberal! And of course the conservative part said he didn't. They're conservative!

Yes, those are the two possibilities!

No, there are (many) more than two possibilities. I was writing about non-liberal commentators saying that Obama hit it out of the park last Tuesday. And you injected meaning into what i said that was not either what i said nor what i meant. that's something a Rush might do, but Russ is better than Rush, no? (please don't tell us you're a dittohead. or O'Reily. i have so much more respect for you than that.)

Ivan Seeking

Mar21-08, 10:11 PM

I was going to try to make the Eugene Obama rally until I saw the lines forming hours ahead of time... and until I heard that the first people in line were there at 5AM this morning - the rally starts at 9PM!

lisab

Mar21-08, 10:18 PM

I was going to try to make the Eugene Obama rally until I saw the lines forming hours ahead of time... and until I heard that the first people in line were there at 5AM this morning.

It would have been really amazing to see the Portland rally this morning, with Richardson there!

Ivan Seeking

Mar21-08, 10:21 PM

Yeah I would have loved to have been there. Did you see the size of the crowd!?!?!

lisab

Mar21-08, 10:45 PM

Yes, that's wonderful! And the energy of the crowd was so intense, it really came across in the video.

Astronuc

Mar21-08, 11:09 PM

Bill Richardson on Obama

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/03/21/king.richardson.intv.cnn

Richardson looks good with a beard. :approve:

CNN discussion on the Endoresment of Obama by Richardson
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/03/21/king.richardson.intv.cnn

Clinton's campaign expresses 'sour grapes'.

Ivan Seeking

Mar22-08, 02:29 AM

Q: Why are we opposed to sex? A: Because it frequently leads to laughing and dancing).

:rofl: Funny!

rbj

Mar22-08, 02:44 AM

I am convinced that this is an historic campaign and candidate (following an historically dishonest, unjust, hypocritical, and incompetent administration) . 4 years ago i worked on the Dean campaign (and even got to introduce the Gov to a town hall meeting in NH during the primary week), and although Dean sorta softened up the place with his insurgency of honesty, he wasn't as careful (nor as charismatic) as Obama. But, as impolitic as some of the things he said, Dean was spot on on practically every issue then. Being more interested in "policy" rather than "politics", when the current campaign season began, I originally sorta leaned toward Richardson, but I started realizing that one necessary ingredient for a leader, besides the knowledge of what are the best policies and the desire, capacity, and where-with-all to realize such, besides all that, what is needed is some measure of charisma, which I have to admit, Gov. Bill had little of. But Barack has it in spades. This charisma is necessary for the practical reason of inspiring people to follow the leadership.

I was hopeful, yet burned 4 years ago. Now I am again. Am I just being a glutton for punishment, or are we, again, looking at an historical moment? A new JFK? If so, or in any case, I hope his security is really/really tight, because gifted visionaries like this often scare up nasty enemies.

TVP45

Mar22-08, 05:53 AM

I was hopeful, yet burned 4 years ago. Now I am again. Am I just being a glutton for punishment, or are we, again, looking at an historical moment? A new JFK? If so, or in any case, I hope his security is really/really tight, because gifted visionaries like this often scare up nasty enemies.

That thought scares the living hell out of a lot of us.

TVP45

Mar22-08, 05:57 AM

I grew up in the Methodist church, and my father and his father were Methodist ministers. I've never heard that joke. Of course, there are now several flavors of Methodism, which vary across a spectrum of political views.

You're absolutely right. That was pure hegemonic arrogance on my part. I should have said United Methodist; many of the smaller Methodist denominations retain their fervor.

lisab

Mar22-08, 11:09 AM

I was hopeful, yet burned 4 years ago. Now I am again. Am I just being a glutton for punishment, or are we, again, looking at an historical moment? A new JFK? If so, or in any case, I hope his security is really/really tight, because gifted visionaries like this often scare up nasty enemies.

I'm with you on this, rbj. I want so badly to see this country take a turn for the better, to see the cynicism die down.

Gokul43201

Mar22-08, 01:36 PM

For comparison, a sneak peek at the Republican spiritual guides and political endorsers (but frauds and nutjobs, nevertheless): Parsley, Hagee, Falwell, Robertson, et al.

Rod Parsley: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nw8-9AGGsQw
(the last 10 seconds of that clip are priceless)

John Hagee: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qNi7tPanUA&feature=related

Jerry Falwell: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-CAcdta_8I&feature=related

Pat Robertson: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZENuGoDfu8&feature=related
(what's really scary about this is how kids are indoctrinated and destroyed by this nonsense)

The only person I've heard that doesn't veil his opinions on these scoundrels, is Christopher Hitchens: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52yTqMcwuQE&feature=related

The discussion on racism and bigotry in America goes hand in hand with the issue of religion and the role of religious figureheads. And these issues are addressed not only through a filter of political correctness, but are additionally dosed with a philter of delusion.

mheslep

Mar22-08, 01:49 PM

TVP45

Mar22-08, 01:50 PM

Gokul43201

Mar22-08, 02:36 PM

Who is to say these people are the Republican spiritual guides any more than Rev Wright or Rev Sharpton or Rev Jackson are the Democratic spiritual guides?I did not say that one group is more "the" than the other. What I did say though, was that while one group is required to denounce their pastors (and even that is not enough), the other gets away with embracing theirs.

-Especially after McCain denounced Falwell.Before he took back his denouncement saying he "spoke in haste" and further clarifying that "Falwell is not an agent of intolerance"? The best thing that can be said about McCain for his reversal is that he is being politically opportunistic, having learned in 2000 that you can not win a Republican primary without sucking up to the evangelists.

McCain has also been campaigning with Hagee and Parsley, both of whom have endorsed him, and both of whose endorements, he has been honored to accept.

Ivan Seeking

Mar22-08, 02:39 PM

America is under the curse of God
http://www.christianbook.com/html/authors/1603.html

I am very honored by Pastor John Hagee's endorsement today
- from Gokul's link

:rofl: At least Obama's buddy doesn't think we are already damned!

The funny thing that I see in this bit about Wright is that the last thing that McCain would want is to get into a "who are YOUR friends and what have they said" contest.

It seems that Hagee can't decide why we are being punished. In Gokul's link he blames gays and the people of New Orleans for Katrina, but previously...

JOHN HAGEE, SEPTEMBER 18, 2005: I want to ask Washington a question. Is there a connection between the 9,000 Jewish refugees being forcibly removed from their homes in the Gaza Strip now living in tents and the thousands of Americans who have been expelled from their homes by this tremendous work of nature? Is there a connection there? If you've got a better answer, I'd like to hear it.
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10052007/transcript1.html

Oh wait, but it may have been that he blamed gays for 911, and just New Orleanians for Katrina. I can't keep all of these curses straight!

D H

Mar22-08, 03:29 PM

America is under the curse of God
That's almost right! I would say "America is under the curse of religion". Of all first world nations, only in the US would the question of "belief" in evolution be posed to a prospective national leader, and only in the US would a sizable minority of the populace want the answer to be no.

mheslep

Mar22-08, 04:34 PM

I did not say that one group is more "the" than the other. What I did say though, was that while one group is required to denounce their pastors (and even that is not enough), the other gets away with embracing theirs.Your original post demonstrates the exact opposite is more true: If McCain walks down the same street w/ one of these guys he's ridiculed. He 'gets away' with zip. There's very little of this that I see on the other side w/ the likes of Jackson or Sharpton. Find me a PF post critical of Sen. Obama for campaigning with Jackson; there are numerous such attacks on R. pols on this forum. The recent publicity of Wright is relevant only because Sen. Obama's memoir is loaded with discussion on Wright and has attended that church for 20y. If McCain had such a close personal relationship with some hate monger he would have become a footnote long ago.

Ivan Seeking

Mar22-08, 04:46 PM

... Obama's campaign clearly suffered in recent days from negative press, mostly centering around his association with the controversial Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Perhaps as a result, Clinton moved into the lead in Gallup's Wednesday release, covering March 16-18 polling. But Obama has now edged back ahead of Clinton due to a strong showing for him in Friday night's polling, perhaps in response to the endorsement he received from well-respected New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a former rival for the nomination. (To view the complete trend since Jan. 2, 2008, click here.)[continued]
http://www.gallup.com/poll/105529/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Edges-Ahead-Clinton.aspx

mjsd

Mar22-08, 07:25 PM

Your original post demonstrates the exact opposite is more true: If McCain walks down the same street w/ one of these guys he's ridiculed. He 'gets away' with zip. There's very little of this that I see on the other side w/ the likes of Jackson or Sharpton. Find me a PF post critical of Sen. Obama for campaigning with Jackson; there are numerous such attacks on R. pols on this forum. The recent publicity of Wright is relevant only because Sen. Obama's memoir is loaded with discussion on Wright and has attended that church for 20y. If McCain had such a close personal relationship with some hate monger he would have become a footnote long ago.

Ok, it is now clear that McCain sought Hagee's endorsement because Hagee admitted it in "NYT"
http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003728364

NEW YORK In an interview that will appear in this Sunday's New York Times Magazine, controversial televangelist Rev. John Hagee declares, "It's true that [John] McCain's campaign sought my endorsement."

Now, McCain can't really say he doesn't want to associate himself with some of Hagee's extreme views when he's made the first move himself to get Hagee into the picture.

This is American media's double standard at its best. I am beginning to feel a bit sorry for the democrats.

mheslep

Mar22-08, 07:38 PM

Ok, it is now clear that McCain sought Hagee's endorsement because Hagee admitted it in "NYT"
http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003728364

Now, McCain can't really say he doesn't want to associate himself with some of Hagee's extreme views No thats Falwell we were discussing.

Gokul43201

Mar22-08, 08:22 PM

Your original post demonstrates the exact opposite is more true: Which original post?

If McCain walks down the same street w/ one of these guys he's ridiculed. He 'gets away' with zip.How about if he walks down the aisle with all of them? And really, when has the national media "ridiculed" McCain for this? Compared to what Obama's been facing, McCain has hardly been scratched by his association with the scoundrels. Find me the commentators that have proclaimed that McCain's run for the nomination has been doomed when he sought Falwell's alliance, or when he sought Hagee's, or when he sought Parsley's. Of course nobody said this. Everyone knows that in order to win a nomination in a Republican Primary you need to have these bigoted nutjobs on your side.

There's very little of this that I see on the other side w/ the likes of Jackson or Sharpton.This may also be true, but I wasn't aware that these two people were nearly as bigoted as the others we are talking about.

Find me a PF post critical of Sen. Obama for campaigning with Jackson;Are we now talking about PF instead of the media? Since when did PF influence national elections?

there are numerous such attacks on R. pols on this forum.Such? Such as what?

The recent publicity of Wright is relevant only because Sen. Obama's memoir is loaded with discussion on Wright and has attended that church for 20y.And all of that discussion is based on the positive, insightful, honest and unsoundbitelike preachings of Wright. Have you read/heard Obama's memoir and for instance, Wright's sermon with a similar title? It's also readily found on Youtube; if you haven't already, you could listen to it, when you find the time.

If McCain had such a close personal relationship with some hate monger he would have become a footnote long ago.Two points:
1. What exactly was Wright preaching hatred against?
2. Give me a break. Every single Republican President in the recent past has had to first go to bed with these charlatans and hate mongers in order to win the Presidency. And McCain has realized that not doing so was his biggest mistake in 2000.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_E9sZqunJ_M

Personally, I'd rather have someone that uses the Religious Right to get elected and them discards them immediately after. And amongst all the Republicans candidates, I see McCain, likely a single term President, as best positioned to do this. And for this reason, I personally don't care if he goes to bed with them in the 11th hour. But where's the outrage in the media, and from the general population?

There's no outrage from the masses because they share many of the close-minded, bigoted views of these charlatans, and there's no outrage from the media because they need to pander to the masses.

mjsd

Mar22-08, 11:18 PM

No thats Falwell we were discussing.

Well, because in post #116 (the post you responsed to), Gokul43201 mentioned Hagee and Parsley, that's why I brought this up again. I was quoting you just because you made a reponse to post #116 and I thought it would be a good continuation there.

Anyway, doesn't matter whether it is Falwell (he's dead anyway) or Hagee, it is beside the point, both of these televanglists have extreme views and have shown no hesitations in expressing them loud and clear.

Compared to what Obama's been facing, McCain has hardly been scratched by his association with the scoundrels. Find me the commentators that have proclaimed that McCain's run for the nomination has been doomed when he sought Falwell's alliance, or when he sought Hagee's, or when he sought Parsley's. Of course nobody said this. Everyone knows that in order to win a nomination in a Republican Primary you need to have these bigoted nutjobs on your side.

Indeed the media has generally given McCain a rather easy ride here. Perhaps, the majority of the ppl do agree with Hagee, Parsley and all these guys,.. well, I don't know but their views sound very extreme and full of hatred to me. :mad:

There's no outrage from the masses because they share many of the close-minded, bigoted views of these charlatans, and there's no outrage from the media because they need to pander to the masses.

thanks for letting us know about the truth.

russ_watters

Mar23-08, 10:45 AM

Poking my head in after a few days to see where it's gone...
Ok, it is now clear that McCain sought Hagee's endorsement because Hagee admitted it in "NYT"
http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003728364

Now, McCain can't really say he doesn't want to associate himself with some of Hagee's extreme views when he's made the first move himself to get Hagee into the picture.

This is American media's double standard at its best. I am beginning to feel a bit sorry for the democrats. You (et al) can't be serious. McCain's relationship with Hagee and Obama's with Wright have nothing whatsoever in common. It is rediculous to even suggest, as quite clearly, McCain isn't a member of Hagee's church. You guys are really reaching and even mheslep missed the real key to McCain's relationship with these guys that differentiates it from Obama's with Wright:

Obama is a member of the church while McCain goes to dinners looking for votes: McCain is looking for their endorsement, not giving them his. That's how this differs from Obama and Wright. Obama endorsed Wrights message for 20 years before denouncing it after it came back to bite him. McCain -- that I've seen -- has never made even a tacit endorsement of the message these guys are putting out.

As already pointed out - by looking for one where none exists, you are creating your own double standard.

russ_watters

Mar23-08, 10:51 AM

Glad you brought this up: This may also be true, but I wasn't aware that these two people were nearly as bigoted as the others we are talking about.
Jackson is only about half as bigoted as Wright. Sharpton is cut from the same cloth. Unlike Wright, however, neither is half as committed to their cause as to their own ambition.

[edit]Now what these two idiots bring to the table, though, is that Obama has made it difficult for himself to go after their support because of his past association with their message. As a result, while McCain can go after the support of the religious right without the appearance of throwing them his support (which can still be sticky - he has to watch what he says as so not to alienate them), Obama is already trapped and any attempt to court these guys will come back at him. People will be examining his words with a fine-tooth comb the way you guys are looking for something about McCain. And with the link already established, there is serious danger there.

russ_watters

Mar23-08, 11:34 AM

It may actually be difficult for Obama to get that Sharpton endorsement he's asked for - especially after denouncing Wright's message: In September 2007, when he was asked whether he thought it was important for America to have a black president, Sharpton said, "It would be a great moment as long as the black candidate was supporting the interest that would inevitably help our people. A lot of my friends went with Clarence Thomas and regret it to this day. I don't assume that just because somebody's my color, they're my kind. But I'm warming up to Obama, but I'm not there yet." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Sharpton

So by "my kind", does Sharpton mean blacks or racists?

Gokul43201

Mar23-08, 11:53 AM

Another story: My company recently hired a young, black, inner-city, single-mom as a drafter/designer. She doesn't like Obama, mostly because she says he lacks substance and that he tries too hard to be uplifting without saying the negative things that people really need to hear (ie, like Bill Cosby or Chris Rock). I missed this post before and only just read it now. I'd like to address what I think is a lack of familiarization on the parts of both Russ and the woman he is talking about.

When I heard Obama's 2004 DNC speech, I was struck naturally by his charisma and eloquence, but was more moved by his honesty and political bravery. He was the first politician I had heard stating that the problems facing the black community were not merely structural, and that the blame also lay with the people and the choices they made.

I haven't heard anyone with so much to lose address black-on-black racism as he has. From the DNC speech:Go into any inner-city neighborhood, and folks will tell you that government alone can't teach kids to learn. They know that parents have to parent, that children can't achieve unless we raise their expectations and eradicate the slander that says a black youth with a book is acting white.

Addressing a primarily African-American audience in Beaumont, TX:It's not good enough for you to say to your child, 'Do good in school,' and then when that child comes home, you got the TV set on, you got the radio on, you don't check their homework, there is not a book in the house, you've got the video game playing. So turn off the TV set, put the video game away. Buy a little desk or put that child by the kitchen table. Watch them do their homework. If they don't know how to do it, give them help. If you don't know how to do it, call the teacher. Make them go to bed at a reasonable time. Keep them off the streets. Give ' em some breakfast. Come on. ... You know I am right.

Obama took flack from the black community for stressing individual responsibility during the recent debates, when on the other hand, Hillary was doing everything she could to pander to the Hispanic vote. Obama's base is the younger generation of voters, yet he's risked disenfranchising them by telling them to essentially stop looking up to Hip-hip stars. Watching the debates made it so clear to me why I wanted one person to make it, and also why I definitely didn't want the other. If Obama doesn't make the nomination I think I'd rather have McCain than Hillary.

On the Imus incident:http://www.hiphopdx.com/index/news/id.5151/title.barack-obama-hates-hip-hopWe've got to admit to ourselves, that it was not the first time that we heard the word 'ho'. Turn on the radio station. There are a whole lot of songs that use the same language & we've been permitting it in our homes, and in our schools and on iPods. If it's not good for Don Imus, I don't know why it's good for us. If we don't like other people to degrade us, why are we degrading ourselves?"

A glimpse into some of that criticism from the black community (this one is about the Texas debate):

Obama's Cosby Moment [response]
...
Marc, Here is where we agree: Obama’s focus on personal responsibility is a bad strategy for addressing racial inequality. I am a firm and committed structuralist. It is just false to believe that bad behavior leads to bad outcomes. Anyone who has spent time with the wealthy, white and privileged knows that bad habits, deviant behavior and criminal activities are standard practice. This is true for the Ivy-League kids cooking up Robitussin in their dorm rooms and for the CEOs earning millions off the backs of international child labor. All you have to do is turn on Access Hollywood to see that addiction, child neglect and out-of-wedlock births are perfectly acceptable as long as wealth and privilege are providing a safety net.

http://blogs.theroot.com/blogs/downfromthetower/archive/2008/03/05/obama-s-cosby-moment-response.aspx

The comparisons between Obama's so-called bullying and Cosby's speech have been brought up repeatedly. And I have yet to see such a comparison made with any other political speech. Maybe this is why Cosby only seems to have good things to say about Obama, though we may never know who Cosby will vote for - he once showed an interest in Kucinich, but has since insisted that his vote is a personal thing that he will not discuss even with his wife.

We know that Chris Rock too has shown his support for (and endorsed) Obama. While introducing Obama at a rally, Chris Rock made the following joke (approximately):

When there were fires in LA, and white people burning, Bush was there the next day - real quick. But for black people drowning, he had no time! But he was so keen to help out in LA, he was putting the fires out...with Katrina water.

Are we going to call Chris Rock an apologist?

Or you can read this transcript of a Cosby interview on CNN (http://newsbusters.org/node/16878/print) where he expresses disappointment that Clarence Thomas does nothing for the black community and even refers to him as "brother lite."

Is Bill Cosby an apologist? Or, in light of your response to the Sharpton quote, is Cosby racist?

Gokul43201

Mar23-08, 01:09 PM

Jackson is only about half as bigoted as Wright. Sharpton is cut from the same cloth. Unlike Wright, however, neither is half as committed to their cause as to their own ambition.And how would you say they compared with the likes of Falwell, Robertson, Graham, etc?

Obama endorsed Wrights message for 20 years before denouncing it after it came back to bite him.1. Has Wright conveyed only one "message" over 20 years?
2. If yes, what message is this? And please quote his words to support any assertion of such a message.
3. If there hasn't been only one message, which specific messages has Obama endorsed?

Incidentally, Obama speaks directly about the messages he took from Wright's preachings. You can read it in his book, and it's nothing like the soundbites we're hearing.

Also, there's another difference that's been missed. While the Religious Right has 20 years of hate mongering bigotry that's been extensively documented, Wright's so-called "message" is what comes from 2 minutes worth of carefully cut excerpts.

McCain -- that I've seen -- has never made even a tacit endorsement of the message these guys are putting out.McCain stated in a Meet the Press interview that Falwell is not an agent of intolerance. And in my opinion, this is just McCain being politically safe and not wanting to lose the Evangelical base by dissing Falwell. Among the Reps, I like McCain the most because he is least taken in by the Religious frauds. Nothing similar can be said about previous Republican Presidents, who were wholeheartedly in bed with these charlatans. But the big question with someone like McCain that is using the RR for political ends is whether he will later be able to detach himself from their demands.

As already pointed out - by looking for one where none exists, you are creating your own double standard.Give me a break! You don't really have to "look" to see that the current Republican party has a solid history of supporting the most bigoted and divisive people in the country - the leaders of the Religious Right.

Could you also point out exactly which statements by Wright are racist and hate mongering? Before we embark on a debate over why Obama associates himself with Wright, who is a horrible man, we should perhaps make sure we're on the same page about what makes Wright horrible.

The videos with more than just 15 second soundbites are below. If I've missed something here, please add them too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOdlnzkeoyQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2TFJb4e7Iw&feature=related

My own opinion is that Wright is a cranky conspiracy theorist, and his preachings are far less dangerous (by orders of magnitude) than those belted out by the megapastors named above.

Gokul43201

Mar23-08, 01:55 PM

Also, by your argument Russ, it should be perfectly acceptable for Obama to accept Farrakhan's endorsement, shouldn't it? And surely, the conservative media will not stoop to fault him if he does.

mheslep

Mar23-08, 02:04 PM

Which original post?
This one:
For comparison, a sneak peek at the Republican spiritual guides and political endorsers (but frauds and nutjobs, nevertheless): Parsley, Hagee, Falwell, Robertson, et al....

How about if he walks down the aisle with all of them? And really, when has the national media "ridiculed" McCain for this? Compared to what Obama's been facing, McCain has hardly been scratched by his association with the scoundrels. Find me the commentators that have proclaimed that McCain's run for the nomination has been doomed when he sought Falwell's alliance, or when he sought Hagee's, or when he sought Parsley's.Find me the commentator that says Sen Obama is 'doomed'.
Of course nobody said this. Everyone knows that in order to win a nomination in a Republican Primary you need to have these bigoted nutjobs on your side.I don't know it. You don't see 'doomed' used on the ABC/CNN. You see piece after piece titled "Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time" (ABC) or the like, implying the politician is owned by these people, followed by a main text with the nuttiest quotes they can find.

Are we now talking about PF instead of the media? Since when did PF influence national elections? I simply list that as a convenient example of something we're all familiar with on a frequent basis.
Find me a PF post critical of Sen. Obama for campaigning with Jackson; there are numerous such attacks on R. pols on this forum.
Such? Such as what? Criticism of politicians, Republicans in particular, for any association with religion or religious groups.

The recent publicity of Wright is relevant only because Sen. Obama's memoir is loaded with discussion on Wright and has attended that church for 20y.
And all of that discussion is based on the positive, insightful, honest and unsoundbitelike preachings of Wright. Have you read/heard Obama's memoir and for instance, Wright's sermon with a similar title? It's also readily found on Youtube; if you haven't already, you could listen to it, when you find the time.Im glad to hear that; Ive only read/heard/searched for bits.

Two points:
1. What exactly was Wright preaching hatred against?
America. Whites.
.
..And McCain has realized that not doing so was his biggest mistake in 2000.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_E9sZqunJ_MMcCain is not mentioned in that clip.

mheslep

Mar23-08, 02:30 PM

And how would you say they compared with the likes of Falwell, Robertson, Graham, etc?Graham is not of the same ilk as the other two.

Give me a break! You don't really have to "look" to see that the current Republican party has a solid history of supporting the most bigoted and divisive people in the country - the leaders of the Religious Right. No I don't think thats obvious at all. The activists support the politicians, not the other way around. And I think its myopic to say Republican supporters are the most bigoted and divisive, other than on gay rights issues. On issues of race and class I'd say Democratic supporters have 1st place in divisiveness all locked up. BTW, I don't really consider that clown Fallwell to ever have been a major leader (of anything) - he was just one of the more notorious and eager to get in front of a camera.

Ivan Seeking

Mar23-08, 02:58 PM

This morning on MTP, Peggy Noonan put this whole business into the proper perspective:
Wright is the voice of yesterday.

That is what Obama was saying as well. What's more, from a political pov, this is already a dead issue. No way will anyone sucessfully label Obama as un-American. He has already recovered in the polls.

Ivan Seeking

Mar23-08, 03:04 PM

Graham is not of the same ilk as the other two.

No I don't think thats obvious at all. The activists support the politicians, not the other way around. And I think its myopic to say Republican supporters are the most bigoted and divisive, other than on gay rights issues. On issues of race and class I'd say Democratic supporters have 1st place in divisiveness all locked up. BTW, I don't really consider that clown Fallwell to ever have been a major leader (of anything) - he was just one of the more notorious and eager to get in front of a camera.

Funny, Gokul cited precisely one of two reasons why I left the Republican party - religous zealots who, less the KKK and the American Nazi Party, are the biggest bunch of bigots and hypocrites that I have seen in my lifetime.

Moderate Christians agree:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iH04hj1Q_IM

Disclaimer: I am not nor have I ever been a member of the Church of Christ.

Gokul43201

Mar23-08, 03:30 PM

This one:Do you really want to do a comparison of the airtime given to McCain connections to Falwell, Parsey and Hagee with the airtime given to the Obama- Wright story?

Find me the commentator that says Sen Obama is 'doomed'. I don't know it. You don't see 'doomed' used on the ABC/CNN. You see piece after piece titled "Evangelicals to Bush: Payback Time" (ABC) or the like, implying the politician is owned by these people, followed by a main text with the nuttiest quotes they can find.

I simply list that as a convenient example of something we're all familiar with on a frequent basis.I didn't think you'd be looking for the specific word 'doomed'. There was an article in the NY Daily News (http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/03/23/2008-03-23_how_obamas_minister_turned_the_dems_run_.html) that I just read that had this in the subtitle. Fox has conjured up images of Obama (on O'Reilly, Hannity, Fox & Friends, etc.) being a radical racist, an African separatist, an America hater and more such things that describe anything but a Presidential hopeful. The media has certainly been behaving as though the campaign was essentially doomed barring some miraculous comeback. Many will say that Obama may have scored a partial comeback with his speech, but most commentators on the right call it either useless, or disingenuous, or both.

America. Whites.I didn't hear either. I did hear him voicing hatred for American governments that have carried out wars. I also heard him voicing hatred for a system of racial privilege. Mostly, this makes him a deluded conspiracy theorist.
.
McCain is not mentioned in that clip.No, that clip was about the previous sentence. If you wan't McCain essentially admitting this, in his own words, there's a Meet the Press interview that he gave recently, that might also be on Youtube.

Schrodinger's Dog

Mar23-08, 04:01 PM

This is going to sound a bit patronising but it's not meant to be. I really didn't like the religious persecution that happened in Europe, but at least if nothing else it marginalised fringe groups and beliefs, as bad as it was. This was good for Europe and it's states, but unfortunately they had to go somewhere. Thus the ties between religion and politics in the American elections I think, have a lot more to do with some minority religions than perhaps they should. Not that it's necessarily a bad thing but it gives me the willies when religion even sets foot in the same place as politics. It must be an inherently English thing. Short of being an Satanist(atheist) or a Scientologist I doubt anyone cares what religion a politician is. God in the form of religion hasn't set foot in parliament in many years, nor should religion be mentioned at all except in view of issues of the church as they pertain to law. We have enough influence in the Lords from the Bishops, and the lords has been stripped of much of its power. Definitely state and church should be so far separate that they are not in the same Universe, advisory roles are fine, but that's as far as it goes.

That said it has little to do with the OP, I don't think Obama is going to be too damaged by this in the long run, at least that's not the impression I get, of course I could be wrong our media is not as extensive about the issue as the American media. And although I get Fox News, I can't say I watch it on political issues.

Gokul43201

Mar23-08, 04:33 PM

Graham is not of the same ilk as the other two.My bad. I was thinking of Hagee.

No I don't think thats obvious at all. The activists support the politicians, not the other way around. If this were true, would we have wasted countless hours debating a constitutional amendment to redefine marriage? Would we have billions of dollars being used for faith-based programs, or in Bush's words "to fund programs that save Americans one soul at a time"? Would we have AIDS prevention programs that operate only on the pre-condition that there be no education about contraception? Would we have hundreds of thousands of people filling jail cells because of insane drug laws? Would we have had all kinds of infringement on privacy through various laws regulating sex between consenting adults?

And I think its myopic to say Republican supporters are the most bigoted and divisive, other than on gay rights issues.Oh it's not just the gays. Don't forget to include civil rights proponents (like me), feminists (by the definition used by the RR, this includes me), secularists (me again), "evolutionists" (made it again), environmentalists (I might make this group too), atheists (that's me), supporters of gay rights (me), Muslims, often Jews (sometimes refered to as the antichrist), and sometimes Catholics, Mormons and Episcopalians.

On issues of race and class I'd say Democratic supporters have 1st place in divisiveness all locked up. When these folks start calling for government mandated executions or even criminalization of races or classes, we'd then be getting close. Until then, there's no comparison. Moreover, there's a good reason for people of certain races and classes to feel like they've been exploited or persecuted by other races or classes.

BTW, I don't really consider that clown Fallwell to ever have been a major leader (of anything) - he was just one of the more notorious and eager to get in front of a camera.There are dozens like him, and they are cumulatively a force that makes the difference between winning and losing a primary.

lisab

Mar23-08, 05:08 PM

Short of being an Satanist(atheist) or a Scientologist I doubt anyone cares what religion a politician is.

n.b., Schrodinger: an atheist is an altogether different animal than a Satanist. I'm an atheist; I don't believe in god or satan. I can't believe in the supernatural or occult any more than I can believe in magic or the paranormal.

I wish politics here in the States was more secular, like it is there in the UK. Sure would go a long ways toward "de-muddying" the waters.

Schrodinger's Dog

Mar23-08, 05:17 PM

n.b., Schrodinger: an atheist is an altogether different animal than a Satanist. I'm an atheist; I don't believe in god or satan. I can't believe in the supernatural or occult any more than I can believe in magic or the paranormal.

Depends modern Satanism is more akin to atheism than the old fashioned cults of Satanism, although they are related. Modern Satanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaVeyan_Satanism) is less theistic, I should have said Satanist/athiest though point taken. And I agree Satan is no more credible than any supernatural persona.

I wish politics here in the States was more secular, like it is there in the UK. Sure would go a long ways toward "de-muddying" the waters.

Amen. :smile:

Poop-Loops

Mar23-08, 05:23 PM

Lots of people equate Satanism with atheism, sadly.

Schrodinger's Dog

Mar23-08, 05:30 PM

Lots of people equate Satanism with atheism, sadly.

Well in La Veyan terms they would be right, since it's the largest religion associated with Satanism, and they are atheist, it is at least similar. Satanists who stand around in robes trying to bring about the Antichrist don't really exist anyway, and if they do it's in very very small numbers; that's conspiracy theory territory.

My bad I've kinda threadjacked this. Not my intention, back to the news, lets get back to you Yanks teaching us provincial Brits et al. a thing or two about American politics. Thanks. :smile:

D H

Mar23-08, 05:42 PM

I wish politics here in the States was more secular, like it is there in the UK. Sure would go a long ways toward "de-muddying" the waters.

It's not, and Schrodinger's Dog nailed it in post #136:
I really didn't like the religious persecution that happened in Europe, but at least if nothing else it marginalised fringe groups and beliefs, as bad as it was. This was good for Europe and it's states, but unfortunately they had to go somewhere.
The Americas have been plagued with fundamentalism since 1620 (the year the Mayflower sailed). The Pilgrims, the French Huguenots, the Dutch in New York were all Calvinists. Today's fundamentalists are Calvinists as well; Europe's gain was our loss.

mheslep

Mar23-08, 08:18 PM

mheslep

Mar23-08, 08:46 PM

...He was the first politician I had heard stating that the problems facing the black community were not merely structural, and that the blame also lay with the people and the choices they made.

I haven't heard anyone with so much to lose address black-on-black racism as he has From the DNC speech:

Addressing a primarily African-American audience in Beaumont, TX:

Obama took flack from the black community for stressing individual responsibility during the recent debates, when on the other hand, Hillary was doing everything she could to pander to the Hispanic vote. Obama's base is the younger generation of voters, yet he's risked disenfranchising them by telling them to essentially stop looking up to Hip-hip stars. I had heard pieces of this. I applaud what I see here. I just heard Sen. O's Tuesday/Philly speech in full and there's more of the same honest appraisal in it - a good speech, impressive, far better that anything Ive ever heard from Sen. Clinton. I still don't agree with all of it - still heavy on rationalization via victimization though he turns and denounces victimization in the end.
BTW, President Clinton spoke similarly back in the 90's '93 speech to black ministers (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE4D8113BF937A25752C1A9659582 60&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all):
If [MLK] were reappear by my side today and give us a report card on the last 25 years, what would he say? "You did a good job," he would say...
But he would say, "I did not live and die to see the American family destroyed. I did not live and die to see 13-year-old boys get automatic weapons and gun down 9-year-olds just for the kick of it. I did not live and die to see young people destroy their own lives with drugs and then build fortunes destroying the lives of others. That is not what I came here to do. I fought for freedom," he would say, "but not for the freedom of people to kill each other with reckless abandonment, not for the freedom of children to have children and the fathers of the children to walk away from them and abandon them, as if they don't amount to anything.

"I fought for people to have the right to work, but not to have whole communities and people abandoned. This is not what I lived and died for, my fellow Americans," he would say. "I fought to stop white people from being so filled with hate that they would wreak violence on black people. I did not fight for the right of black people to murder other black people with reckless abandonment."

...Cosby will vote for - he once showed an interest in Kucinich, but has since insisted that his vote is a personal thing that he will not discuss even with his wife.:tongue: My wife and I will likely follow his advice.

mjsd

Mar23-08, 08:54 PM

You (et al) can't be serious. McCain's relationship with Hagee and Obama's with Wright have nothing whatsoever in common. It is rediculous to even suggest, as quite clearly, McCain isn't a member of Hagee's church. You guys are really reaching and even mheslep missed the real key to McCain's relationship with these guys that differentiates it from Obama's with Wright:
.....
McCain -- that I've seen -- has never made even a tacit endorsement of the message these guys are putting out.

Do you seriously believe that those who do go to Hagee church and those who believe in what Hagee has said (no matter whether it is on gay, Catholicism, Iran), would not in any way think that McCain shares their values/views on these issues before voting for him? The fact that McCain wanted Hagee's endorsement can mean either he is a hypocrite wanting to gain the conservative evangelical votes by pretending he is one OR he truly believes in some of those issues. either way, it presents a problem that warrant some discussion BUT the media chose not to.

Obama is a member of the church while McCain goes to dinners looking for votes: McCain is looking for their endorsement, not giving them his. That's how this differs from Obama and Wright. Obama endorsed Wrights message for 20 years before denouncing it after it came back to bite him.

It doesn't take 20 years to turn bad. But it may take 20 years to become good again.

you say McCain is ok because he wants their endorsement and not giving them his... At the moment, Obama is neither giving them endorsement nor wanting them to be so close to him. The issues is guilt by association. Obama, well, 20 years in that church you can't say there is no association even he tried to distance himself from it. McCain, doesn't even have to be associated with those folks, but actively trying to bring them onboard. Yet, we say there is an association in Obama case only.

Now the argument is often that Obama's connection is a more profound one (ie. one cannot wipe out 20 years of association), while all of us somehow believe automatically that McCain is just pretending, and the connection is fake and so all is ok even he brought the issue to himself.

As already pointed out - by looking for one where none exists, you are creating your own double standard.

the matter of the fact is the media did not cover the McCain/Hagee/Parsley story well enough to even merely to inform 80% of common Americans what these ppl suppose to stand for, as a result there is no discussions on them among the common ppl.... and so you say there is no issue. I have to go away and do my little research on these guys before I even know who these guys really are. And you can bet not every American would do that if "Fox & Friends" tell them that it is a non-issue as well.

Perhaps, Americans do find Hagee's and Parsley's rhetorics a lot more palatable than Wright's and that's why we in general don't care and don't want to care. :frown:

rbj

Mar23-08, 09:33 PM

This is going to sound a bit patronising but it's not meant to be. I really didn't like the religious persecution that happened in Europe, but at least if nothing else it marginalised fringe groups and beliefs, as bad as it was. This was good for Europe and it's states, but unfortunately they had to go somewhere.

i dunno if i would say that it "was good for Europe" but i must confess that i am not a disinterested party. being a Mennonite and coming from the Anabaptist tradition (and ethnically from the same lines of Germans who are the Pennsylvania "Dutch"), i have distant ancestors who were persecuted to the point of burning at stake and drowning. there was even a case where one anabaptist "heretic" was drowned in a gunney sack tied shut with live (probably stray) cats tossed in the bag. cats were considered evil, too, from the western POV of the time.

anyway, from our POV, persecution of the church was far better than the seduction of it by power which started with Constantine and continued for the next millenium until the reformation. and then the reformation was only half-baked since Luther and Zwingly were merely kicking out one state-church institution and replacing it with their own state-church institution. "separation of church and state" was the talk of heretics who were fuel for the fire.

That said it has little to do with the OP, I don't think Obama is going to be too damaged by this in the long run, at least that's not the impression I get, of course I could be wrong our media is not as extensive about the issue as the American media.

i think he dealt with it exactly right (tried to run above the issue of race, but when they crammed it down ours and his throat, dealt with it directly, honestly, and persuasively. i think he'll be okay and the drumbeats of intolerance will again be exposed for the @ssholes they are.

And although I get Fox News, I can't say I watch it on political issues.

otherwise known as Faux News. it's not a news organization, but an arm of the Republican Party.

mheslep

Mar23-08, 09:41 PM

...Oh it's not just the gays. Don't forget to include civil rights proponents (like me), feminists (by the definition used by the RR, this includes me), secularists (me again), "evolutionists" (made it again), environmentalists (I might make this group too), atheists (that's me), supporters of gay rights (me), Muslims, often Jews (sometimes refered to as the antichrist), and sometimes Catholics, Mormons and Episcopalians.We have been discussing bigotry - as in 'I hate you just because of your race or ethnicity without knowing anything else about your ideas and beliefs'. Most of the above is about ideas and policy which is by definition (mine) not bigotry, so time for me to move on.

When these folks start calling for government mandated executions or even criminalization of races or classes, we'd then be getting close. Until then, there's no comparison.
Now we're into the fringe, we were discussing main stream thought that can influence elections. If you want to stick to a 'cumulative force' argument then I mention Farrakhan, Black Panther groups, etc and it becomes an unproductive 'you have the worst crazies', 'no they're not my crazies' discussion.

mheslep

Mar23-08, 09:52 PM

... from our POV, persecution of the church was far better than the seduction of it by power which started with Constantine and continued for the next millenium until the reformation. and then the reformation was only half-baked since Luther and Zwingly were merely kicking out one state-church institution and replacing it with their own state-church institution. "separation of church and state" was the talk of heretics who were fuel for the fire.Exactly.

I think he dealt with it exactly right (tried to run above the issue of race, but when they crammed it down ours and his throat,Was Imus and his firing crammed down our throats? Or was that the media finally paying attention to wink and nod racism?

dealt with it directly, honestly, and persuasively.Yes agreed, honestly, from what I know.i think he'll be okay and the drumbeats of intolerance will again be exposed for the @ssholes they are.If there's still such a thing, then the drumbeat of intolerance must include Wright.

Gokul43201

Mar23-08, 11:09 PM

We have been discussing bigotry - as in 'I hate you just because of your race or ethnicity without knowing anything else about your ideas and beliefs'. Most of the above is about ideas and policy which is by definition (mine) not bigotry, so time for me to move on.Common forms of bigotry:

* Ableism
* Adultism
* Ageism
* Anti-Americanism
* Anti-Catholicism
* Anti-Mormonism
* Anti-Polish sentiment
* Anti-Protestantism
* Anti-Semitism

...and that's just the As.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigotry

These are people that think women are inferior creatures, meant to serve man. If radical chauvinism is not bigotry, I don't know what is.

Now we're into the fringe, we were discussing main stream thought that can influence elections. If Falwell is fringe, that's fringe. What I quoted above are the words of a spokesperson for the Moral Majority - the same Moral Majority that handed Reagan the Evangelical vote. And we were discussing people and groups, not thought, that influence elections. Falwell's own favorite joke is that if he saw his dog engaging in homosexual behavior, he'd take it out and shoot it.

If you want to stick to a 'cumulative force' argument then I mention Farrakhan, Black Panther groups, etc and it becomes an unproductive 'you have the worst crazies', 'no they're not my crazies' discussion.I didn't know anyone pandered to these groups and sought their endorsements.

Schrodinger's Dog

Mar24-08, 02:34 AM

Yar, Mr Jefferson would have a good laugh out of that one. You are suggesting that booting out the minority religions from Europe somehow left Europe in the hands of a more tolerant majority religion (or even religion free?). Hardly. Ye olde Archbishop of Canterbury is still on the UK govt. payroll, as are religious officials throughout Europe because the persecution of opposing religious views centuries ago allowed them to be forever entwined in EU governments.

:biggrin: Something tells me you don't know much about politics in the EU or the UK. Can you tell me exactly what powers over parliament the Archbishop has, and the last time he set foot in parliament? Since The House of Lords has no power to overturn laws, I don't see what your point is. Like anyone else the Archbishop can say whatever he likes, doesn't mean anyone has to listen to him though. The queen as defender of the faith has an advisory roll, but the monarch has not challenged a decision in parliament in nearly 200 years, and that resulted in the queen being overturned by parliament, and IIRC threatened with being beheaded if she refused to sign a law. Bishops have no power whatsoever in the UK, nor do they in most of Europe. The papalcy isn't a political wing of the Italian government either, although I admit they may take what they say more seriously. What you see in the US is religion directly effecting Congress. Since ESCR is legal here, I don't see that happening to anywhere near the same degree in the secular states of Europe.

I can give you links of all the things the Archbishop has said recently that have been ridiculed if you like. :smile: Tony Blair mentioned God in parliament once, it made if not front page news a column in all the newspapers. It also raised derisive laughter to a point that is seldom reached in the barracking sessions at parliament. Might have something to do with us being staunchly and defiantly secular, for some very good reasons. It's called European history.

Ivan Seeking

Mar24-08, 02:21 PM

I haven't checked to see if this came up already, but yesterday CNN played the entire video of Wright's controversial sermon. A surprise to me was that he only "damns" America IF we don't stop doing such and such... I had only seen his statements represented as an imperative and not in the subjunctive mood as it was actually expressed. That makes quite a difference!

Amp1

Mar24-08, 02:56 PM

Sure does Ivan. Not only that much of what he said about chickens comming home to roost was true.

The US supported and put in power some of the worst dictators. Saddam H., The (former) Shah of Iran, was found GUILTY by the World Court of terrorist activities in Nicuragua.

The CIA's greatest hits - N. Chomsky
Why do people hate America - Ziauddin Sardar and Merryl Wyn Davies

are two sources to find out about the chickens.

TVP45

Mar24-08, 03:07 PM

Mr Jefferson

"Mr. Jefferson"? Are you a Hoo?

Schrodinger's Dog

Mar24-08, 03:10 PM

Let's not forget why the US&UK put The Shah into power either, it was because the Iranian pm at the time refused to grant favourable oil concessions to the UK and of course the US stood to gain from a favourable deal from a favourable leader.

I really don't see what politics has to do with religion in anything he says? Or according to the religion of The NT what right anyone has to judge in political terms. But to discuss why would be a render unto Caesar moment and that's religion. :/

This guy sounds like another Fred Phelps, maybe not as hard line, but definitely bigoted.

i dunno if i would say that it "was good for Europe" but i must confess that i am not a disinterested party. being a Mennonite and coming from the Anabaptist tradition (and ethnically from the same lines of Germans who are the Pennsylvania "Dutch"), i have distant ancestors who were persecuted to the point of burning at stake and drowning. there was even a case where one anabaptist "heretic" was drowned in a gunney sack tied shut with live (probably stray) cats tossed in the bag. cats were considered evil, too, from the western POV of the time.

Like I say I don't condone religious persecution, but I don't see how the Mennonites really effect politics anyway. Other than by their vote? Bear in mind I did say at least. I'm not condoning anything done in the name of Catholicism or Protestantism in Europe. This is why there's such a division of state and church though. In fact after looking at their beliefs, I think the Mennonites are not in the same league as some of the more evangelistic religions in the US.

I can see why they were controversial though.

* Freedom of religion
* Priesthood of all believers
* Bible as the sole rule of faith and practice
* Pacifism

Those are dangerous ideas. :wink: Well to Catholics anyway, placing authority in the common folk? Pacifism? Freedom of religion?

Amp1

Mar24-08, 03:12 PM

Arildno, it doesn't seem to be hate but anger that Wright spewed. I notice how noone rebutted or attempted to argue against the posts I've read that say much of what Wright said is factually correct.

mheslep

Mar24-08, 03:28 PM

didn't know anyone pandered to these groups and sought their endorsements.
Democratic candidate for President Jesse Jackson attended Farrakhan's Million Man march in '95 'without hesitation' when other's refused to attend.
http://www.time.com/time/special/million/1023time.html
[Rep] Gary Franks won't be going. He feels that Farrakhan's rhetoric is just as offensive to some whites as the Ku Klux Klan is to African-Americans. "The Ku Klux Klan hates blacks, Jews, and Catholics," Franks said. "The Nation of Islam hates whites, Jews and Catholics."
http://www.cnn.com/US/9510/megamarch/

With regards the whack job Wycoff on the video clip (equating homosexuality w/ murder), I wasn't aware anyone pandered to him either. As far as I can see the only common cause between the Republicans and the Moral Majority group is on abortion.

mheslep

Mar24-08, 03:28 PM

"Mr. Jefferson"? Are you a Hoo?Grad school

Amp1

Mar24-08, 03:33 PM

Arildno, I'm assuming your not a christian. However if you are, what type of people did Jesus associate with... and in what way did his associating with them disuade him from his message or cause him to exhibit their behavior.

mheslep

Mar24-08, 03:35 PM

...Might have something to do with us being staunchly and defiantly secular, for some very good reasons. It's called European history.Funny, I would have said that E. history includes the crusades, the Inquisition, the 30 yrs war, on and on.

Yes Im aware that the Archbishop of C. does not speak in Parliment. The fact remains he's on the UK payroll and no other religions are so represented.

Schrodinger's Dog

Mar24-08, 03:46 PM

Funny, I would have said that E. history includes the crusades, the Inquisition, the 30 yrs war, on and on.

Yes Im aware that the Archbishop of C. does not speak in Parliment. The fact remains he's on the UK payroll and no other religions are so represented.

Did you know when the Knights of the first crusades asked if killing was wrong, as it was according to The Bible. He came back and said it's fine if it's infidels? I mean how scary is that? Killing in the name of? A pacifistic religion?

That's exactly what I meant, The 30 years war, the division of church that lead to both Catholic and Protestant persecution. The corruption and greed and politicisation of the Church, indulgences, the fact that priests were made celibate in the middle ages to protect the churches wealth from being passed to family members on their death, persecutions of Jews and Heretics. That's why we are now secular; religion and politics. :eek:

He's on the payroll because he works for a living? Is that wrong? he is not a representative though, his views do not pass parliament, and his views in the Lords are outvoted or ignored. So he has no power, no ability to affect policy, he might say ESCR is wrong, but no one is going to listen to him, unlike in the US, where you have to pander to the religious conservatives.

Art

Mar24-08, 03:46 PM

Schrodinger's Dog for someone who lives there you have a very strange perception of the role of religion in the UK.

Not so long ago, and probably still happening in some places, councils ran by Presbyterians chained up the swings in kids' playgrounds every Sunday to ensure the Sabbath was adhered to and Sunday trading laws are still a major bone of contention.

On a national level although religion plays a smaller role in the Labour Party it is still a big deal with Conservatives and Parliament still begins each day with a prayer.

The UK is not secular! In legal terms the UK is a Protestant Christian state with the Anglican church being the established religion of England and Wales one consequence of which is Britain is the only country left in the democratic world that allows clerics to sit in its legislature as of right and another consequence being it is the established Protestant religion which is compulsorily taught in state schools.

The UK only voted to repeal blasphemy laws in March of this year although this has yet to be ratified (blasphemy laws which btw were restricted to statements against the established Protestant religion only)

This only passed because religious adherents including the C of E believed it's content was captured in the Racial and Religious Hatred Act of 2006 rendering it obsolete.

The US populace no doubt take their religion more seriously than their UK counterparts which is then obviously reflected in the stated views of politicians but to suggest the UK's political ambivalence to religion is due to clever deliberate secularisation by the UK government is totally misleading. It is purely down to the personal apathy of UK citizens.

Schrodinger's Dog

Mar24-08, 03:54 PM

Art

Mar24-08, 04:04 PM

Art do you live in the UK? Do you realise how secular we are? Tradition may still be tradition but it affects politics little. A recent poll showed that belief in a God or gods had gone from 79% in the 1960's to 49% and that includes all faiths. We are more secular than ever and sliding further that way. You may begin parliament with a prayer but that has nothing to do with the way parliament runs, and all to do with an outdated tradition.

Can you tell me the last time blasphemy laws were enforced? They are redundant under new laws as you say, they don't need repeal to be frank, apart from to clear out dead wood. It's still legal to shoot a Welshman with a crossbow when he ventures across the border of a weekend. Doesn't mean it's a particularly enforcible law.

It's not down to apathy it's down to the increasing secularisation of Europe. I never said it was deliberate, but in a democracy if no one cares about religious issues, and when they are raised they are mocked then apathy is a secular fault, so be it.I did all of my schooling in the UK although I don't see how my domicile makes the slightest difference to the facts.

In a secular state there is a division between church and state. How can you possibly claim the UK is secular when the Protestant religion is a compulsory subject in state schools along with regular traipses to the local C of E for services on religious days? All mandated by the government.

The statistics you cite simply serve to affirm my contention that it is the British publics apathy to religion which diminishes it's influence on the political scene but it is certainly not through secular legislation.

Schrodinger's Dog

Mar24-08, 04:07 PM

I did all of my schooling in the UK although I don't see how my domicile makes the slightest difference to the facts.

In a secular state there is a division between church and state. How can you possibly claim the UK is secular when the Protestant religion is a compulsory subject in state schools along with regular traipses to the local C of E for services on religious days?

So environment makes no difference to your social status? Controversial?

RE is a compulsory. But that would be religious education not Christian education. They learn about world faiths now. And it's only compulsory up to secondary education, ie age 11, and it's part of the whole cultural integration thing.

Because 49% of people don't believe in God, that makes the majority unconcerned with religious issues. And those that are aren't generally Bible thumping evangelists, there evolutionary theolgists, or Sikhs or Hindus, Buddhists and so on, and liberal Christians in the main. Women Vicars, gay Vicars and so on in the Anglican Church. Even the Catholic Church has refused to condone ID and creationism.

Art

Mar24-08, 04:18 PM

So environment makes no difference to your social status? Controversial?

RE is a compulsory. But that would be religious education not Christian education. They learn about world faiths now. And it's only compulsory up to secondary education, ie age 11, and it's part of the whole cultural integration thing.

Because 49% of people don't believe in God, that makes the majority unconcerned with religious issues. And those that are aren't generally Bible thumping evangelists, there evolutionary theolgists, or Sikhs or Hindus, Buddhists and so on, and liberal Christians in the main. Women Vicars, gay Vicars and so on in the Anglican Church. Even the Catholic Church has refused to condone ID and creationism.Huh? So if everyone is so liberal how do you explain Dr Rowan Williams yielding to the African evangelical lobby and forcing the resignation of the Bishop-designate of Reading, Canon Jeffrey John, a celibate gay man whose cause he had previously advanced?

Schrodinger's Dog

Mar24-08, 04:21 PM

Huh? So if everyone is so liberal how do you explain Dr Rowan Williams yielding to the African evangelical lobby and forcing the resignation of the Bishop-designate of Reading, Canon Jeffrey John, a celibate gay man whose cause he had previously advanced?

Outside of the UK. I never said everyone is but Anglican vicars in the UK can be both gay and female or either or not. It's unfortunate but it's nothing to do with UK religion. I can give you the names of lesbian vicars, and gay vicars. It doesn't mean anything in terms of the liberalism of the CoE.

Art

Mar24-08, 04:25 PM

Outside of the UK. I never said everyone is but Anglican vicars in the UK can be both gay and female or either or not. It's unfortunate but it's nothing to do with UK religion. I can give you the names of lesbian vicars, and gay vicars. It doesn't mean anything in terms of the liberalism of the CoE.You do know Doctor Rowan Williams is the Archbishop of Canterbury and that Reading is in the UK don't you :confused:

Schrodinger's Dog

Mar24-08, 04:26 PM

You do know Doctor Rowan Williams is the Archbishop of Canterbury and that Reading is in the UK don't you :confused:

Yeah but what does that have to do with the liberalisation of the Church in the UK, because some bigots from wherever said they would leave the Anglican Church if they didn't get their way?

This is really OT anyway and I don't see what it has to do with secularisation. If anything it just confirms that some countries are living in the past. And that one person will not dictate policy of Anglicanism, no matter how powerful. There are gay Vicars and lesbian vicars, and female vicars. He doesn't define the Churches opinion he's as subject to ecumenical concerns as anyone else who is the leader of a religion. Despite being liberal on gay issues before he came to power, he still has to avoid schism.

Art

Mar24-08, 04:35 PM

Yeah but what does that have to do with the liberalisation of the Church in the UK, because some bigots from wherever said they would leave the Anglican Church if they didn't get their way?

This is really OT anyway and I don't see what it has to do with secularisation. If anything it just confirms that some countries are living in the past.The bottom line is UK politicians are every bit as capable and as likely to pander to religious groups if they see votes in it. There is nothing in the UK's state structures to prevent this from happening or even to make it less likely.

I also think you vastly underestimate the subtle influence of religion on UK politics today through groups such as the Masonic Lodge and even the Knights of Columbus whilst you blindly ignore the overt influence of religion in areas of the UK and it's dominions such as Scotland and NI.

Schrodinger's Dog

Mar24-08, 04:36 PM

The bottom line is UK politicians are every bit as capable and as likely to pander to religious groups if they see votes in it. There is nothing in the UK's state structures to prevent this from happening or even to make it less likely.

I also think you vastly underestimate the subtle influence of religion on UK politics through groups such as the Masonic Lodge and even the Knights of Columbus.

Compared to the US, I think not. They might pander to voters, but policies are still decisively secular, and of course they only have to pander to a tiny, tiny minority of right wing conservative Christians, such as evangelists, particularly labour who aren't traditionally pro church anyway.

Let's ask an American if they think US policy is affected by religion? Let's likewise ask a UK citizen if this is so?

Art

Mar24-08, 04:43 PM

Let's likewise ask a UK citizen if this is so?Ahem, Iraq - Tony Blair - God. Sure you want to go there? :tongue2:

Schrodinger's Dog

Mar24-08, 04:47 PM

Ahem, Iraq - Tony Blair - God. Sure you want to go there? :tongue2:

Not a good example, the fact that he mentioned God, has really made him unpopular amongst traditional labour voters, and seen their popularity edge further towards Conservatives. One man does not a religious state make, even if he is TB. And thank Someone he's not in power any more, he was getting past his sell England by the Iraq war date.

Art

Mar24-08, 04:51 PM

Not a good example, the fact that he mentioned God, has really made him unpopular amongst traditional labour voters, and seen their popularity edge further towards Conservatives. One man does not a religious state make, even if he is TB. And thank Someone he's not in power any more, he was getting past his sell England by the Iraq war date.So unpopular he got reelected for a record 3rd term :rolleyes:

Schrodinger's Dog

Mar24-08, 04:53 PM

So unpopular he got reelected for a record 3rd term :rolleyes:

Conservatives got five terms, despite being really unpopular past the mid 80's. First past the post system, you have to overturn a massive majority when the government screws up massively. That means nothing. Their majority has been sliding since they got into power. Unlike Thatcher where it was rising until we realised what a right wing nut she was.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkSapMfaBBg

Art

Mar24-08, 04:59 PM

Conservatives got five terms, despite being really unpopular past the mid 80's. First past the post system, you have to overturn a massive majority when the government screws up massively. That means nothing. Their majority has been sliding since they got into power. Unlike Thatcher where it was rising until we realised what a right wing nut she was.SD no offense but are you really from the UK? Thatcher wasn't dumped by the electorate!!! Just like Blair she was dumped by her own party in a palace coup. IMO If the Tory party hadn't stabbed her in the back for not being right wing enough she'd still be PM. The British public loved her and many still do.

Schrodinger's Dog

Mar24-08, 05:05 PM

SD no offense but are you really from the UK? Thatcher wasn't dumped by the electorate!!! Just like Blair she was dumped by her own party in a palace coup. IMO If the Tory party hadn't stabbed her in the back for not being right wing enough she'd still be PM. The British public loved her and many still do.

Are you? I didn't say she was, she would have been thus John Major. I suppose you're a Thatcherite then? Or are you from the UK at all. Or are you one of those people that wasn't born in the Thatcher years and didn't have to live through the riots, the distinct distaste for her policies, that now sees her through rose tinted spectacles? I was a conservative in the 80's until about 1988, then I became liberal and you can blame that right wing witch for that, nutcase who brought the country out of the gutter, then proceeded to throw it right back in again. All that was right with right wing politics and all that was wrong in one person.

Art

Mar24-08, 05:16 PM

I'd be happy to discuss UK politics with you if you so wish.

If they are reading this perhaps one of the mentors would carve the last few posts off into a separate thread.

Schrodinger's Dog

Mar24-08, 05:18 PM

I'd be happy to discuss UK politics with you if you so wish.

If they are reading this perhaps one of the mentors would carve the last few posts off into a separate thread.

Me too but are you talking it or did you live it first hand, because these days, the Daily Mail readers have got it all out perspective? How old are you?

New thread needed start it yourself, I suggest, apologies for the threadjack.

Thatcher milk snatcher. Is there noting that woman wouldn't do to advance her greed is good idealism? Silly mare.

Art

Mar24-08, 05:25 PM

Me too but are you talking it or did you live it first hand, because these days, the Daily Mail readers have got it all out perspective? How old are you? It was after Thatcher got elected I voted with my feet and left the UK :approve:.

Thatcher milk snatcher. Is there noting that woman wouldn't do to advance her greed is good idealism? Silly mare She did that when she was minister for education in the 70's under Heath and yet you still joined the conservative party in 1980 after she'd become leader. Shame on you :wink:

Schrodinger's Dog

Mar24-08, 05:31 PM

It was after Thatcher got elected I voted with my feet and left the UK :approve:.

Good for you, you got out while the going was still good, I presume?

She did that when she was minister for education in the 70's under Heath and yet you still joined the conservative party in 1980 after she'd become leader. Shame on you :wink:

I was 8 years old give me a break. :biggrin: We all make errors in our youth.

Ivan Seeking

Apr26-08, 12:20 AM

Rev Wright was on Bill Moyers Journal tonight
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04252008/watch.html

Amp1

Apr28-08, 09:53 AM

Amp1

Apr28-08, 10:42 AM

http://www.streetprophets.com/storyonly/2008/4/26/13582/1350

Great link for summary and thoughts.

chemisttree

Apr28-08, 12:35 PM

I saw it. He was very eloquent and lucid. The sound bites I was suprised to learn were from sermons that occured shortly after 9/11 and 7, 10, and 15 years ago. They were almost totally re-contexted and misrepresented by the particular media companies that tried to blow it up.

That couldn't be further from the truth. You obviously haven't seen any of the original sermons. See them here (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352661,00.html) and here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOdlnzkeoyQ). (if you dare)

The entirety of Rev. Wright's so called diatribes were enlightening to all those people who perhaps still believe there was WMDs in Iraq or that the US is squeaky clean. From the metaphors to the comparisons Wright used, he was dead on point about the relationship to things like terrorism, oppression, and disregard for humanitarian values that the "failed nations" realized, instituted or supported.

The point that a US ambassador made, whom he named in the sermon, "Americas chickens have come home to roost" is basic karma, even biblical - 'what goes around comes around' and 'you reap what you sow'. It happens to be true.

Al-Qaeda declared war on the US for stationing troops in Saudi Arabia (at their request) to protect them from imminent invasion by Iraq, not for Hiroshima, Nagasaki or for "bashing the heads of babies against rocks" as Pastor Wright puts it. There is no doubt that THIS MAN HATES AMERICA. His sermons are pure political garbage (especially when viewed in their entirety) backed by his own flawed intrepretation of scripture. He chastises America for it's economic interests and power but somehow finds within the scripture of the New Testament justification for that repulsive attitude.

Compare that attitude with:
"Then went the Pharisees, and took counsel how they might entangle him in his (Jesus') talk.
And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, "Master, we know that thour art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man; for thou regardest not the person of men."
"Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not?"
But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, "Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites?
Show me the tribute money." And they brought unto him a penny.
And he sayeth unto them, "Whose is this image and superscription?"
They say unto him, "Caesar's"; then sayeth he unto them, "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's" (Matthew 22:15-21)

I think the good Pastor has forgotten that bit.

The man's words will still be twisted even though his rebuttal refuted all the negative claims made on him. And the prodigious humanitarian work he and his church have been and are performing is incredible in the face of the obstacles they deal with.

No twisting required. Wright is as twisted as they come.

Art

Apr28-08, 12:58 PM

drankin

Apr28-08, 01:43 PM

What has the Rev Wright said that is factually wrong??

Is there a white upper class predominant in America?
Is there still racism in America?
Did Al-Qaeda attack America because of it's ME policies?

It's seems nobody can refute what he said they are just teed off that he had the temerity to say it.

I heard about this speech. I heard that he had said that black human brains and white human brains are different and this is why blacks have trouble in school. Now, that is straight up racism. Yes, there is racism in America and Wright is one of the reasons it continues. White supremists say the same damn thing. He is promoting continued racism.

mheslep

Apr28-08, 01:44 PM

What has the Rev Wright said that is factually wrong??
...
It's seems nobody can refute what he said they are just teed off that he had the temerity to say it.
April 13, 2003, J. Wright:
The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color.
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/the-full-story-behind-wright%e2%80%99s-%e2%80%9cgod-damn-america%e2%80%9d-sermon/

Here's some more ugliness from Wright, same sermon:
For every one Tiger Woods, who needs to get beat at the Masters, with his Cablanasian hips, playing on a course that discriminates against women, God has this way of brining you up short when you get to big for your Cablanasian britches.

W3pcq

Apr28-08, 07:50 PM

According to Farrakhan's mentor, Elijah Muhammad, blacks were "born righteous and turned to unrighteousness," while the white race was "made unrighteous by the god who made them (Mr. Yacub)."}

{In response to the charges of being a "Black Hitler", Farrakhan responded during a March 11, 1984 speech broadcast on a Chicago radio station:
"So I said to the members of the press, 'Why won't you go and look into what we are saying about the threats on Reverend Jackson's life?' Here the Jews don't like Farrakhan and so they call me 'Hitler'. Well that's a good name. Hitler was a very great man. He wasn't great for me as a Black man but he was a great German and he rose Germany up from the ashes of her defeat by the united force of all of Europe and America after the First World War. Yet Hitler took Germany from the ashes and rose her up and made her the greatest fighting machine of the twentieth century, brothers and sisters, and even though Europe and America had deciphered the code that Hitler was using to speak to his chiefs of staff, they still had trouble defeating Hitler even after knowing his plans in advance. Now I'm not proud of Hitler's evil toward Jewish people, but that's a matter of record. He rose Germany up from nothing. Well, in a sense you could say there is a similarity in that we are rising our people up from nothing, but don't compare me with your wicked killers." [23]}

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Farrakhan

This is the man Wright praises.

Esoteric

Apr28-08, 09:15 PM

I heard about this speech. I heard that he had said that black human brains and white human brains are different and this is why blacks have trouble in school. Now, that is straight up racism. Yes, there is racism in America and Wright is one of the reasons it continues. White supremists say the same damn thing. He is promoting continued racism.

He was talking about learning styles, which are proclivities...not genetic habits, etched in stone. Nobody said Black people can't function in a linear-logical, Cartesian sense, only that our cultures tend to approach objective realities from a different slant. Also, that no value judgments should be attached to either approach.

What Wright has said here is nothing new, though it's been fought furiously by accommodationist Blacks for over half a century. He wasn't being Manichaean, only describing a theory for the affective slant of African education.

Gokul43201

Apr28-08, 09:32 PM

...flawed intrepretation of scripture...That, sir, if you ask me, is a doozy!

PS: On a different note, the words of another person, one who has been praised by millions of people:

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.

-Abe Lincoln

russ_watters

Apr28-08, 09:57 PM

He was talking about learning styles, which are proclivities...not genetic habits, etched in stone. Nobody said Black people can't function in a linear-logical, Cartesian sense, only that our cultures tend to approach objective realities from a different slant. Wright doesn't appear to understand or be making that distinction. He does mention objects hung above a crib, which implies genetic differences (too early to get culture). But in any case, it's a moot point: the "white" way of learning has been proven to work. The "black" way doesn't actually exist and never has. If I were a black parent raising a child today, I would want to educate that child in a way that exists and is known to work, not try to 'fight the system'. It is the fighting against reality, more than anything else, that creates the divisions and puts blacks below whites in the US.

Poop-Loops

Apr28-08, 10:39 PM

Not to mention that it's not just whites that use "the white system", but Asians, Latinos, Hindus, Persians, Arabs, whatever. All over the world. Blacks use it everywhere, too.

BobG

Apr29-08, 08:50 AM

I would say that Wright tends to say some fairly astute things, but also can't help himself in going over the deep end with some of his comments. You can easily find quotes that defend him and condemn him.

Bottom line is that he's a loose cannon that sees the current controversy as an opportunity to focus attention on himself. His affect on the Obama campaign is barely even a consideration to him. His actions and comments are completely separate from Obama's now.

Unfortunately, that's not how things are perceived. In the public's view, the two are associated with each other. Wright is starting to look like the disaster that just keeps on giving. This goes on too long or gets too big and the superdelegates just might become a realistic hope for Clinton.

Amp1

Apr29-08, 09:36 AM

What Bob G says is true because you see it happening. I think Wright is showing Obama in much the same way as the 187th post asserts he did Tiger. Chemistree, I hope that what I saw on PBS channel 13 on Mr. Moyer's program was the whole sermon otherwise it was misrepresented (eek) ... too.

Unfortunately, the scriptures do hold against the kinda 'failed nations' Mr. Wright was talking about. BTW, a distinguished scholar named Noam Chomsky wrote a book called 'Failed State' in which the USA figures prominently. Since he researched his subject so thoroughly, I give credence to his statements in the book about the US. The fact that the US was FOUND GUILTY of terrorism against Nicaragua by the World Court factors heavily in that knowledge.

I believe that Obama or Clinton should use Rev. Wrights thoughts and spoken statements to discuss ways that they would move the US away from unprovoked intimidation and coercion towards cooperation and a consciousness of our place as a part of the total synergism of this planets life forms.

Ivan Seeking

Apr29-08, 01:00 PM

It seems to me that there are a few ironies here. First of all, the irony of a black liberation theologian going out of his way to damage the first serious black contender for President is mind boggling! And that is what happened yesterday. Wright was out to pay back Obama for denouncing him.

But here is the thing that strikes me about Wright's message: Wright has a message of anger that once acted as glue for the black community. Blacks WERE slaves in this country not that long ago, and racism has been a fact of the American culture ever since. Wright lived in a time when black people were hanged just for being black. He saw the water hoses and dogs turned on a crowd of innocent civilians just because they were black. He lived during a time when a black man was called "boy", and told to mind his place. He lived during a time when in many ways a black man was still 3/5 of a man. It is easy to understand how a man who lived through these times can cling to anger. In a sense, it is probably all that he has ever known.

Whereas blacks have been viewing this as an opportunity to engage the white community and to help whites understand the black culture, in fact it seems to me that the real lesson is for blacks. Black liberation theology had a place in 1965, but we have moved beyond that now. It is time for blacks to reject this rhetorical nonsense and move on as well. Whites will not learn to understand this sort of anger and bitterness because most whites living today had nothing to do with it. We are not responsible for the sins of our fathers.

Until Wright and other like him figure this out, THEY will be the force that keeps the injustices of 1965 alive and well. Wright is an anchor to hatred, not a liberator.

drankin

Apr29-08, 02:33 PM

W3pcq

Apr29-08, 03:56 PM

I can see that making the distinction between black and white, and arguing that blacks are being oppressed by white america, may be a strong motivation for a black person to get involved, get educated, so that a change can be made. Him damaging Obama so badly, shows his goals are however a further division and rise of the black power movement. If Obama gets elected, how can Wright he profit off of the idea that America is an evil white country. The only goal I can see Wright having, is a revolution. Wrights idea of change is revolution, and destruction of the current system, and the white people in charge of it. How can this be carried out when a Black person is in charge of it? I think Wright and Farrakahn as well as the radical islamic sects in other places are communicating, and building up for a revolution against the white race, and against America.

Although I know that Obama does not think this way. The problem is that Wright has been Obamas close friend and advisor for 20 years. Maybe part of Obama's motivation and drive is due to Wrights speech. Obama now closer than ever to have the power to change the way things work, the power to elevate the black community, the power to end the "US supported terrorism of Irael", all the things that he has learned are wrong with America from listening to rev. Wright. The problem is that Wright profits from the bad doings of our government because he and Farrakahn can use it to recruit their army, and can profit from bad mouthing it. Obama actually wants things to improve, and is smart enough to know how to do it.

I feel sorry for Obama. I'm sure he joined the church based on the good it was supposedly committing to fight for justice and to help black people become successful in America. I respect this, and I am all for it. I am sure that as a black man, and a member of the African American community, it would be hard to disown a church that is fighting for their cause, especially with a history of oppression and feelings of current wrongdoings occuring today. It is just sad that these leaders of Black Power are not after change in the gov, they are after change of gov, as in revolution and overthrow.

TVP45

Apr29-08, 04:11 PM

You know, it seems to me there's too much emphasis placed on Rev. Wright's influence on Sen. Obama. The pastor of the church I belong to regularly preaches sermons on sheep (who knows why his obsession) and he regularly tells how sheep drown in the rain or if they enter a body of water. I roll my eyes and read the hymnal or look at Cynthia's Carmen Miranda hat instead. Half the people in most churches couldn't tell you what a sermon was about by Tuesday if their life depended on it. I doubt Sen. Obama is much different.

Ivan Seeking

Apr29-08, 04:14 PM

I feel sorry for Obama.

It strikes me that this may be what saves him, if anything can. Wright was so over-the-top yesterday that that Obama may start to appear more a victim of a friend gone looney than someone to be feared.

A couple of points though: First, Wright was his pastor. Now, I had priests who baptized me, gave first communion, and who mentored me in spiritual matters. I was confirmed by Cardinal Mahoney who at that time I viewed as a SuperMentor, if you will, but in no way would I want them to speak for me. They were one aspect of one chapter of my life. In no way would I consider them to be close friends or even like-minded. I don't know how close Obama and Wright really were, but to say that he was Obama's pastor and mentor doesn't define the true nature of their relationship. Wright and Obama may be no closer than I am to good ole Father whatshisname.

Next, you need to support your comments about Wright's intentions to start a revolution. Conspiracy theories are not allowed, and you need to provide specific evidence to that effect, such as a transcript in which he calls for a literal revolution.

As Wright pointed out, before you question his patriotism, note that he served six years in the military. How many years did Cheney serve?

W3pcq

Apr29-08, 04:24 PM

Sorry, I shouldn't have said that. It is just the impression I got from him. The way he keeps saying "there is going to be a change" angrily after he talks about the evils of America. The way he acts as though, that he cares not whether Obama gets elected. Then he says of "I told Obama, you get elected, than I'm going after you". His connection with Lois Farrakahn, Louis Farrakahn provided his security. What kind of change is he after? Why are these issues being preached in a church?

I understand in a way why a person like him may feel the way he does about U.S. policy, especially considering how bad Bush's terms have been. I understand his points about terrorism in a way. The rule is generally, the winners write the history books, and the losers are the terrorists. THis doesn't however change the fact that we are at war with the "terrorists". That doesn't change the fact that he is aligned against America in this war. I know that those against America may have many good reasons to be in many cases. "The world trade center" has screwed a lot of people over. Many policies have left people much worse off. Of coarse we are going to have enemies in these cases. The fact still remains, will the American people turn against their own country to fight for the causes of its enemies against America? Perfectly acceptable within the system, how Obama will go about it, and to be a peacemaker, and to make resolutions.

Poop-Loops

Apr29-08, 04:25 PM

Entire post.

What I love about politics is that anybody can claim total knowledge of a person based only on what they have read or seen on the news.

I might be going out on a limb here, but you've never actually met Obama or Wright before, have you? Have you eaten dinner with them? Played pool over some beers?

No, I don't think so. So I can't possibly imagine why you are speculating on either party so deeply.

Saying Wright wants to start a war against the white race? Or that you know Obama isn't like that? How can you?

First of all, it makes more sense that Wright simply makes money from the conflict you mentioned. He doesn't give a damn about starting a revolution, but he'll keep preaching about it, because that's what pays the bills. I've seen it before many times. My idea is a lot more probable than some conspiracy to overthrow the white race in America. How would they do it? Contract the gags in NY and LA? Believe it or not, Blacks do NOT have some sort of Hive Mind, and you can't just ask some random black person about what the black community thinks about an issue. The whole idea is so f-ing retarded. So, now that we've established that blacks are individuals, what makes you think a vast majority of them living in the US would band together with Wright and Co?

Ivan Seeking

Apr29-08, 04:26 PM

From 1959 to 1961, Wright attended Virginia Union University,[1] in Richmond. Inspired by President John F. Kennedy's 1961 challenge to "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country," Wright gave up his student deferment, left college and joined the United States Marine Corps and became part of the 2nd Marine Division with the rank of private first class. In 1963, after two years of service, Wright then transferred to the United States Navy and entered the Corpsman School at the Great Lakes Naval Training Center, where he graduated as valedictorian.[10][6] Having excelled in corpsman school, Wright was then trained as a cardiopulmonary technician at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Maryland where he graduated as salutatorian.[6] Wright was assigned as part of the medical team charged with care of President Lyndon B. Johnson (see photo of Wright caring for Johnson after his 1966 surgery). Before leaving the position in 1967, the White House awarded Wright three letters of commendation.[11][12][13]

In 1967 Wright enrolled at Howard University in Washington, D.C., where he earned a bachelor's degree in 1968 and a master’s degree in English in 1969. He also earned a master's degree from the University of Chicago Divinity School.[6] Wright holds a Doctor of Ministry degree (1990) from the United Theological Seminary in Dayton, Ohio, where he studied under Samuel DeWitt Proctor, a mentor to Martin Luther King.[14]
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cc/Jeremiah_Wright_Dec_1961_Boot_Camp_Graduation.jpg/100px-Jeremiah_Wright_Dec_1961_Boot_Camp_Graduation.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_Wright

He joined the Marines just as Vietnam was heating up.

Astronuc

Apr29-08, 04:47 PM

Analysis: Rev. Wright's Comments on 'Black Church'
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90024842
Morning Edition, April 29, 2008 · The Rev. Jeremiah Wright told the National Press Club that attacks on him are really attacks on the black church. Earlier comments about race and the Sept. 11 attacks by Barack Obama's former pastor have caused controversy for the presidential campaign.

Juan Williams makes some interesting comments. I think one needs to realize that Wright speaks for Wright - not Obama, not the African American community, not even Trinity Church necessarily - but himself.

Some are concerned that Wright is try to use his religious affiliation as a shield against critics.

Wright Decries 'Out of Context' Criticisms of Sermon
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90011520

Rev. Wright: Critics Are Attacking Black Church
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89999246
NPR.org, April 28, 2008 · The Rev. Jeremiah Wright says criticisms of his fiery sermons are an attack on the black church. Wright, presidential hopeful Barack Obama's former pastor, has begun speaking out since national attention fell on controversial opinions he expressed in the past.

Speaking at Washington's National Press Club on Monday, one day after he got a standing ovation for his speech at an NAACP meeting in Detroit, Wright said he hopes the controversy will have a positive outcome and will lead to an honest dialogue about race in America. Black church traditions are still invisible to many Americans, as they have throughout the country's history, he said.

Wright said the black church tradition is not bombastic or controversial. It is simply different — and misunderstood by the dominant culture in the United States, he said. The bolded statement is certainly controversial. To criticize Wright or his sermons is not an attack on any church.

This is not going away any time soon.

W3pcq

Apr29-08, 04:47 PM

If he is so smart and patriotic, then why did he mess things up for Obama so bad. A, he isn't really that smart after all, or B, he is that smart and doesn't care about Obama being president or not, or C, doesn't want Obama to be president.

Just because he was a marine doesn't mean he going to be patriotic now. Maybe that is where some of his resentment comes from?

I am not saying anything about the african american community. Is simply said that Obama considers himself a member of it. Wright being someone who does do a lot of good for the african american community in many ways. So I can see how Obama may get involved with him with nothing but good intentions. I do not blame Obama for Wright at all except the fact that he accepted him as a spiritual advisor, which makes me question on some level, Obamas judgment.

Esoteric

Apr29-08, 05:41 PM

Wright doesn't appear to understand or be making that distinction. He does mention objects hung above a crib, which implies genetic differences (too early to get culture). But in any case, it's a moot point: the "white" way of learning has been proven to work. The "black" way doesn't actually exist and never has. If I were a black parent raising a child today, I would want to educate that child in a way that exists and is known to work, not try to 'fight the system'. It is the fighting against reality, more than anything else, that creates the divisions and puts blacks below whites in the US.

It appears so...I thought that lot of what the rev said was rubbish, but he has an idea, and that's fine. I disagree with most of it respectfully. However, one thing i do agree with is that black African learning style did exist. The main forum of the African historian was the ritual celebration, amidst drumming, dances and costumes. He used pneumonic devices to retain the vast amount of knowledge he was expected to store, and this explains the "folksy" or "tall-tale" nature of the griot's craft.

The rev makes a mistake in assuming that theres an unbroken continuity of African cultural learning style which is an obstacle to blacks learning process today...he appears to be unaware that prior to the 1960's black students performed on par with White students but with integration Black neighborhoods became less diverse class wise. So working class black children had less positive role models to look up to within their vicinity.

Esoteric

Apr29-08, 05:48 PM

The bolded statement is certainly controversial. To criticize Wright or his sermons is not an attack on any church.

This is not going away any time soon.

I'm not one to stifle free speech but I think he needs to shut up and go away until after the election. He is a self promoter like most religious figure heads in America.

TVP45

Apr29-08, 06:34 PM

.he appears to be unaware that prior to the 1960's black students performed on par with White students but with integration Black neighborhoods became less diverse class wise.

Do you have a source on this? Rosenberg and Simmons did a ton of research on this subject throughout the 60s and 70s and came up with a different conclusion. Are you aware that some Virginia counties provided little or no (yes, I mean no) schooling for Black students in the 1950s? What do you suppose that did to academic performance?

russ_watters

Apr29-08, 09:00 PM

What I love about politics is that anybody can claim total knowledge of a person based only on what they have read or seen on the news.

I might be going out on a limb here, but you've never actually met Obama or Wright before, have you? Have you eaten dinner with them? Played pool over some beers?

No, I don't think so. So I can't possibly imagine why you are speculating on either party so deeply? It's pretty simple: we have to choose who to vote for and this information is all we have to go on. So we have to make our judgements based on this information. That requires some educated guesses.

That Wright is a militant separatist is relatively clear - he's pretty explicit about his statements to that effect. How closely Obama follows his beliefs is obviously an open question, but the association between the two men will make people wonder about it and make them uncomfortable about voting for him.

russ_watters

Apr29-08, 09:03 PM

It strikes me that this may be what saves him, if anything can. Wright was so over-the-top yesterday that that Obama may start to appear more a victim of a friend gone looney than someone to be feared. As I've said before, Obama is trapped by this situation. He almost has to respond to Wright and he did - much more forcefully than the last time. And if he gives any response, the forceful disavowal is the right one. But then he risks starting a war between himself and Wright.

Incidentally, you and I have probably never agreed on anything quite so closely as I agreed with your previous post about Wright.

russ_watters

Apr29-08, 09:10 PM

I alluded to it but didn't see anyone specifically mention it, so here is Obama, today, essentially recinding what he said about Wright in that speech in Philly that everyone loved: "I gave him the benefit of the doubt in my speech in Philadelphia explaining that he's done enormous good. ... But when he states and then amplifies such ridiculous propositions as the U.S. government somehow being involved in AIDS. ... There are no excuses. They offended me. They rightly offend all Americans and they should be denounced."....

"What became clear to me was that he was presenting a world view that contradicts what I am and what I stand for," Obama said....

"The person I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago," Obama said of the man who married him. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-04-29-obama-wright_N.htm

edward

Apr29-08, 10:26 PM

Obama Has Finally disavowed Wright, but I doubt that the issue will go away.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/04/obama_disavows.html

On the other side McCain so far has slipped the noose with Hagee, who is also very controversial.

After McCain flew to Hagee's side for an endorsement and press conference, why didn't we hear Hagee's ugliest remarks over and over on the air? Hagee calling the Catholic church a whore, Hagee saying that Hurricane Katrina was punishment for gay pride plans, or Hagee, shouting halleluiahs at the altar of his bloodthirsty vision? It's all about who owns the media--and who clips the bites.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/valerie-tarico/mccains-glass-house-hagee_b_99236.html

~christina~

Apr29-08, 11:10 PM

From the only TV interview with Pastor Wright:

I found the video version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNTGRL0OJWQ

Very bad ju ju, I think.

:rofl: I have a magazine clipping of a soap company that is selling voodoo soap. It can wash away "bad juju" :rofl:

I laugh everytime I look at the advertisement.

Cyrus

Apr29-08, 11:41 PM

Bla, I watched five mins of Rev. Wright. What an idiot. The US gov made AIDS to give to the poor people........................wow. The guys a racist idiot.

Poop-Loops

Apr29-08, 11:47 PM

Why would you give AIDS to the poor people? They make the rich people rich.

hserse

Apr30-08, 12:47 AM

Obama has finally fallen into the rightwing political strategic moves of FOX (mainly), CNN, ABC with this revend Wright issue. I predict he would not win the nominee, and if he does he wouldn't win the general.

Here is the strategy which the rightwing pundits and media has played.

1. Repeatively reruning and bringing up this issue to the forefront, so either Obama or Wright would be pressured to speak up. When either one speakup the FOX news (sean hannity, orielly, etc...) would disect (instigate, insinuate, etc.. on FOX) every single words coming out of their mouth.
2. They finally got OBAMA to give a speech in Philly about race issues.. And we thought that was over. Of course, FOX and friends and many anchors from CNN (Lou Dobb, Anderson, etc.), ABC began questionings the sincerity, trustworthiness of his speech, and should Obama disowning his pastor and so forth. Again, again, and again.. they keep replaying the 30 second clip of Wright's comment. It's like groundhog day for the past several weeks.

3. Now finally, they got Wright to come out to defend his sermons of 30 years against the 30 seconds snippets. Of course as a libertarian pastor and with his egos, he went all out (of course every words he has spoken are true). But of course, the pundits (mainly supporter of Clintons, and McCain and FOX) again disecting his words w/ additional negative commentary for their own political gain.

4. New Press club (Clinton camps may have a hand in this) invites revend for an interview... and as a pastor, he went all out again. You know the rest about his comments.

5. Now Obama is forced to disavowed and distance (much farther) himself from the revend. Remember FOX news and friends wants and repeatively advocating that Obama should disavow the revend when it first started.

6. Now, after OBAMA give a press released of him disowning the revend, hannity and friends begins their usual poliitics saying his disavowing the reverend is "only for political gain" A perpetual politics in motion...

In my opinion, Obama shouldn't have to distance himself from the revend.
For those who believes the 30seconds snippet- those people are not the type of people who are open minded and aren't willing to listen to the whole sermon, and much less investigate and research towards the truth. They are either ignorant or afraid to questions the past, to question one's self, to question one's nation inorder to strive toward fixing the problem.

I don't know if this nation is ready for CHANGE, even after 8 years of Bush!! Let's vote for McCain or Hillary- we can go bomb IRAN, Syria, Palestine.. We got the might and power. We would only loose 1 soldier per 100 terrorists we've killed and it will SHOCK and AWE. Let's forget the 4,000+ soldier killed, 1 million+ IRAQIs killed and displaced, gas price up, the world is hating US, China is growing power, IRAN developing nuclear, environment in jeopardy, healthcare and social security system are about to tank.

But, but, buh revend Wright's, his intolerable and hating America speech and our prestine way of life... You know what America, you are lucky to have honorable Marine to remind our failures. I guess you prefer Cheney and Bush to tell you how great America is, while they scr*w you from beh***

Cyrus

Apr30-08, 01:13 AM

Now finally, they got Wright to come out to defend his sermons of 30 years against the 30 seconds snippets. Of course as a libertarian pastor and with his egos, he went all out (of course every words he has spoken are true). But of course, the pundits (mainly supporter of Clintons, and McCain and FOX) again disecting his words w/ additional negative commentary for their own political gain.

No, its a bunch of crap. The government gave poor people Aids? Gimme a break.

Now Obama is forced to disavowed and distance (much farther) himself from the revend. Remember FOX news and friends wants and repeatively advocating that Obama should disavow the revend when it first started.

Yes, because the guys a NUT.

Now, after OBAMA give a press released of him disowning the revend, hannity and friends begins their usual poliitics saying his disavowing the reverend is "only for political gain" A perpetual politics in motion...

You watch hannity and friends and take them seriously?

Ivan Seeking

Apr30-08, 01:35 AM

I can't help but wonder if this is a bit like a good scientist going crackpot in his later years. There have been many examples of this, and I would assume that the same thing could happen to ministers. Obama stated that the Wright of today is not the man he met twenty years ago, and that may well be true. Also, it was reported that Wright's friends begged Wright not to do this, but he wouldn't listen.

Incidentally, Obama and Wright specifically deny that Wright was his spiritual mentor or advisor. They both describe Wright as his pastor. Truthfully, that doesn't really mean much. If their relationship was that mundane, I don't expect this to stick. That is to say that Fox will certainly never let it die, but if Obama can still take the nomination, I don't see this working endlessly. The real question is how the voters will react next week, and what effect this will have on the superdelegates.

drankin

Apr30-08, 02:58 AM

Obama might have to throw him under the bus... and then drive back and forth over him if he stays in the spotlight.

~christina~

Apr30-08, 07:42 AM

Obama might have to throw him under the bus... and then drive back and forth over him if he stays in the spotlight.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Astronuc

Apr30-08, 07:50 AM

Incidentally, Obama and Wright specifically deny that Wright was his spiritual mentor or advisor. I was wondering about this. I did a search yesterday, and all I found was a lot folks claiming Wright as Obama's spiritual advisor. What I did not find was Obama claiming that.

So at the moment, I'd have to conclude that those making a such a claim are attributing words to Obama, which he himself did not say.

Basically such statements seem to constitute a blend of innuendo, slander and libel.

chemisttree

Apr30-08, 09:30 AM

5:52 “If we have more black men in our prisons than in our colleges and universities, then it’s time to take the bullet out!” -Barak Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofbUK85bnwY&feature=related

37% of black male high school graduates are currently enrolled in college and university. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3919177/

Black and Hispanic college students – commuters and those in dorms- far outnumber Black and Hispanic inmates.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21001543/

So where does Obama get the idea that “we have more black men in our prisons than in our colleges and universities”? It has been preached by Rev. Wright of course.

So much for Obama not hearing the more onerous preachings of the race-baiter Wright…

Gokul43201

Apr30-08, 10:01 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofbUK85bnwY&feature=related

37% of black male high school graduates are currently enrolled in college and university. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3919177/

Black and Hispanic college students – commuters and those in dorms- far outnumber Black and Hispanic inmates.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21001543/

So where does Obama get the idea that “we have more black men in our prisons than in our colleges and universities”? It has been preached by Rev. Wright of course.

So much for Obama not hearing the more onerous preachings of the race-baiter Wright…That's the most contorted clutching at straws I've seen in a while C-tree. For one thing, to complete your line of thought, you need to at least show evidence that this has been "preached" by Wright. And even then it won't take on even a semblance of a reasonable argument.

Besides, isn't it far more likely that it was just a loose restatement of the Census reports that have be quoted by Civil Rights activists at least dozens of times now?
WASHINGTON (AP) -- More than three times as many black people live in prison cells as in college dorms, the government said in a report to be released Thursday.

The ratio is only slightly better for Hispanics, at 2.7 inmates for every Latino in college housing.

Among non-Hispanic whites, more than twice as many live in college housing as in prison or jail.

This discussion has gotten ridiculous beyond the point of absurdity.

Astronuc

Apr30-08, 10:46 AM

So where does Obama get the idea that “we have more black men in our prisons than in our colleges and universities”? It has been preached by Rev. Wright of course.

So much for Obama not hearing the more onerous preachings of the race-baiter Wright… Not quite.

How about the American Council on Education and the University of Wisconsin as sources?

Minority College Enrollment Surges Over the Past Two Decades; Students of Color Still Lag Behind Whites in College Participation (http://www.acenet.edu/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=3719&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm) This article is dated Oct 2003.

But ( http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~oliver/RACIAL/RacialDisparities.htm ) - About a third of African American men are under the supervision of the criminal justice system, and about 12% of African American men in their 20s and 30s are incarcerated. This has been a long standing concern by organizations such as the NAACP, UNCF, many universities, . . . . Wright may repeat it, but it is discussed by many, many others.

chemisttree

Apr30-08, 10:48 AM

That's the most contorted clutching at straws I've seen in a while C-tree. For one thing, to complete your line of thought, you need to at least show evidence that this has been "preached" by Wright.
Here it is for you. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfNEfEBYIZs)

And even then it won't take on even a semblance of a reasonable argument.

Besides, isn't it far more likely that it was just a loose restatement of a Census study that has be quoted by Civil Rights activists at least dozens of times now.

If you mean lied about and mis-quoted, then I can see your narrow point. Loose restatement? Like Hillary's "misrememberances"? A lie is a lie. Who knows were Obama heard it. I'm saying that it is an identical interpretation as Wright's.

This discussion is getting ridiculous to the point of hilarity.

Clutching at straws? You must mean the highly contorted (and meaningless) statistic of dormitory residence numbers vs actual enrollment at colleges and universities. FYA, some people who go to college and university actually live off campus. Hilarious indeed!

chemisttree

Apr30-08, 10:49 AM

I was wondering about this. I did a search yesterday, and all I found was a lot folks claiming Wright as Obama's spiritual advisor. What I did not find was Obama claiming that.

So at the moment, I'd have to conclude that those making a such a claim are attributing words to Obama, which he himself did not say.

Basically such statements seem to constitute a blend of innuendo, slander and libel.

Sen. Barack Obama's Pastor Frames Progressive Issues Through Lens of Faith, Religion News Service, March 10, 2005
But when talking about how religious conservatives have pushed issues such as gay rights and stem cell research into the forefront, [Wright’s] voice becomes taut and his rebuke direct.
Those who focus on these issues are building themselves up at the expense of others and, while the Bible has many references to right and wrong, Jesus only spoke against people who judged others, Wright says.
"Are you following Jesus when you are vilifying people?" Wright asks. "The answer to that question is no."
It's no coincidence that Wright's response to these issues is similar to that of Obama, Illinois' newest senator and one of the Democratic Party's leading lights in trying to frame traditional liberal issues as moral and religious imperatives.
Obama met Wright 20 years ago in the process of trying to get Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ involved in some community organizing he was doing. Ever since, Obama has been a devoted member of Wright's church. Obama says that Wright is not only his pastor, but he also is his friend and mentor. And Wright is one of the people to whom he turns [to] help him explain how his liberal positions jibe with his faith.
'I HAVE A DEEP FAITH,' Chicago Sun-Times, April 5, 2004
These days, [Obama] says, he attends the 11 a.m. Sunday service at Trinity in the Brainerd neighborhood every week — or at least as many weeks as he is able. His pastor, Wright, has become a close confidant.
Keeping the Faith, In These Times, February 28, 2005
Wright and Obama developed a close relationship in the intervening years, and Obama counts the Reverend among his spiritual advisers. When a reporter asked Wright what advice he would give Obama upon election to the Senate, Wright said, "My advice to him: Please stay the same as you've been ever since I've known you."
Obama's Real Faith, Investor's Business Daily, January 23, 2007
Obama, meanwhile, has been getting in touch with his African roots. . . .
"I believe in the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change," he recently asserted. He said his faith has also led him to question "the idolatry of the free market." This reflects Trinity church doctrine that no African-American can really rise to the top echelons of a "racist, competitive" white society on merit.
Obama, in turn, calls the dashiki-wearing minister of this militantly black church his "spiritual adviser" and mentor. The Rev. Jeremiah Wright said of Obama and his other congregants: "We are an African people, and remain true to our native land, the mother continent." He wants health care for all and more housing for the poor, and calls those who voted for President Bush (and his tax cuts) stupid.
Barack Obama, Candidate for President, is 'UCC,' PR Newswire US, February 9, 2007
In November 2004, during his acceptance speech following his election to the Senate, Obama expressed appreciation for the support of Trinity UCC's members. The Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., pastor of Trinity UCC, is one of Obama's close spiritual advisors and is credited with giving inspiration to the title of Obama's bestselling book, "The Audacity of Hope." Obama says he first heard Wright use the phrase in one of his stirring sermons.
"Trinity UCC has been a true community to me — a place in which the mind, heart and soul come together to celebrate God's goodness," Obama told United Church News in 2004.
Black power sermons test Democrats' faith in presidential hopeful, The Sunday Telegraph (LONDON), February 11, 2007
The senator, 45, who describes the Rev Mr Wright as a mentor and spiritual adviser, acknowledged that he too was struck by the call to disavow "middleclassness'' when he first visited the church 20 years ago as a community activist who had just moved to Chicago.
"As I read it at least, it was a very simple argument taken directly from the Scripture: 'To whom much is given, much is required','' he told the Chicago Tribune. More generally, he argued, the document "espouses profoundly conservative values of self-reliance and self-help'' for black advancement.
Ethnic identity isn't black and white, Chicago Sun Times, March 25, 2007
[A]t the last minute, Obama disinvited Wright to speak last month when he officially announced his presidential candidacy. Wright says that Obama now realizes that his political handlers gave him bad advice and that all is well between him and the senator.

IS OBAMA BLACK ENOUGH? Why do you ask?, Chicago Tribune, March 11, 2007
Obama had come under fire for being a member of Trinity United Church of Christ, whose tenets are based on what it calls the Black Value System. Conservatives said the church was separatist, anti-middle-class and too Afrocentric for a candidate who speaks eloquently of constructing bridges along race and class lines. Obama has defended his church, saying it promotes self-reliance and self-help and should be a conservative's dream. . . .
For some, the idea of Obama distancing himself from the man he has called his mentor and spiritual adviser is anathema and is looked on as the candidate selling out.
So I guess that Barak has sold out now? For denouncing a hateful, angry, bitter, racist? (who probably clings to his religion and owns guns…)
That’s not selling out… that’s waking up.
All quotes retrieved from the website “The Volokh Conspiracy”. (”http://volokh.com/posts/1209531850.shtml#contact”)

chemisttree

Apr30-08, 10:55 AM

Not quite.

How about the American Council on Education and the University of Wisconsin as sources?

Minority College Enrollment Surges Over the Past Two Decades; Students of Color Still Lag Behind Whites in College Participation (http://www.acenet.edu/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=3719&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm) This article is dated Oct 2003.

But ( http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~oliver/RACIAL/RacialDisparities.htm ) - This has been a long standing concern by organizations such as the NAACP, UNCF, many universities, . . . . Wright may repeat it, but it is discussed by many, many others.

There is absolutely nothing in the link you posted that discusses the prison population vs college enrollment for black men. How is this relevant?

You do remember that the post quoted the (incorrect) statistic that there are more black men in prison than in our colleges and universities?

BobG

Apr30-08, 01:45 PM

That's the most contorted clutching at straws I've seen in a while C-tree. For one thing, to complete your line of thought, you need to at least show evidence that this has been "preached" by Wright. And even then it won't take on even a semblance of a reasonable argument.

Besides, isn't it far more likely that it was just a loose restatement of the Census reports that have be quoted by Civil Rights activists at least dozens of times now?
WASHINGTON (AP) -- More than three times as many black people live in prison cells as in college dorms, the government said in a report to be released Thursday.

The ratio is only slightly better for Hispanics, at 2.7 inmates for every Latino in college housing.

Among non-Hispanic whites, more than twice as many live in college housing as in prison or jail.

This discussion has gotten ridiculous beyond the point of absurdity.

The entire article (http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/09/27/census.prisons.ap/index.html) also explicitly mentions that off-campus students aren't included. I can't believe a reputable journalist would base his whole story on a meaningless statistic pulled out of context and feel he did an honest job by including the disclaimer and then immediately blowing it off with a "nonetheless".

The problem with a candidate using that is that it gives the impression that the candidate and his staff just peruse the headlines without actually reading any content. Or else he's intentionally cherry picking data to support his talking points rather than basing his positions on real information.

Of course, Obama never actually said this was true or relevant. He said if it's true. If listeners misconstrue what he actually said, then it's because they weren't reading the fine print. As usual, any time you listen to a politician, you need a lawyer sitting beside you to interpret.

Astronuc

Apr30-08, 02:02 PM

You do remember that the post quoted the (incorrect) statistic that there are more black men in prison than in our colleges and universities? I do remember a conditional statement beginning with "IF . . . ".

But using the 37% of graduates (if that is correct, or is it of all African American who attended high school, and who didn't drop out - and is that 18-yr old, 18-22 yr olds? . . . , and then allowing for retention rates), then one can compare to 12% of all African American males in their 20's and 30's. One needs to know the respective populations. So the numbers are relevant to the discussion.

If one took 37% of 18 year olds (or 17-19 yrs) and compared to 12% of 20-39 yr olds, one might find the latter is the larger population.

Obama may have received incorrect or inaccurate information on which he reflected, but that certainly doesn't implicate that his comment is based on some comment by Wright.

Gokul43201

Apr30-08, 02:22 PM

Who knows were Obama heard it. I'm saying that it is an identical interpretation as Wright's. No, you were claiming specifically that he heard it from Wright.So where does Obama get the idea that “we have more black men in our prisons than in our colleges and universities”? It has been preached by Rev. Wright of course.

So much for Obama not hearing the more onerous preachings of the race-baiter Wright…

Thing is, this little statistic has made the rounds through virtually every news outlet and most of them use the headline that is most eyecatching (along the lines that there are more blacks living in prisons than in college campuses).

Besides, only a third of Blacks enrolled in college ever graduate, and the important statistic is not the number that gets in but the number that gets out with a degree.

Nearly thrice as many Blacks have graduated from prison as compared to those that have graduated from college. Would you have preferred it said that way?

mheslep

Apr30-08, 02:25 PM

Well I propose locking the thread and getting back to what the candidates do and say. Wright is whack job, the Senator said as much, and now I have little interest in any more comment by or about Wright.

chemisttree

Apr30-08, 02:57 PM

I do remember a conditional statement beginning with "IF . . . ".

But using the 37% of graduates (if that is correct, or is it of all African American who attended high school, and who didn't drop out - and is that 18-yr old, 18-22 yr olds? . . . , and then allowing for retention rates), then one can compare to 12% of all African American males in their 20's and 30's. One needs to know the respective populations. So the numbers are relevant to the discussion.

If one took 37% of 18 year olds (or 17-19 yrs) and compared to 12% of 20-39 yr olds, one might find the latter is the larger population.

Obama may have received incorrect or inaccurate information on which he reflected, but that certainly doesn't implicate that his comment is based on some comment by Wright.

The completion rate for white males in 2000 was approximately 92%. That of black males was approximately 84%. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/2002114.pdf

How far will you go in your attempt to believe this awful lie. Why is it so easy to believe such a negative statistic? What part of, "Black and Hispanic college students – commuters and those in dorms- far outnumber Black and Hispanic inmates." don't you believe or want to believe?

chemisttree

Apr30-08, 03:00 PM

Besides, only a third of Blacks enrolled in college ever graduate, and the important statistic is not the number that gets in but the number that gets out with a degree.

Nearly thrice as many Blacks have graduated from prison as compared to those that have graduated from college. Would you have preferred it said that way?

Strawman.

W3pcq

Apr30-08, 03:12 PM

I'm sick of hearing everyone buy into the idea that this shouldn't be an issue that should be discussed. The man is running for president. The idea that we don't need to know anything about him, just believe everything he says on the campaign is such bull. They keep brainwashing it into peoples minds that anything bad for Obama is just media B.S. Don't people want to know real things. Is the argument that we are so dumb that we are going to fall for all the tricks. Why can't we see all the angles and decide for ourself.

Also the idea that Obama isn't that close to Wright, the word play, advisor, mentor, pastor, is all such B.S. I think it is obvious what role he has played in Obamas life. In Obamas first denunciation, he said Wright was like family to him, he said wright helped him find god, Obama wrote a book and titled it after one of wrights sermons. This is not just a pastor, this is more, what you want to call the relationship, I don't know, but it is obvious.

CNN has been all for Obama the whole time, and even during the Wright controversy. The CNN news team were teary eyed after Wrights comments, even they were forced to address the issue which looks bad from any angle. All this time they have been defending Wright, saying it is just out of context short clips, all of that has been a lie, Wright is actually represented well by those clips. Of coarse fox takes it to a new level, but they don't even have to do much, the issue itself is a biggie.

The biggest issue is the idea that Obama will say whatever he needs to get elected, of coarse he will just as Hillary will, that is the very nature of running. After Wright speaks, every says, "He is going to really need to throw Wright under the bus after this one to get past it." So what does he do, no brainer. His words have probably been carefully chosen by think tanks. I take no notice to any of that B.S., I look at the facts. I'm not saying that the issue is going to make me not vote for Obama, I'm just sick of the dishonesty behind trying to make it a non issue.

BobG

Apr30-08, 03:30 PM

No, you were claiming specifically that he heard it from Wright.

Thing is, this little statistic has made the rounds through virtually every news outlet and most of them use the headline that is most eyecatching (along the lines that there are more blacks living in prisons than in college campuses).

Besides, only a third of Blacks enrolled in college ever graduate, and the important statistic is not the number that gets in but the number that gets out with a degree.

Nearly thrice as many Blacks have graduated from prison as compared to those that have graduated from college. Would you have preferred it said that way?

Actually, a third of black men graduate (as compared to about two-thirds of white students and nearly half of black women).

Main difference: Money. White graduates and black graduates come from families with about the same mean income. 69% of black drop outs quit because of money while 43% of white drop outs quite because of money.

There's also some other proposed reasons, but none of those are as significant as money.

http://www.jbhe.com/preview/winter07preview.html

Somewhere along the way, there is a point that blacks face a disadvantage in graduating from college, but the story making the rounds is still garbage.

chemisttree

Apr30-08, 03:50 PM

The completion rate for white males in 2000 was approximately 92%. That of black males was approximately 84%. http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/2002114.pdf

It should read:
The completion rate for whites (male and female) in 2000 was approximately 92%. That of blacks (male and female) was approximately 84%.

Gokul43201

Apr30-08, 04:06 PM

Strawman.You notice, I began that section with the word 'besides'. That means I'm making an additional point - one that addresses what is actually the relevant statistic here.

mheslep

Apr30-08, 04:34 PM

...I'm not saying that the issue is going to make me not vote for Obama, I'm just sick of the dishonesty behind trying to make it a non issue.The past Obama-Wright relationship is an issue, but there is no more current Obama-Wright relationship. Anything that Wright has to say from now on is meaningless - Britney Spears bling. So I say give the issue whatever weight you feel warranted, factor it in and move on.

drankin

Apr30-08, 04:53 PM

The past Obama-Wright relationship is an issue, but there is no more current Obama-Wright relationship. Anything that Wright has to say from now on is meaningless - Britney Spears bling. So I say give the issue whatever weight you feel warranted, factor it in and move on.

It's only a "past" relationship because he's running for President. If he weren't running for President there would still be a relationship. I think it's worth considering that that is the ONLY reason he severed his association. Wright hasn't changed after 20yrs of preaching in front of Obama. I think this is very important to determine the past influences of a potential world leader. It is very relevant, the media knows this, voters know this.

Gokul43201

Apr30-08, 05:03 PM

It's only a "past" relationship because he's running for President. If he weren't running for President there would still be a relationship. I think it's worth considering that that is the ONLY reason he severed his association. Wright hasn't changed after 20yrs of preaching in front of Obama. I think this is very important to determine the past influences of a potential world leader. It is very relevant, the media knows this, voters know this.Only in this country can your world view be shaped by your pastor! :rolleyes:

Anyway, what I think is more worthy of consideration is that Obama joined the Trinity Church 20 years ago because that was the smart thing to do, to climb the Chicago political ladder.

Y'all are getting yourselves tied up in knots that Obama may be swallowing all the bitter, hate filled rants from Wright, while it troubles me that he's swallowing all the hokey angels and talking snakes nonsense.

drankin

Apr30-08, 05:12 PM

Only in this country can your world view be shaped by your pastor! :rolleyes:

Anyway, what I think is more worthy of consideration is that Obama joined the Trinity Church 20 years ago because that was the smart thing to do, to climb the Chicago political ladder.

Y'all are getting yourselves tied up in knots that Obama may be swallowing all the bitter, hate filled rants from Wright, while it troubles me that he's swallowing all the hokey angels and talking snakes nonsense.

Angels? Snakes?

mheslep

Apr30-08, 05:31 PM

...Y'all are getting yourselves tied up in knots that Obama may be swallowing all the bitter, hate filled rants from Wright, while it troubles me that he's swallowing all the hokey angels and talking snakes nonsense.Now this is interesting. You reject the package-deal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Package-deal_fallacy)fallacy on ascribing Wright's rants to Obama, but dive right into package deal on ascribing the mythical/fringe/cultish aspects of the church to Obama. Why can't it be that Obama subscribes only to the main idea of the Church: love? If you can point to some snake handling episodes in Obama's life / bios please enlighten.

Gokul43201

Apr30-08, 05:44 PM

Now this is interesting. You reject the package-deal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Package-deal_fallacy)fallacy on ascribing Wright's rants to Obama, but dive right into package deal on ascribing the mythical/fringe/cultish aspects of the church to Obama. I didn't know that the existence of angels was a mythical/fringe/cultish aspect of Christianity! I could just as well have gone with the virgin birth, the Ten Commandments or the existence of a God that sent a "son" to earth 2 millenia ago.

And the difference between being informed by your pastor about socio-political views as opposed to the contents of your religious text is obvious.

Why can't it be that Obama subscribes only to the main idea of the Church: love?It may be that he does, but it's the Church of God, not the Church of Love.

mheslep

Apr30-08, 05:58 PM

It's only a "past" relationship because he's running for President. If he weren't running for President there would still be a relationship. I think it's worth considering that that is the ONLY reason he severed his association.
Well thats posed two ways: first as a fact, then as a possibility worth considering. It can't be known what would have happened. Yes it bears consideration and I'll keep it in mind going forward. Consider though: As a local politician he could have easily grabbed the pulpit some Sunday ala Bill Clinton and spouted off Wrightish rants, pandering to the crowd. No history of that. In academia he could have found equally sympathetic forums in which to pander Wrightisms. No record of that either. And so on. So in the meantime he continues to get the benefit of the doubt from me, though the margin has grown small.

Wright hasn't changed after 20yrs of preaching in front of Obama Apparently Wright didn't come in every Sunday and exclaim the US invented AIDs and GD America, nor did the Senator show up that regularly. Yes Wiright married him, yes he took his kids to the church, yaddah, yaddah.
I think this is very important to determine the past influences of a potential world leader. Absolutely. I suggest that now you have look elsewhere to determine more about Obama.

drankin

Apr30-08, 06:01 PM

I didn't know that the existence of angels was a mythical/fringe/cultish aspect of Christianity! I could just as well have gone with the virgin birth, the Ten Commandments or the existence of a God that sent a "son" to earth 2 millenia ago.

And the difference between being informed by your pastor about socio-political views as opposed to the contents of your religious text is obvious.

It may be that he does, but it's the Church of God, not the Church of Love.

I don't think we've had a professed athiest as a President... ever. I guess they figured out that the majority won't vote for one. So for you to be surprised that a candidate doesn't renounce religion is humorous.

Gokul43201

Apr30-08, 06:35 PM

I don't think we've had a professed athiest as a President... ever.Or a Black person, or a woman, or anyone in their 70s.

So for you to be surprised that a candidate doesn't renounce religion is humorous.I never said I was surprised. Much to the contrary I posited that he may have initially embraced religion specifically for this purpose.

mheslep

Apr30-08, 06:40 PM

And the difference between being informed by your pastor about socio-political views as opposed to the contents of your religious text is obvious. It is obvious in both cases there is no real evidence that the Sen. embraces either Wrights views or a literal interpretation of the bible. In the later case you know Obama's "swallowing all the hokey angels and talking snakes nonsense" since, why? He's a monotheist? He went to church? He read the bible? No, its just an assumption, a package deal.

It may be that he does, but it's the Church of God, not the Church of Love.To my mind in the Christian church they are supposed to be the same thing.

Gokul43201

Apr30-08, 06:52 PM

It is obvious in both cases there is no real evidence that the Sen. embraces either Wrights views or a literal interpretation of the bible. There is definitely evidence in his speeches to support my fear that he accepts a literal enough interpretation to trouble me. I only hope that he's been forced to up the ante on the Jesus-talk because of the rumors that he's a Muslim, and boy what a terrible thing that would be!

To my mind in the Christian church they are supposed to be the same thing.I wish they were, but I've been to church and that was hardly the impression I got.

Gokul43201

Apr30-08, 07:09 PM

I'm going to excuse myself from this specific discussion here - I'm not very good at talking about religious topics with the constraints we have against such discussion, and I'd rather desist than get myself banned.

mheslep

Apr30-08, 07:25 PM

Ivan Seeking

Apr30-08, 10:15 PM

Heh, I find this all rather amusing, actually. I am quite sure that many of you would find the beliefs of all three candidates to be unacceptable.

hserse

Apr30-08, 10:40 PM

Cyrus

Apr30-08, 10:47 PM

Yes, I assumed you've spent sometime (5 second I assumed) googling in regards Wright's comments concerning AIDS and black. In his style and tone, of course, it may seem far worst than it really was; however, the underlining truth still exists (no matter how proportionally small it may have been). Statically speaking, when you have articles, testimony, ect.. written in regards to such subject, there's alway some bit (if not all) truth to it.

Some truth to WHAT!? Just because some fool goes on tv and says something. Uh-uh, I dont think so. That ant gonna fly. Claiming the government made and gave AIDS to poor people is so far out there I expect GOOD SOLID evidence to back it up.

By the way, did you know John McCain killed several crewmember during his time as a Navy pilot and destroyed aircraft carrier called the Forrestal.

Did he really? Hahhaa, first time I've heard of that. Id like to know more though. What he do, crash land into it and it caught on fire?

"Yes, because the guys a NUT." - Apparently you are a prejudice person.
Note: I not saying you are bad person or racist, but rather meaning you are judging someone before getting to know that person.

No, I heard his speech, and I came to the conclusion that hes an idiot. Its as simple as that.

"You watch hannity and friends and take them seriously?" I'm a fairly opened minded person, I watched them once in awhile. I don't take them seriously; however, you have to admit they seriously in tune with many voters mentality.

Dont be so open minded your brains fall out in the process. Yeah, and those people are also in the same short bus as Wright.

Ivan Seeking

Apr30-08, 10:51 PM

TUSKEGEE SYPHILIS STUDY

...The rural setting of Tuskegee - a deprived socioeconomic status,high rates of illiteracy and especially a paucity of medical care - were exploited by the investigators of the syphilis study who led the poor sharecroppers to believe they were being treated for "bad blood," a euphemism for syphilis. The study, which lasted for 40 years included only sporadic clinical reexaminations when a Public Health physician came to Tuskegee and denied the individuals any form of anti-syphilitic therapy. In fact, in 1942 when it was brought to the attention of the then Assistant Surgeon General, Vonderlehr that some of the syphilitic subjects were being called for examination prior to induction into the Armed Forces and were being directed to undergo treatment systematic steps were taken to preserve the investigation. To prevent the draftees from receiving anti-syphilitic treatment, the investigators provided the Macon County Selective Service Board with a list of 256 names of men under the age of 45 years who were to be excluded from the list of draftees needing treatment. The Board agreed to exclude these men. Furthermore, when the modern-era of anti-syphilitc therapy began in 1943 with the introduction of penicillin as an effective drug, the Public Health Service did not use the drug on the Tuskegee participants unless they asked for it. The rationale published by the investigators for their decision regarding the lack of treatment provided to the infected "Negro" population was,

"...Such individuals seemed to offer an unusual opportunity to study the untreated syphilitic patients from the beginning of the disease to the death of the infected person. An opportunity was also offered to compare the syphilitc process uninfluenced by modern treatment, with the results attained when treatment had been given."(6)

By the time the study was exposed in 1972, and ended on November 16th of the same year, 28 men had died of syphilis, 100 others were dead due to syphilis related complications, at least 40 wives had been infected and 19 children had contracted the disease at birth. [continued]
http://www.brown.edu/Courses/Bio_160/Projects2000/Ethics/TUSKEGEESYPHILISSTUDY.html