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

  • Thread starter Thread starter arildno
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Support
Click For Summary
Reverend Wright's inflammatory comments and association with controversial figures like Louis Farrakhan raise concerns about his influence on Barack Obama, particularly as he seeks the presidency. Despite denouncing Wright's statements, Obama faces scrutiny over their long-term relationship, which some argue complicates his political image. Critics express that guilt by association could unfairly damage Obama's candidacy, while others argue that a candidate's spiritual advisor reflects their values. The ongoing discussion highlights the challenges Obama faces in navigating racial and political sensitivities within the electorate. Ultimately, the implications of Wright's rhetoric could significantly impact Obama's chances in the general election.
  • #241
Gokul43201 said:
...Y'all are getting yourselves tied up in knots that Obama may be swallowing all the bitter, hate filled rants from Wright, while it troubles me that he's swallowing all the hokey angels and talking snakes nonsense.
Now this is interesting. You reject the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Package-deal_fallacy" fallacy on ascribing Wright's rants to Obama, but dive right into package deal on ascribing the mythical/fringe/cultish aspects of the church to Obama. Why can't it be that Obama subscribes only to the main idea of the Church: love? If you can point to some snake handling episodes in Obama's life / bios please enlighten.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #242
mheslep said:
Now this is interesting. You reject the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Package-deal_fallacy" fallacy on ascribing Wright's rants to Obama, but dive right into package deal on ascribing the mythical/fringe/cultish aspects of the church to Obama.
I didn't know that the existence of angels was a mythical/fringe/cultish aspect of Christianity! I could just as well have gone with the virgin birth, the Ten Commandments or the existence of a God that sent a "son" to Earth 2 millenia ago.

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

Why can't it be that Obama subscribes only to the main idea of the Church: love?
It may be that he does, but it's the Church of God, not the Church of Love.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #243
drankin said:
It's only a "past" relationship because he's running for President. If he weren't running for President there would still be a relationship. I think it's worth considering that that is the ONLY reason he severed his association.
Well that's posed two ways: first as a fact, then as a possibility worth considering. It can't be known what would have happened. Yes it bears consideration and I'll keep it in mind going forward. Consider though: As a local politician he could have easily grabbed the pulpit some Sunday ala Bill Clinton and spouted off Wrightish rants, pandering to the crowd. No history of that. In academia he could have found equally sympathetic forums in which to pander Wrightisms. No record of that either. And so on. So in the meantime he continues to get the benefit of the doubt from me, though the margin has grown small.

Wright hasn't changed after 20yrs of preaching in front of Obama
Apparently Wright didn't come in every Sunday and exclaim the US invented AIDs and GD America, nor did the Senator show up that regularly. Yes Wiright married him, yes he took his kids to the church, yaddah, yaddah.
I think this is very important to determine the past influences of a potential world leader.
Absolutely. I suggest that now you have look elsewhere to determine more about Obama.
 
Last edited:
  • #244
Gokul43201 said:
I didn't know that the existence of angels was a mythical/fringe/cultish aspect of Christianity! I could just as well have gone with the virgin birth, the Ten Commandments or the existence of a God that sent a "son" to Earth 2 millenia ago.

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

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

I don't think we've had a professed athiest as a President... ever. I guess they figured out that the majority won't vote for one. So for you to be surprised that a candidate doesn't renounce religion is humorous.
 
  • #245
drankin said:
I don't think we've had a professed athiest as a President... ever.
Or a Black person, or a woman, or anyone in their 70s.

So for you to be surprised that a candidate doesn't renounce religion is humorous.
I never said I was surprised. Much to the contrary I posited that he may have initially embraced religion specifically for this purpose.
 
Last edited:
  • #246
And the difference between being informed by your pastor about socio-political views as opposed to the contents of your religious text is obvious.
It is obvious in both cases there is no real evidence that the Sen. embraces either Wrights views or a literal interpretation of the bible. In the later case you know Obama's "swallowing all the hokey angels and talking snakes nonsense" since, why? He's a monotheist? He went to church? He read the bible? No, its just an assumption, a package deal.

It may be that he does, but it's the Church of God, not the Church of Love.
To my mind in the Christian church they are supposed to be the same thing.
 
  • #247
mheslep said:
It is obvious in both cases there is no real evidence that the Sen. embraces either Wrights views or a literal interpretation of the bible.
There is definitely evidence in his speeches to support my fear that he accepts a literal enough interpretation to trouble me. I only hope that he's been forced to up the ante on the Jesus-talk because of the rumors that he's a Muslim, and boy what a terrible thing that would be!

To my mind in the Christian church they are supposed to be the same thing.
I wish they were, but I've been to church and that was hardly the impression I got.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #248
I'm going to excuse myself from this specific discussion here - I'm not very good at talking about religious topics with the constraints we have against such discussion, and I'd rather desist than get myself banned.
 
  • #249
Gokul43201 said:
I'm going to excuse myself from this specific discussion here - I'm not very good at talking about religious topics with the constraints we have against such discussion, and I'd rather desist than get myself banned.
Probably wise advise for me too.
 
  • #250
Heh, I find this all rather amusing, actually. I am quite sure that many of you would find the beliefs of all three candidates to be unacceptable.
 
  • #251
Yes, I assumed you've spent sometime (5 second I assumed) googling in regards Wright's comments concerning AIDS and black. In his style and tone, of course, it may seem far worst than it really was; however, the underlining truth still exists (no matter how proportionally small it may have been). Statically speaking, when you have articles, testimony, ect.. written in regards to such subject, there's alway some bit (if not all) truth to it.
By the way, did you know John McCain killed several crewmember during his time as a Navy pilot and destroyed aircraft carrier called the Forrestal.

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

"You watch hannity and friends and take them seriously?" I'm a fairly opened minded person, I watched them once in awhile. I don't take them seriously; however, you have to admit they seriously in tune with many voters mentality.
 
  • #252
hserse said:
Yes, I assumed you've spent sometime (5 second I assumed) googling in regards Wright's comments concerning AIDS and black. In his style and tone, of course, it may seem far worst than it really was; however, the underlining truth still exists (no matter how proportionally small it may have been). Statically speaking, when you have articles, testimony, ect.. written in regards to such subject, there's alway some bit (if not all) truth to it.

Some truth to WHAT!? Just because some fool goes on tv and says something. Uh-uh, I don't think so. That ant going to fly. Claiming the government made and gave AIDS to poor people is so far out there I expect GOOD SOLID evidence to back it up.

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

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

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

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

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

Dont be so open minded your brains fall out in the process. Yeah, and those people are also in the same short bus as Wright.
 
  • #253
TUSKEGEE SYPHILIS STUDY

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

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

By the time the study was exposed in 1972, and ended on November 16th of the same year, 28 men had died of syphilis, 100 others were dead due to syphilis related complications, at least 40 wives had been infected and 19 children had contracted the disease at birth. [continued]
http://www.brown.edu/Courses/Bio_160/Projects2000/Ethics/TUSKEGEESYPHILISSTUDY.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #254
Ivan Seeking said:
http://www.brown.edu/Courses/Bio_160/Projects2000/Ethics/TUSKEGEESYPHILISSTUDY.html

I wasnt aware Syphilis is also known as AIDS.

I ask for proof of one thing, and you show me something completely different.


My friend made your exact argument yesterday, and I told him the same thing. Whats this got to do with Wrights claim about AIDS?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #255
Who said that I was talking to you?

Wright referenced Tuskegee, so for that reason alone it applies. But more than that, it is one reason why Wright and others might believe that such things as the AIDS claims are possible.
 
  • #256
Ivan Seeking said:
Who said that I was talking to you?

Wright referenced Tuskegee, so for that reason alone it applies. But more than that, it is one reason why Wright and others might believe that such things as the AIDS claims are possible.

Oh, I thought you were posting that in response to me -apologies.

His argument is desparate. He also says things like 'God Damn America'. He is welcome to leave.

We need uniters, not dividers. Wright is a divider. We need a decider.

All he's doing is pandering to black people stuck between a rock and a hard place by trying to relate to them. He's full of it. He said crap like, "I know many of you want to know more about me because I am controversial. Well, you can find out all you want abotu me in my new book, that's coming out soon..."


That mans a scumbag who profits off of others hardships.
 
Last edited:
  • #257
I don't blame Wright for his anti-americanism, he probably has good reasons to be. The main problem I have is the way that he is also anti-white in general no matter what country your from. Now I will probably be accused of being anti(anti-white). I'm actually just more anti-racist in general. It isn't right to blame things on a color of skin.
 
Last edited:
  • #258
W3pcq said:
I don't blame Wright for his anti-americanism, he probably has good reasons to be. The main problem I have is the way that he is also anti-white in general no matter what country your from. Now I will probably be accused of being anti(anti-white). I'm actually just more anti-racist in general. It isn't right to blame things on a color of skin.

Sure you can blame him. If he hates it here so much, he can go back to Africa.
 
  • #259
Cyrus said:
Sure you can blame him. If he hates it here so much, he can go back to Africa.

I don't think that they would have him.:biggrin:

Fox news is still harping on the guy and probably will be until something else they can sensationalize comes up.
 
  • #260
Well at least we have good reason to believe that Wright isn't in kahoots with Obama.
 
  • #261
Cyrus said:
His argument is desparate. He also says things like 'God Damn America'. He is welcome to leave.

Is that how democracy works now; dissenters are asked to leave? Was he born in Africa, or are you saying that as a US citizen he is not allowed to be angry?
 
  • #262
Ivan Seeking said:
Is that how democracy works now; dissenters are asked to leave? Was he born in Africa, or are you saying that as a US citizen he is not allowed to be angry?

Hes not a dissenter, he's just pandering to blacks. Hes giving them reason to blame white people for all their problems. He sounds a lot like the people he complains about. The KKK blame black people for their problems, he's doing the opposite.
 
Last edited:
  • #263
Cyrus said:
Hes not a dissenter, he's just pandering to blacks. Hes giving them reason to blame white people for all their problems. He sounds a lot like the people he complains about. The KKK blame black people for their problems, he's doing the opposite.
So you are equating the justifiable anger of a victim with the irrational hate filled rage of the victim's attacker. Nice one Cyrus.
 
  • #264
mheslep said:
Grad school

What department?
 
  • #265
This thread is running away, but I did skim and get this:
Gokul43201 said:
Anyway, what I think is more worthy of consideration is that Obama joined the Trinity Church 20 years ago because that was the smart thing to do, to climb the Chicago political ladder.
Absolutely. Obama is a career politician and career politicians tend to make personal life choices based on the political ramifications. But (and I'm not saying you implied this) the fact that politicians don't always act based on their real beliefs cannot be an excuse for unpopular actions and poorly chosen actions cannot be excused because they were done mostly for political opportunism. Politicians want the door to swing both ways and some are masters at it. For me, the door swings neither way - or rather, it'll hit them in both directions.
 
  • #266
Cyrus said:
He also says things like 'God Damn America'. He is welcome to leave.
I don't completely understand the association of anti-patriotism or treason with words condemning America...such as those above, or these: "And I come by here to say that America too is going to Hell, if we don't use her wealth. If America does not use her vast resources of wealth to end poverty, to make it possible for all of God's children to have the basic necessities of life, she too will go to Hell."

Are these words really unpatriotic? Can someone explain why?
 
  • #268
Gokul43201 said:
I don't completely understand the association of anti-patriotism or treason with words condemning America...such as those above, or these: "And I come by here to say that America too is going to Hell, if we don't use her wealth. If America does not use her vast resources of wealth to end poverty, to make it possible for all of God's children to have the basic necessities of life, she too will go to Hell."

Are these words really unpatriotic? Can someone explain why?

Because it makes for great sound bites for the Rush crowd?
 
  • #269
I think this has been beaten to death. Unless something really new comes up, I'm locking this for now.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
10K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
7K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
6K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K