Why did Obama stay in Rev. Wright's church?

"Goes from "kitten with a whip" to "horsebeater with a bat" in 3.2 seconds..."

I certainly think that Obama should have found a different church, but the fact that he stayed and even now defends his church, at great political risk to himself, says a lot to me about how Obama views his relationships. For Obama people are more important than theory.....I kinda like that.

Re: Why did Obama stay in Rev. Wright's church?

Coming from a Roman Catholic background, that's my view too. For Catholics, going to another church isn't really an option: every church is pretty much the same, every priest hews pretty close to the company line (there are, of course, some rare exceptions). So leaving the local parish church to go to St. Mary Of the Blessed Short Car Ride is just a waste of time. Joining the church in the first place was the key decision: going to one branch or another is merely a matter of convenience.

Consequently, I don't really get this evidently Protestant notion that one can simply up and leave one's church and go to another on any sort of whim, as if one's faith is as portable as a mobile phone. If Obama is truly committed to the teachings of his faith, then presumably he shouldn't have an option of quitting his church and joining another one -- unless it's another affiliate of the United Church of Christ, and that might not feasible.

When Obama chose to attend his church and embrace its particular tenets, he made a commitment to it, for good or for ill. And the identity of the preacher should have made no difference, since the church's tenets and revealed truths are not dependent upon any one person, be he preacher or parishioner (as is evident from the fact that Obama still attends Trinity UCC in the aftermath of Jeremiah Wright's retirement).

As such, those calling for Obama to quit his church -- many of whom claim to be highly religious -- are, I think, showing a surprising degree of ignorance on religious matters, if not downright hypocrisy. For people who assert that faith is a deeply held and abiding conviction, demanding that Obama toss his own faith away over some passing disagreement with a preacher, as opposed to a doctrinal breach with the church itself, is surpassing strange to me. But then, like I said, this may just be a Protestant thing.

... and while loyalty is a virtue, what virtue is there in remaining loyal to a racial bigot whose inflammatory rhetoric is hateful? Is it admirable, for a Presidential candidate to remain loyal to a church that preaches hatred for the country and system the candidate aspires to lead? Were there no other choices for church membership that were less "controversial"? What does this twenty year long intimate relationship with a pastor tell us about the candidate's judgment? Will the candidate, if elected, be equally adept at selecting his Cabinet, close advisers, and leading managers of his administration?

Frankly, there is a lot to "like" about Barak Obama, but his inexperience and the problems posed by his far Left political orientation are exacerbated by questions regarding his suitability for the Executive Office. The Democratic Party will make their choice, and, frankly either of the two leading contenders is vulnerable. I look forward to a Republican Administration that will hold the line on taxes, get the economy moving again, maintain our military as the world's finest, and use all of the resources available to defeat Radical Islamic Terrorism where-ever it rears its ugly head.

How ironic (or is it merely projection) that it is the white bigots who see Wright as a bigot.

Re: Why did Obama stay in Rev. Wright's church?


Well in a sense it IS a "Protestant thing". Most Protestants are a pretty independent lot which is why they are Protestants I suppose. The congregational polity of the United Church of Christ is nothing like the polity of the Roman Catholic Church nor will you find a universal group of tenets or doctrine that members are supposed to understand and profess in the United Church of Christ. And while the various congregations who call themselves United Church of Christ will support staff at regional and national levels and also spport certain shared facilities like church camps, there is no human authority beyond the local congregation.

Most Protestants have no problem changing congregations or even denominations if the one they attend becomes unacceptable or displeasing to them. When we married my spouse and I unified in a denomination different from the separate ones we grew up in. In our married life we have moved around a lot adopting a new church each time, but we have intentionally changed churches twice. The first time was because the congregation was so dead we felt that we had been embalmed after attending services. The second time was because we felt we could not ethically stay due to certain practices going on in the congregation. No church we have ever attended, however, would have tolerated the kind of antiAmericanism, racism, or conspiracies preached in those clips we have heard of Jeremiah Wright's sermons. The preacher would have been out on his ear or most of the people would be out the door and would not have gone back.

And THAT is the problem Obama has on this issue. Did he stay out of loyalty? Would such loyalty be an acceptable excuse for another politician with a close association with a questionable character? And does that loyalty involved sharing some of the more questionable concepts that were preached? Rox may equate this to beating a dead horse. But I suspect that horse isn't quite dead yet.

"The purveyors of information are trying to be judge and jury over prophetic utterances," link

Roxxy,

I'd be interested to know on what evidence exactly you base your opinion that I am personally bigoted? I'm quite certain that I've never said, nor written anything that would promote, or denigrate, any person on the basis of their race, gender, religion, sexual-orientation, ethnic background, or even their relative wealth. I was an early and vigorous promoter of Civil Rights when that was an unpopular stance. Within our family multi-racial marriages are not uncommon.

So, just what do you base your opinion on? The fact that I'm a self-described conservative Republican? That religion and religious values are important to me? That I'm a old White guy? What?

uhhh... to get to the other side ?

to be honest, i believe it's fair to ask why bush and mccain et.all continued to associate with the idiot falwell after his bizarre comments about gays, lesbians and "abortionists" immediately following september 11th...

or any other "evangelical" leader following the twisted anti-american antics of eric rudolph and randall terry.

wright's comments (as heard in those "sound bites") are absolutely unnacceptable to me. and despite the claims, i very seriously doubt that those l'il sound bites were, are or will be the only times that he makes those and similar remarks.

however, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

if obama is held accountable for what his religious dude says or does, so must each and every other politico.

so there! ssssspppppphhhhhhttttttttt!

fishin wrote:

The two situations are not analogous.

In America (or Canada) there are theologies or sects regarding which I would have much to say in the way of negative comment (or positive comment) if that theology or sect could be seen to have significant influence upon a ruling party and country. Dobson, Falwell, Robertson and others in the evangelical community in America have had such influence and thus become quite acceptable targets for criticism.

What are the chances, fishin, that Wright and his church might ever come to wield comparable influence over or within the Democratic party?

Jesus Damns the Rich
by maconblue, Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 08:43:57 PM EST

Fox's Sean Hannity interviews Paul of Tarsus, transcript below:

SEAN HANNITY: In news that may well end the campaign of Paul of Tarsus (formerly Saul), inflammatory youtube videos have emerged of the man Paul refers to as his "spiritual advisor" for the last twenty years, a fiery, anti-Roman Middle-Eastern preacher some radical Jews call Yeshua, others Jesu, and still others Jesus Christ. Paul likens the fiery preacher to family, calling him a "father." And now this same father is threatening to derail Paul's campaign to save the world from eternal damnation. Here's a hate-filled sample from one of Jesus's sermons:

[VIDEO] JESUS: Truly I say to you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God! [cheers and dancing from raggedly dressed Middle-Eastern peasants]

HANNITY: And here's another. I'll go ahead and warn listeners that this is extremely disturbing, unAmerican, communist material:

[VIDEO] JESUS: "You cannot serve God and money! [cheers, two peasants pat Jesus's back] No, no, no, you CAN NOT serve GOD and MONEY! [more cheers] See, now, a rich man named Dives didn't give any of his food to a poor man named Lazarus, and when the poor man died, where does he go? He goes to HEAVEN! Rich man died, where does he go? He goes straight to HELL! [barefoot peasants cheer] And he says, "oh please, please, let that poor man just dip his little finger-just the PINKY finger!-in some water and give me just a drop, a tiny, little drop." And God says, "ah, ah, ah, no, no, no, you'll stay right here in Hell, rich man!" [peasants cheer, jumping up and down, slapping each other five] And rich man says, "oh please, please, please, send some prophets to warn my family, my rich relatives so they don't go to hell like me!" And God says, "I've already sent my prophets! You had your chance, rich folk! YOU'RE GOING TO HELL!" [peasants go crazy]

HANNITY: Disturbing stuff, certainly, and it's raising new questions throughout the Middle East about Paul's ability to bring people together in what he calls the "universal church." Many traditional church-goers are saying they would never--not in a million years-- let their children go to Paul's preacher's church, and that Paul should have distanced himself from Jesus a long time ago. Joining us now from Ephesia is Paul of Tarsus. Paul thanks for joining us.

PAUL: Thank you, Sean. It's good to be back on Fox News.

HANNITY: Paul, your longtime pastor, the man you refer to as a "father," has said that the world will be split up into goats and sheep at the judgment, and that the sheep helped the poor and the goats didn't. And Jesus says the goats will go to hell and the sheep to heaven. How do you think those sentiments will play in middle-Corinth?

PAUL: Well, obviously I'm shocked, and I can't make this clear enough: I reject and denounce these particular statements, and I never heard them from Jesus himself--You know-look, what I heard about the preaching of Jesus was basically about faith, about loving God. I was never present when Jesus said those things, and if I had been, I would have questioned him about them.

HANNITY: But you've associated yourself with this man, you've called him a father, you've been baptized in his name-you say ALL children should be baptized in his name. This is the same man that says, and I quote, "if any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple." Do you hate your mother and father, Paul?

PAUL: You know, Sean, look, we have to remember that Jesus is from a different generation. You know, it was the first century, and there was a lot of Jewish anger and frustration at the Romans. Jesus had seen a lot of bad things go down. And this is part of the Jewish experience-Jewish history. But I'm part of a new generation, and I want to bring people in a new direction -

HANNITY: You like Amos? Think he's a great man?

PAUL: I'm sorry?

HANNITY: Your church, your preacher has endorsed Amos, called him a great man. Here's audio of Amos preaching:

[AUDIO] AMOS: Gaaaawd says: "For three transgressions of Israel, and for four, I will not revoke the punishment; because they sell the righteous for silver, and the needy for a pair of shoes - they that trample the head of the poor into the dust of the earth, and turn aside the way of the afflicted. . . . I will punish you! [cheers in the background] I will punish you for your inequities!" [cheers] God's going to take you away with hooks! [laughter and cheers] He's going to take you away with fishhooks! God says "I hate your pledge of allegiance! I hate your songs! I hate your Toby Keith!" God says, "let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream!"

HANNITY: Well, you at least agree this guy Amos is an anti-Semite--

PAUL: --umm, I don't think--

HANNITY: Do you think God will damn Israel, Mr. Tarsus?

PAUL: Look, you know, I can't make this clear enough: I find that rhetoric inflammatory and offensive. I deplore divisive statements, whether they come from my supporters, from the Hebrews or from the Romans.

HANNITY: Do you think the rich should sell all they have and give it to the poor?

PAUL: I--

HANNITY: Do you believe the last will be first and the first will be last?

PAUL: You know, look-I've said repeatedly that slaves should obey their masters, that wives should obey husbands. Sean, I like order- I'm the one that said you should obey authorities-

HANNITY: Jesus raided a mega-church, toppled the cash register in the Starbucks, and yelled out "the church is a den of robbers!" That's your preacher! You say you favor law and order, and yet the man you call father goes around doing property damage to upscale cafes in conservative mega-churches--like some class-warfare terrorist--

PAUL: No, no, no, Sean-look, I want to bring people together. That's what I stood for at the beginning of this campaign, and that's what I stand for now. I've said that love never ends, that God is love, you know, love. I've been saying all along on the campaign trail that there are no Jews, no Greeks, no slaves, or free, no red empires, no blue empires, we're all human, you know, no circumcision-I want to do away with circumcision, Sean! If that' doesn't bring people together, I don't know what will. That's my message. And I hope people will judge me by that message.

HANNITY: Before you go, I'd like you to sing the Roman national anthem right now for our listeners. Can you do it?

The difference though Dtom is that ALL politicians go after the votes where the votes are and, if a chunk of your voting base consists of evangelical Christians, you ask Jerry Falwell and other leaders of mega churches for their support. Had Obama solicited support from Jeremiah Wright as pastor of a large black mega church, I doubt anything at all would have been said about that any more than has anything been said about any of the other churches Obama has visited or solicited support from church leaders. That was a routine thing for Bill Clinton when he was campaigning and I haven't checked, but I bet Hillary has done some of it too.

But Bill & Hillary nor have Bush, McCain or any other prominent folks on the right been members of Falwell's church (or Hagee's church or whomever the religious pariah of the week might be), they haven't cited them as their spiritual mentors for 20 years, they haven't said what a powerful influence association with the church has had on their lives. They haven't said that they didn't think these foks or their churches were particularly controversial and then have to back down from that. And they haven't put them on as campaign staff.

Since Obama has done all that, it is reasonable to wonder how much of Jeremiah's philosophy and point of view he actually shares. It is not an improper or unfair question to ask.

This is an interesting comment. Obama's advisers are very middle of the road and Obama's votes in the Senate and his work before hand are not particularly far left. If you judge the candidates by how well they select advisers and how they can put together a national campaign, Obama is by far the best of the three candidates left.


But McCain has no interest at all in economic matters. While I know some disagree, I think "Radical Islamic Terrorism" is third on our national concern list behind short term economic performance and intermediate term infrastructure development. McCain may have a passion for foreign policy, but that's lower in priority than getting the domestic house in order.

'ello foxy, and nice to see ya.

however, i have to disagree with you. i believe that it is all exactly the same.

mccain, for instance. and perhaps in his case, even worse. first he labels falwell an agent of intolerance,. then he goes hat in hand, on his knees to falwell looking for his support.

don't you think, then, that mccain should make some answer to that? i mean really, what does he really believe? whatever is expedient to his poitical aspirations?

i just feel that i, for one, have had enough of all of this yada-yada game playing and expect to see parity.

as far as hagee goes... wowwwwww...

i guess his whole "washed in the blood" slaughterhouse evangelism lost steam, so now he fashions himself as a zionist.

in typical "let's rewrite history" fashion, he fails to notice that jesus was a jew.

and that christians, by their very nature, are not.

i gotta tell ya, the sight of american flag waving congregants dressed as cowboys hoppin' around singin' hava nagila in a hall that also sports the israeli flag is just too bizarre.

now, if it had been kinky friedman...

What I regard as important national priorities has nothing to do with the results of political polling. If I were the only person in the country concerned with prosecuting a war against an enemy whose words and actions so clearly are directed to our destruction, I would still hold that view.

Protecting the United States foreign attack is the first priority and responsibility of the President. Our diplomacy and security as a nation rests upon a capable and credible military. In modern times the President presides over the Intelligence Services, in addition to the military and State Department. Of the three current contenders, I have not the slightest doubt that John McCain is the most capable C-N-C we could ask for.

The President's responsiblity for domestic policy is to manage the Executive Branch, to propose budgets and policies for the consideration of Congress. The National Debt is a concern, but during a time when our forces are actively engaged against a determined enemy on foreign soil, no cuts to the military budget would be responsible. Entitlement programs , such as Veteran's Benefits, Social Security MediCare, etc. are popular, but can only be controlled by Congress. We will probably still be waiting for Congress to reform those systems in 2108. The remaining portion of the Federal Budget has to cover far more ground than there are funds available. I absolutely agree that major funding for aging infrastructure is already far overdue, but where is the money to come from?

The Democrats seem to believe that the answer is simple. Increase taxes, and cut military spending. Of course, they make it seem that an increased tax burden will only affect someone else, not the individual taxpayer and voter. "Take the money from the rich. Increase government control and taxation of businesses. Regulate maximum salaries, incomes, and etc." Who are the rich? All of these popular notions are only a disguised scheme to redistribute the nation's wealth. The actual effect is, and always has been, to discourage investment and personal initiative. Complicated tax schemes, only drive up the cost of doing business and discourage risk. Less investment, means fewer jobs and more competition for the jobs available. That drives wages down, and lengthens unemployment lines. When wages are high, then investment seeks out lower production costs and business fail until the balance is restored. Economics is rightly termed, "The Dismal Science", and there are good reasons to argue it is more art than science.

However, it is clear to me that increasing taxes and spending more on social engineering is not good policy. Put the money back into the tax payer's pockets and let them make their own decisions about how its used... and money is always used one way or another. Increased consumer demand (and confidence) is good for business, and investors looking for a profit take risks and generate jobs that pay wages that can be taxed. Instead of spending money on experimental programs that may, or may not have social benefits, I believe we should spend whatever money Congress will allocate on highways, bridges, railroads, ports, and air traffic control systems. Instead of sending Treasury checks to those who don't pay taxes, spend that money developing alternative energy sources.

Is McCain likely the best candidate in the whole wide world for this sort of approach? Probably not, but far better than either of the Democratic candidates. The Democrats hold power in the Congress. They criticized the GOP for not handling things better, but the Democratic Congress is arguably even worse when it comes to obstruction, and wasted spending. It was McCain that has most consistently called for Congressional responsibility, and chocking off "earmarks" and "pork riders" to important legislation. McCain may not understand the economy as well as he, or we for that matter, would like, but at least he's honest about it and has a record for fiscal reform regardless of whose ox it is that's being gored.

I was comparing only the three candidates currently running for the Presidency. Military service alone doesn't necessarily indicate whether a candidate for President will be a capable and effective CNC. Regan never got into uniform off set, but was a far better CNC than Carter who did serve. I think that either Gore or Kerry might have been effective as CNC, but they aren't running in this election. I believe that Collin Powell would have been an excellent CNC, and John Murtha might have handled the job but he was otherwise not qualified, nor a candidate.

You might have also pointed out that if Bush, Sr. had pushed on to Baghdad and cleared out Saddam and his Ba'ath Party, countless lives would have been saved and the current imbroglio might have been avoided. That's hind-sight for you. In hind-sight, cutting the military after Gulf War I was also a serious error. I disagreed with raising taxes then, and for much the same reasons that I'm 'agin'em now. Raising taxes didn't reverse the recession then, and I don't believe that it would revitalize the economy in 2009. We are in a down-cycle, and the markets will recover has they have always done.

Why he stay ?

He is not a philosopher
nor a theologian but a
political person.
A philosopher is a Blind man in a dark room searching for a black cat which is not there.
A theologian is the man, who finds it.
A politician is a dancer to charm the ignorant voters .

Interesting take... hadnt really expected that one. Hadnt heard it before amidst all the heated debate here either.

Certainly an encouraging take.

okay ash, just checking.

what is it that convinces you that mccain will be so capable. not asking in a hostle way... jus' asking.

your point on gulf I is taken. however, unlike the current iraq campaign, the mission was not to remove saddam, but rather to oust his forces from kuwait.

of course, military spending is important. the current budget is well into the 420+ billion range ( i haven't checked lately so don't spank me on an exact number).

however, with iraq taking it's very high toll on service people (who must logically, be replaced) and the cost of medical and rehab services for those needing it, we all know that the budget is only the budget in a pretty loose sense.

now we begin adding in the repair of damaged gear such as humvees and such ( much of which is, incredibly, being shipped back to the states for the work (?!?!?!?), and the outlay continues to rise and defy budgeting.

and then there is of course, bush's non-stop returning to well every 4 months for yet another "supplemental" cash infusion.

he just announced he wants another 108 billion this week.

read that again...

one hundred and eight billion.

now, where is that money supposed to come from ?

taxes. and taxes... and uhhh. taxes.

so really, i believe that anyone who still supports a continued presence of today's (or similar) strength really should not be making any noise about paying their current or increased taxes.

failure to do so will only serve to precipitate the following;

that bush will continue doing to the united states what reagan did to the soviet union.

not good.

and there is also the problem of afghanistan.

if the u.s. continues to toss the lion's share of troops and cash at iraq, we will find ourselves in the same position that, again, the ussr found itself there in the '80s.

also far from good.