News Obama quits Chicago church after long controversy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Evo
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
Barack Obama announced his resignation from the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago after 20 years, citing sadness and the need to distance himself from controversial remarks made by his former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and a visiting priest. The decision was seen as necessary to protect his political image amid growing scrutiny over the church's inflammatory rhetoric. Some participants in the discussion expressed that Obama should have left the church sooner, while others debated whether he truly shared the controversial views of Wright. The conversation also touched on the implications of church affiliation for political capital and the challenges of navigating racial and social issues in America. Ultimately, Obama's resignation reflects the complexities of maintaining personal beliefs while engaging in public life.
Evo
Staff Emeritus
Messages
24,029
Reaction score
3,323
Can I call 'em or what?

ABERDEEN, S.D. - Barack Obama said Saturday he has resigned his 20-year membership in the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago "with some sadness" in the aftermath of inflammatory remarks by his longtime pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and more recent fiery remarks at the church by a visiting priest.


"This is not a decision I come to lightly ... and it is one I make with some sadness," Obama said at a news conference after campaign officials released a letter of resignation he sent to the church on Friday.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080601/ap_on_el_pr/obama

Seriously, the only sensible thing he could do was leave and put as much distance between him and that church as possible.

I guess he must have seen my post and decided to take my advice. :wink:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes just as I predicted he resigned sooner rather than later :-p
 
i am somewhat sad that he took your cut and run advice, evo. of course he may also have just had enough. what if his barber or bus driver listens to rush limbaugh? does he have to change his routine?
 
Last edited:
mathwonk said:
i am somewhat sad that he took your cut and run advice, evo. of course he may also have just had enough. what if his barber or bus driver listens to rush limbaugh? does he have to change his routine?
Did you see the video of Pfleger? I've never seen such venemous hate mongering. It was shocking. Obama had to cut his ties.

If you have not watched the Pfleger video, the entire one, the one I posted was just a small portion, and I think that has been taken down, you need to watch it, but be warned, it's pretty nasty, and Pfleger comes off as a raving psycho.
 
mathwonk said:
what if his barber or bus driver listens to rush limbaugh? does he have to change his routine?
That depends - does he look to his barber or bus driver for spiritual/moral guidance?
 
I'm not sure it will make a big difference now. He should have made the decision sooner.
 
Evo said:
Did you see the video of Pfleger? I've never seen such venemous hate mongering. It was shocking.
I've only watched one video, and in my opinion, it was a brilliant comedic routine. I don't see why everyone's upset about it - especially Hillary - since it seems to be essentially a spot on depiction.

Can you post the link to the hate-mongering video?
 
Does that make Obama an atheist now?
 
Cyrus said:
Does that make Obama an atheist now?
I have been secretly grinning about this idea (not exactly, but close) ever since I read the news about it. Shhhh!
 
  • #10
Uh, I thought he was a moslem ?
 
  • #11
Uh, I thought he was a moslem ?

He's not...

Does that make Obama an atheist now?

I don't think so but I think he'll be staying away from churches these days -hence taking a passive stance, hoping this would go by...or quite the opposite he might go to another one and announce it - as a way of saying "I'm against these kind of speeches" -
 
  • #12
Trinity United Church of Christ is an example of what some call 'charismatic' with respect to the types of sermon issued from the pulpit. It's a different culture than that to which most are apparently accustomed. The idea it seems is to get people fired up. It's not something that would appeal to me.

I do find it unfortunate that Pfleger chose to denigrate Clinton. That was unnecessary, even if some of it had some possible truth to it, i.e. the sense of entitlement. But Pfleger went over the top.


I'm sure Obama will look for a new church, perhaps one in Washington DC. These days, one earns political capital by attending church.
 
  • #13
He should have quit this church 20 years ago, or rather, not getting involved with it to begin with.

Rather than his insincere denunciations of Mr. Wright, Obama should have come out clean and said the truth, namely that for a number of years, he himself shared the sentiments of Mr. Wright, and HENCE, chose to be a member of that congregation.

Then he could have apologized, in a far more believable way, that he himself was wrong in sharing the reprehensible opinions of Mr. Wright.
 
  • #14
arildno said:
Rather than his insincere denunciations of Mr. Wright, Obama should have come out clean and said the truth, namely that for a number of years, he himself shared the sentiments of Mr. Wright, and HENCE, chose to be a member of that congregation.
And you know this truth how?
 
  • #15
Mike Huckabee's opinion of the Obama/Wright controversy:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #16
Astronuc said:
I'm sure Obama will look for a new church, perhaps one in Washington DC. These days, one earns political capital by attending church.

'strue.
 
  • #17
Gokul43201 said:
I've only watched one video, and in my opinion, it was a brilliant comedic routine. I don't see why everyone's upset about it - especially Hillary - since it seems to be essentially a spot on depiction.

Can you post the link to the hate-mongering video?
Here's a snippet, I'll see if I can find the whole sermon. The part about Clinton was just a tiny piece.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfWnY5PC0CQ&feature=related
 
  • #18
Evo said:
Can I call 'em or what?

I thought of you as soon as I heard the news. :approve:
 
  • #19
Evo said:
Here's a snippet, I'll see if I can find the whole sermon.
I honestly don't find anything particularly controversial in what he said there. Retribution, is, after all, still a big piece of modern American jurisprudence (and it's probably only the Anglicans and some small fraction of Lutherans that have any objection to it).
 
  • #20
Gokul43201 said:
I honestly don't find anything particularly controversial in what he said there. Retribution, is, after all, still a big piece of modern American jurisprudence (and it's probably only the Anglicans and some small fraction of Lutherans that have any objection to it).
Screaming to a group of black people that they have been repeatedly raped by American Whites? That's not hate mongering? Of I'm sure that did a lot of good to help smooth over racial tensions. And there were small children listening to him, what are they supposed to think? He's telling the congregation, throughout his sermon that white people are against blacks. Did you see the snippet of him praising Rev Wright, again evil White people are against them.

This is why Obama had to leave, not the parody of Clinton.
 
Last edited:
  • #21
It certainly betrays Obama's message of reconciliation and hope. I am personally not shocked by his sermon, really, because I understand the reference to rape, and to some degree I understand why some black people feel this way. And the reverend was only saying what many in the audience feel. But even in the case of a rape victim, either life moves on, or you spend the rest of your life being an angry victim.

I think one problem here is that some older people have been too angry for too long, and change is not possible.
 
Last edited:
  • #22
There is another piece to that no one mentioned - the part about "America has to pay the price..." Part of what makes such rhetoric so popular is the idea that there may be some free money associated with it.

It's a tough balance for a democrat, though. So much of their political capital comes from playing-up the victim mentality and the free money to make up for it. This guy was very obviously over the line, but the big picture is that Obama needs those people to believe they are victims and that he can help them. It is also not too dissimilar to Hillary's message to lower-class whites. And Obama's "bitter" comment was intended to be the same message, he just tripped over the delivery.
 
Last edited:
  • #23
russ_watters said:
but the big picture is that Obama needs those people to believe they are victims and that he can help them.

Why does he need that? I think the reverends need them to feel like victims, but not Obama. In fact Obama stands out as anything but a victim. He stands as an example of how far we have come.

As for paying the price, this notion that the US owes the decendents of slaves reparations, is absurd. I see this as nothing more than a loser's pipedream.
 
Last edited:
  • #24
Evo said:
Screaming to a group of black people that they have been repeatedly raped by American Whites? That's not hate mongering? Of I'm sure that did a lot of good to help smooth over racial tensions. And there were small children listening to him, what are they supposed to think? He's telling the congregation, throughout his sermon that white people are against blacks. Did you see the snippet of him praising Rev Wright, again evil White people are against them.
It is my own personal opinion that this is hate mongering, but I don't see why most Americans should see it as so. After all, it strikes me as no different from testimonials in the penalty phase of a court hearing where family members of the victim describe the suffering of their loved one at the hands of the perpetrator and demand retribution.

I find both practices despicable, but I'm in the minority.

I don't think he was telling the congregation that white people are against blacks - he can hardly pull that off, being himself a ... white person. It only sounds like he is saying that there has been a long history of white subjugation and some whites now think that blacks should get over it and move on. He is also justifying a hatred of white supremacy beyond one which exists today, and he is fostering a sense of entitlement beyond one which is productive.
 
Last edited:
  • #25
Gokul43201 said:
And you know this truth how?

No, I agree with arildno here. For 20 years the man was a part of this chruch. This is def not something new to him. To be 'outraged' so late at the game is just BS. I am sure he knew exactly what was said in that chruch when the spotlight wasnt on him, and he ate it up. If he's going to claim its suddenly not in line with his views, what did he do there for 20 years, sleep through the sermons?
 
  • #26
Ivan Seeking said:
As for paying the price, this notion that the US owes the decendents of slaves reparations, is absurd. I see this as nothing more than a loser's pipedream.

If you know anything about how the US economy was basically built on the backs of black slaves, and the things that happened to them throughout history, its really not all that absurd. In THEORY, yes they should get something. Maybe not money, but edcuation, opportunity, I don't know. But I wouldn't start handing them out cash.

Its pretty convient for us, as white people, to say 'oh you don't get anything', meanwhile we got plenty from their slavery.
 
  • #27
Cyrus said:
No, I agree with arildno here. For 20 years the man was a part of this chruch. This is def not something new to him. To be 'outraged' so late at the game is just BS. I am sure he knew exactly what was said in that chruch when the spotlight wasnt on him, and he ate it up. If he's going to claim its suddenly not in line with his views, what did he do there for 20 years, sleep through the sermons?
1. It's one thing to say "it sounds like BS" and another thing to assert it as truth without providing the evidence.

2. In those 20 years, let's say Obama attended 200 sermons and slept through none of them, and Wright gave 1000 sermons. Now what's the probability that Obama heard the 2 or 3 sermons that have appeared on Youtube and Fox news?

3. Let's say there were a lot more than just these few sermons that were just as bad. You still have no evidence that Obama shared all the views expressed in them. What minimum fraction of your pastor's views do you need to share in order to stick with a church? He could have continued to stay in that church for several reasons other than that he agreed with every single opinion of his pastor.

Here are a few possibilities:
(i) He agreed with most other things preached by Wright and others at the church,
(ii) He went to church primarily for religious guidance, and so didn't give much value to the socio-political commentary of its pastors,
(iii) He stayed with the church despite the damaging language, because they were actually more successful in carrying out social programs that helped the poor communities in the area, than other nearby churches,
(iv) He stayed in despite the conspiracy nutjobs because it was the politically expedient thing to do.

To assert that he shared all the views of Wright is unsupportable. Do you actually think Obama believes the Government infected the black community with AIDS? Please! This guy was the President of the Harvard Law Review - he's smarter than that.

Incidentally, it's only the people that haven't heard much of Obama's speeches (or the folks at Fox) who will say Obama is suddenly claiming that these opinions are not in line with his views. Long before the Wright incident blew up, Obama had rejected the structuralist argument of Wright and his type, and has been attacked by folks in the Black community for doing so. I posted some links and excerpts somewhere in the other Wright thread.
 
  • #28
Gokul43201 said:
1. It's one thing to say "it sounds like BS" and another thing to assert it as truth without providing the evidence.

2. In those 20 years, let's say Obama attended 200 sermons and slept through none of them, and Wright gave 1000 sermons. Now what's the probability that Obama heard the 2 or 3 sermons that have appeared on Youtube and Fox news?

3. Let's say there were a lot more than just these few sermons that were just as bad. You still have no evidence that Obama shared all the views expressed in them. What minimum fraction of your pastor's views do you need to share in order to stick with a church? He could have continued to stay in that church for several reasons other than that he agreed with every single opinion of his pastor.

Here are a few possibilities:
(i) He agreed with most other things preached by Wright and others at the church,
(ii) He went to church primarily for religious guidance, and so didn't give much value to the socio-political commentary of its pastors,
(iii) He stayed with the church despite the damaging language, because they were actually more successful in carrying out social programs that helped the poor communities in the area, than other nearby churches,
(iv) He stayed in despite the conspiracy nutjobs because it was the politically expedient thing to do.

To assert that he shared all the views of Wright is unsupportable. Do you actually think Obama believes the Government infected the black community with AIDS? Please! This guy was the President of the Harvard Law Review - he's smarter than that.

Incidentally, it's only the people that haven't heard much of Obama's speeches (or the folks at Fox) who will say Obama is suddenly claiming that these opinions are not in line with his views. Long before the Wright incident blew up, Obama had rejected the structuralist argument of Wright and his type, and has been attacked by folks in the Black community for doing so. I posted some links and excerpts somewhere in the other Wright thread.

You are neglecting one key point. If it is bad enough that he is 'outraged' and left the church, then certainly he MUST have heard at least ONE sermon that was equally bad in those 20 years that SHOULD have outraged him long time ago. Or HEARD about a such a sermon from a person sitting next to him telling him about last weeks sermon and what was said.
 
  • #29
Have you seen what this latest Pfleger debacle has caused? There is now a "Democrats who will not vote for Obama" petition on iPetitions.

Yikes. Read this thing.

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/Dems_Who_Will_Not_Vote_For_Obama/index.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #30
I find it hard to believe that Obama could hold beliefs similar to what Wright said on the Youtube video, and never tell anyone about them. In fact, I know of nothing in his background that indicates he's racist.

Besides, just because a person in your life is a guide or a mentor doesn't mean you have to adopt every belief of that person into yourself. For example, when I was young I worked with a scientist who became a mentor to me. He wanted me to study EE; I didn't want to and studied physics instead. He hated sports; I love baseball. He loved Bob Dylan; I really, really don't.

Even if Obama knew Wright held views different from his own, it means absolutely nothing to who Obama is as a man.
 
  • #31
he is 'outraged' and left the church

It should be noted that he didn't leave the church because he was 'outraged'. He specifically stated in his press conference yesterday that he wasn't "denouncing" the church. He's leaving for a number of reasons, one of which is that he doesn't need to be affixed with the views of whoever speaks or preaches at the church, something that has been happening often of late, and another is that the church itself has undergone excessive scrutiny from the media, which, obviously, is a legitimate element of the political process, but you don't want ordinary people who visit the church to worship in peace, to socialize, etc. having to be forced or bothered into contact with the media.
 
  • #32
klusener said:
another is that the church itself has undergone excessive scrutiny from the media
He really should have left this out of his statement. What it means is that what goes on in this church can no longer hide from public viewing.

klusener said:
It should be noted that he didn't leave the church because he was 'outraged'.
Where are you getting this from, I don't see anyone claiming that he was outraged in this thread.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
klusener said:
It should be noted that he didn't leave the church because he was 'outraged'. He specifically stated in his press conference yesterday that he wasn't "denouncing" the church. He's leaving for a number of reasons, one of which is that he doesn't need to be affixed with the views of whoever speaks or preaches at the church, something that has been happening often of late, and another is that the church itself has undergone excessive scrutiny from the media, which, obviously, is a legitimate element of the political process, but you don't want ordinary people who visit the church to worship in peace, to socialize, etc. having to be forced or bothered into contact with the media.

Isnt that just as bad? When you go to a church and then have to leave because you don't want to be peged by those very viewpoint of your own church.

Hmmm...
 
  • #34
Cyrus said:
You are neglecting one key point. If it is bad enough that he is 'outraged' and left the church, then certainly he MUST have heard at least ONE sermon that was equally bad in those 20 years that SHOULD have outraged him long time ago. Or HEARD about a such a sermon from a person sitting next to him telling him about last weeks sermon and what was said.
Cyrus, I can't make much sense of this post - but you have at least one point that is factually misleading (that he left the church due to outrage). And you still have not proved that Obama shares Wright's opinions on race.

Evo said:
He really should have left this out of his statement. What it means is that what goes on in this church can no longer hide from public viewing.
I agree (though only in part, because he was also talking about the media hounding the other members of the church, which is unfortunate). But this is what nearly every church wants - the freedom to say whatever they please without bothersome media scrutiny.

Evo said:
Where are you getting this from, I don't see anyone claiming that he was outraged in this thread.
Maybe from here?
Cyrus said:
If it is bad enough that he is 'outraged' and left the church, then certainly he MUST have heard at least ONE sermon that was equally bad in those 20 years that SHOULD have outraged him long time ago.
 
  • #35
Gokul43201 said:
Cyrus, I can't make much sense of this post - but you have at least one point that is factually misleading (that he left the church due to outrage). And you still have not proved that Obama shares Wright's opinions on race.

I don't think he shares wrights opinion on race. But come on, it took him 20 years to finally distance himself. I got to roll my eyes on that one. He only distanced himself after those clips made the light of day, or he would STILL be in that church.

I say outrage in the sense that he really was PISSED OFF that day he gave the press conference separating himself. You could see it in his face.
 
  • #36
Cyrus said:
I don't think he shares wrights opinion on race.
This is what arildno asserted, I objected to, and you appeared to be agreeing with him on.

But come on, it took him 20 years to finally distance himself. I got to roll my eyes on that one. He only distanced himself after those clips made the light of day, or he would STILL be in that church.
I rolled my eyes too, but that isn't what I refuted arildno about.
 
  • #37
Gokul43201 said:
This is what arildno asserted, I objected to, and you appeared to be agreeing with him on.

I rolled my eyes too, but that isn't what I refuted arildno about.

But I think there is some truth to what arildno said though. I mean, if your sticking around for 20 years, you are agreeing with SOME of what wright said.
 
  • #38
Cyrus said:
But I think there is some truth to what arildno said though. I mean, if your sticking around for 20 years, you are agreeing with SOME of what wright said.
Yes, but he can agree with 90% of what Wright had preached and still disagree with all the things the appeared on 2 minutes worth of youtube video! Do you know what else Wright preached? Have you read the Audacity to Hope sermon? After all, we know that sermon was important to Obama. Obama must have sat through over a hundred hours of sermons - there can be a whole lot of stuff in there that he agreed with that wasn't fun enough for Fox.
 
  • #39
There is a stream of Christian thought (James Cone is perhaps the best known, but not the most articulate, proponent) which believes that followers of Christ must accept marginalization and must seek opportunities to stand against the ruling hegemony. Father Pflegger, though obviously "chewing the rug", was preaching squarely in that tradition. One can find the same sort of "drama queen" performances and inflammatory words in Amos, Jeremiah, Mark, and Revelations among others. This is what prophetic Christianity looks like and it ain't always pretty, but the man is confrontational, not nuts. And, he was playing to his audience, who loved it.
 
  • #40
Cyrus said:
No, I agree with arildno here. For 20 years the man was a part of this chruch. This is def not something new to him. To be 'outraged' so late at the game is just BS. I am sure he knew exactly what was said in that chruch when the spotlight wasnt on him, and he ate it up. If he's going to claim its suddenly not in line with his views, what did he do there for 20 years, sleep through the sermons?
One can be a member of a church, but not attend Sunday services on a regular basis, or even not at all. It is not clear or evident what Obama heard or didn't hear, or with what he agreed or doesn't agree.

The pastor is not the church, but rather the church is the community or congregation, and it is up to the congregation or officials of the church to hire or remove a pastor, depending on the contract. I can't comment beyond that since I don't know the specifics of Trinity's structure or the relationship with Wright.

What I heard from Pfleger is troubling, because it is so negative and over-the-top ('rape' was used metaphorically for injustice, which is in contrast to Obama's positive message. But what I heard from Pfleger is consistent with what I have heard from some African Americans, and the fact that 'white folk' just don't get it - and IMO - most don't. America is still - for the most part - segregated! I see that everyday myself when I walk around town where I work, or visit any metropolitan area in the US.

If Wright suggests that African-Americans need to do more for themselves, i.e. empower themselves, then I think Obama would agree, and rightly so, but if Wright believes that the US or more controversially, that white America owes blacks some special compensation or reparation, then I think Obama would strongly disagree.

Like Gokul, I would caution people about making factual claims without any evidence or based on hearsay and innuendo.
 
  • #41
Astronuc said:
One can be a member of a church, but not attend Sunday services on a regular basis, or even not at all.

That really does not make any sense though. How can one say they are a member of a church the never go to! :smile:
 
  • #42
Cyrus said:
That really does not make any sense though. How can one say they are a member of a church the never go to! :smile:
One could meet the minimum requirements of membership in a church, e.g. register as a member and provide a tithe or some other financial support, and then perhaps only attend on holidays or special occasions. I know many people who do exactly that. The church my family attended, when I was a kid, would have a few hundred in any typical Sunday service, but at Easter or Christmas, over 3000 would attend.

Besides the Sunday service, there are often religious education programs for children, youth, and adults, in which one could do instead of or inaddition to the service.

People go to church to enjoy the socialization and interact with friends.

In the past, I have taught 'Sunday School' rather than attend the Sunday service, but what I taught was essentially 'comparative religion' (classes covered many perspectives including atheism, agnosticsim, humanism, as well as all major and minor religions) and 'principles of morals and ethics'.
 
  • #43
Cyrus said:
That really does not make any sense though. How can one say they are a member of a church the never go to! :smile:

Oh, that happens all the time. Many Christians go to church only on Christmas and Easter.
 
  • #44
Well, as an athiest, at least its good to know people ant going to church!
 
  • #45
I have a few problems with Obama. First of all, there is no knowing who he is because he will act, say, or sign up for anything that will make him look good and advance his career. Who knows if he ever really was religious in the first place. He probably joined the church to help his career, now he quits to help it. Who is Obama really besides the person he thinks his voters want him to be. I would like him to stand up for what he really believes in, but how can he do hat if he has been living lies for 20 years?
 
Last edited:
  • #46
TR345 said:
First of all, there is no knowing who he is because he will act, say, or sign up for anything that will make him look good and advance his career.
Are you saying he has no principles whatsoever?

Will being a good President make him look good and advance his career?
 
  • #47
Yeah maybe, but what does he want out of it, money? Maybe he wants to get payback on whites? Who knows what he wants out of the deal?
 
Last edited:
  • #48
It is ironic because his opponent because McCain doesn't act he just says whatever he feels, or wants and doesn't give a blank what you think. At the same time, Bush was kind of the same way. He knew we knew they were screwing us, and they knew we knew that was the reason for the smirky grins. McCain will be the same, he tells it like it is, it is just too bad that how it is, is so messed up.
 
  • #49
Wait a minute...Obama is all deception, and McCain is a straight talker? I think you are living 8 years in the past. You've got some catching up to do.

Anyway, this is not the thread for this discussion.
 
  • #50
Gokul43201 said:
Are you saying he has no principles whatsoever?

I think he is smart, so that is better than nothing, but as to his morals beliefs and positions on the issues, I have no reason to believe anything other than pandering.
 

Similar threads

Replies
78
Views
11K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
27
Views
5K
Back
Top