Obama quits Chicago church after long controversy

[klusener]

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.

 

[Evo]

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.

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.

 

[Cyrus]

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...

 

[Gokul43201]

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.

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.

Where are you getting this from, I don't see anyone claiming that he was outraged in this thread.

Maybe from here?

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.

 

[Cyrus]

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.

 

[Gokul43201]

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.

 

[Cyrus]

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.

 

[Gokul43201]

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.

 

[TVP45]

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.

 

[Astronuc]

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.

 

[Cyrus]

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!

 

[Astronuc]

That really does not make any sense though. How can one say they are a member of a church the never go to!

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'.

 

[lisab]

That really does not make any sense though. How can one say they are a member of a church the never go to!

Oh, that happens all the time. Many Christians go to church only on Christmas and Easter.

 

[Cyrus]

Well, as an athiest, at least its good to know people ant going to church!

 

[TR345]

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?

 

[Gokul43201]

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?

 

[TR345]

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?

 

[TR345]

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.

 

[Gokul43201]

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.

 

[TR345]

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.

 

[Evo]

Pfleger also has made contributions to Obama (D-Ill.), and his church programs have received thousands of dollars in state earmarks championed by Obama when he was a state lawmaker.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/30/chicago_cardinal_criticizes_re.html?hpid=topnews

While these two actions "alone" wouldn't raise eyebrows. I want to see how many churches Obama earmarked money for that never contributed to him. I want to see that for all candidates. I think that will be a "real" teller of what kind of politicians we are dealing with.

Statement of Cardinal Francis George concerning remarks of
Fr. Michael Pfleger about Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton during
an address at Trinity United Church of Christ on Sunday May 25, 2008

The Catholic Church does not endorse political candidates. Consequently, while a priest must speak to political issues that are also moral, he may not endorse candidates nor engage in partisan campaigning.

Racial issues are both political and moral and are also highly charged. Words can be differently interpreted, but Fr. Pfleger’s remarks about Senator Clinton are both partisan and amount to a personal attack. I regret that deeply.

To avoid months of turmoil in the church, Fr. Pfleger has promised me that he will not enter into campaigning, will not publicly mention any candidate by name and will abide by the discipline common to all Catholic priests.

http://www.archdiocese-chgo.org/

 

[TR345]

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.

Also, you are putting words into my mouth which is a deception. I only said that I have no reason to believe that he is all deception, but he is without doubt at least part deception. When he acts as though he didn't know anything about the church he has gone to for 20 years. It is kind of insulting to our intelligence to play us for fools like that.

Is it not obvious where McCain stands and who he is?

 

[Gokul43201]

Also, you are putting words into my mouth which is a deception.

I put no words in your mouth. I asked you a question. Note the question mark.

Is it not obvious where McCain stands and who he is?

It used to be that way a decade ago. Today, not in the least bit.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI&feature=related


The McCain you've known exists no more!

PS: Speaking of pandering, we all know which of the three candidates refused the opportunity to engage in some real political season pandering when it came to the idiocy now known as the gas tax holiday.

 

[TR345]

Let me get one thing clear first before I continue, I am not for McCain. I respect McCain in some ways for his open personality. However, it is my belief that McCain is running to be the new "Bush". I don't think it really matters who McCain is anyways because he is running to be the next puppet of certain other powerful people who's practices are in my opinion dishonest, manipulative, abusive to our country, using the white house and the power of the government for personal and corporate benefit etc.

Obama is different because I don't trust his personality, but I at least he probably isn't working for the same people Bush was. That doesn't go to say that there are not others behind the scenes hoping to benefit from his election through means I don't agree with.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

Well, perhaps other options might be considered, but we already have acted to help correct inequities in the system; for example through affirmative action, forced bussing, and a slew of civil rights laws.

Bill Cosby and his "give us cash" program were too much to believe. To me, asking for reparations for injustices that occurred at least 150 years ago is completely bogus. In the case of Japanese who were imprisoned in WWII, we were paying to the survivors or their immediate family. But saying that in effect I am liable for actions of people that lived 200 years ago is going too far.

 

[Evo]

Well, perhaps other options might be considered, but we already have acted to help correct inequities in the system; for example through affirmative action, forced bussing, and a slew of civil rights laws.

Bill Cosby and his "give us cash" program were too much to believe. To me, asking for reparations for injustices that occurred at least 150 years ago is completely bogus. In the case of Japanese who were imprisoned in WWII, we were paying to the survivors or their immediate family. But saying that in effect I am liable for actions of people that lived 200 years ago is going too far.

What have we done to repay the American Indians? We stole their lands, killed off many of them, then stuck the survivors on small reservations away from the rest of us "civilised" people.

All through history people have been enslaved and there was never any recompense. It's very likley that every white person here at anyone time in history had familiy members that were caught in battle and enslaved.

 

[drankin]

What have we done to repay the American Indians? We stole their lands, killed off many of them, then stuck the survivors on small reservations away from the rest of us "civilised" people.

All through history people have been enslaved and there was never any recompense. It's very likley that every white person here at anyone time in history had familiy members that were caught in battle and enslaved.

Sure, we came in and took America. That's how everything worked back then. If you were powerful, you conquered to advance your empire.

The Indian people are very much American now. And they get a lot of recompense. Many reservations have taken advantage of the special rights they have and are very wealthy.

The Alaskan natives, were given special corporations to run. http://www.ciri.com/" is a good example. I believe there were 13 originally, some didn't prosper but some did. My two kids are part of CIRI. They have free medical, dental, and secondary education (if they take advantage of it).

So, Evo, you could be guilty of my recent infraction. There was, in fact, recompense.

Here is some good general info on the Alaskan corporations that were formed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Native_Regional_Corporations"

 

[Cyrus]

Sure, we came in and took America. That's how everything worked back then. If you were powerful, you conquered to advance your empire.

The Indian people are very much American now. And they get a lot of recompense. Many reservations have taken advantage of the special rights they have and are very wealthy.

The Alaskan natives, were given special corporations to run. http://www.ciri.com/" is a good example. I believe there were 13 originally, some didn't prosper but some did. My two kids are part of CIRI. They have free medical, dental, and secondary education (if they take advantage of it).

So, Evo, you could be guilty of my recent infraction. There was, in fact, recompense.

Here is some good general info on the Alaskan corporations that were formed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Native_Regional_Corporations"

You're kidding, right? Native americans have one of the highest alcohol/suicide rates of any minority in the USA.

 

[Cyrus]

Well, perhaps other options might be considered, but we already have acted to help correct inequities in the system; for example through affirmative action, forced bussing, and a slew of civil rights laws.

Bill Cosby and his "give us cash" program were too much to believe. To me, asking for reparations for injustices that occurred at least 150 years ago is completely bogus. In the case of Japanese who were imprisoned in WWII, we were paying to the survivors or their immediate family. But saying that in effect I am liable for actions of people that lived 200 years ago is going too far.

Crazy as it sounds, the entire town used to get together and have a party when they were going to lynch someone. After they killed the guy, people took home body parts and put it in jars to show it off to people.

Owning up to what happened in the past 200 years ago going to far?

mmmmmmmmmmmm...I donno.

The things done were so bad that, you kinda do have to own up to them. How, I am not sure.

For startes, Katrina is one example where black people were yet again royally screwed.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm not opposed to owning up to historical facts, but in fact I didn't do anything. Nor did I profit from the slaves on Southern Plantations. My great-grandfather came here from Finland and homesteaded in South Dakota after he pretty much walked there from New York. That was after slavery was abolished. Now, I probably have a few distant family members who killed a few native Americans, but I doubt that my great-grandfather ever saw a black man [less while he was traveling from New York]. My family survived by doing their own manual labor. By chance it was discovered that the Black Hills had gold, but unfortunately none of that came my way.

But don't even get me started on Katrina. That was a disgrace beyond belief.

Also, I don't worry about the Native Americans because I am part Native American - in fact, from two different tribes.

On the other side, German immigrants who about the same time settled in Illinois.