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

[TVP45]

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...).

 

[rbj]

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

according to the delegate count at the NY Times, 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]

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]

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]

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

 

[lisab]

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

 

[Astronuc]

Bill Richardson on Obama

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

Richardson looks good with a beard.

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]

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

Funny!

 

[rbj]

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 sort of 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 sort of 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]

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]

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]

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]

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:
(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]

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:
(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.

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? -Especially after McCain denounced Falwell.

 

[TVP45]

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:
(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.

And, IMHO, it's worth looking at how a non-nutty religious group views politics.
www.rj.org
And, I am a Christian so I'm not in any sense promoting my own religion.

 

[Gokul43201]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

... 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]

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]

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 that's Falwell we were discussing.

 

[Gokul43201]

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.



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]

No that's 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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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-hop

We'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 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]

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=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]

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]

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; I've 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.

McCain is not mentioned in that clip.

 

[mheslep]

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 that's 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]

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]

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

No I don't think that's 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:


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

 

[Gokul43201]

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 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]

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]

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

My bad. I was thinking of Hagee.

No I don't think that's 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 referred 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]

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]

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 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.

 

[Poop-Loops]

Lots of people equate Satanism with atheism, sadly.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

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, let's get back to you Yanks teaching us provincial Brits et al. a thing or two about American politics. Thanks.

 

[D H]

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]

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.

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.

 

[mheslep]

...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 I've 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 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...A25752C1A965958260&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.

My wife and I will likely follow his advice.

 

[mjsd]

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.

 

[rbj]

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 don't know 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]

...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 referred 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]

... 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]

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]

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.

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. 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.