News Jeremiah Wright: Why does Mr. Obama support him?

[Ivan Seeking]

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]

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

 

[Contrapositive]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Shelby Steele piece yesterday.
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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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]

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]

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). She says that there is a pervasive culture of laziness among inner-city blacks who don't rise above their parents. Is she racist or does she just know from experience that if you work hard you really can get ahead, no matter where you came from?

Now I don't know how pervasive the attitudes of the three people I just cited are, but they are out there and these are people who already didn't support Obama. Rejecting his pastor at all will turn more against him and not rejecting him enough will turn more whites against him.

 

[Poop-Loops]

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!

Err, no, actually a lot of conservative people and places have been saying Obama did a great job.

I've been looking for a while (Google) and I haven't found anything that's given him a bad review. "Mixed" was the worst I could find, and then it was a poll amongst people, not media personalities.

 

[russ_watters]

No worse than McCain’s buddies [dispensationalists] who want to start WWIII in order to fulfill biblical prophesy.
https://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]

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]

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 sellout

If 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 "cool person" 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]

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, "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]

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]

This is pretty common type of speaking for black preachers.

 

[mjsd]

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!

 

[Art]

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]

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]

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=1779141

Uhm, Gokul, that link is from 2006, you DO know that Falwell died in May of 2007?

 

[Gokul43201]

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...[/size]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Evo]

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]

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?

 

[Evo]

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]

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]

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.

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.

 

[Evo]

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]

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
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,_Sr.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Dunham

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

 

[Poop-Loops]

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]

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]

Who's opening for him?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Who's opening for him?

Opening what, his beer?

Just kidding. I have no idea.

 

[TVP45]

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]

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]

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]

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.