Posted by ( chris ) on January 24, 2008 at 12:52 pm

I find it odd that one would even attempt to judge a candidate by who their pastor is. do we judge a pastor by his congregation? Perhaps, but all in all, Obama is his own man and this stinks of veiled attacks from the right. Fair and balanced my fanny, Can anyone cite a story done by O’Reilly on a Republicans pastor? Didn’t think so.

Posted by ( Terry ) on January 28, 2008 at 2:27 pm

Hear! Hear! Jody.

I see so many that are “afraid” of Huckabee because he is a Baptist minister and they don’t want him to bring his religious views and beliefs into the White House.  Personally, I think that Government could use a good heavy dose of religion, ethics and morals from somewhere.  Sure couldn’t hurt.

But, in my opinion, this is not the same.  We’re not talking about different denominational beliefs.  According to your statements and quotes, Jody, I see someone (Rev. Wright) who is trying to incite the black population by making racial, radical and just plain ridiculous statements and accusations.  As you state, while it may not necessarily be “a deciding factor,” it should certainly be an issue for serious consideration.  For B.O. to say how proud he is of his minister should concern us all.  And Jody, you also say to “Put aside for a minute the whole Muslim thing...” To be honest, I haven’t been able to do that at all.  That, frankly, still scares the #$%& out of me.

And, so you won’t have to ask, Chris, I have no plans right now to vote for either B.O. or Billary.  While I would normally lean to the other side, I don’t know what I want to do there either.  A very confusing and somewhat disturbing election campaign so far.

Posted by ( chris ) on January 31, 2008 at 8:21 am

I didn’t need to ask Terry, your conservative leanings are as visible as the NYC skyline crossing over from New Jersey. That is fine, I respect your views, although I find them to be Manichean at times.

I would also disagree on how good it would be to infuse religion into our government. Any movement towards a Theocracy would be a nightmare. The founders knew it and that is why they didn’t base the law of the land on any religious beliefs but rather on natural law. Jefferson knew the inherent dangers of infusing religion into government as did Madison, Adams, and Washington. Adams’ obviously made this known by approving the Treaty of Tripoli.

Anyway, to be fair, if one should consider Obama’s relationship with his Pastor than one must consider a GOP candidate who panders to Dobson, Robertson, and Falwell’s church.

Posted by ( Stephanie James ) on January 31, 2008 at 5:53 pm

That quote listing America’s evils, is a quote from Rev. Granderson Wright who is NOT affiliated with Obama’s church.  I know this quote was attributed, wrongly, to Rev. Jeremiah Wright in a Fox News story and is making the rounds on the internet.  I’ll give the details about that story below, but there are a couple other points that are worth making:

1) Obama has clearly repudiated Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic stances.  Here’s his statement:  I decry racism and anti-Semitism in every form and strongly condemn the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan. I assume that Trumpet Magazine made its own decision to honor Farrakhan based on his efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders, but it is not a decision with which I agree.  http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0108/Obama_knocks_Farrakhan.html.

2) Obama’s church’s services are broadcast live on the web every Sunday, (and repeated daily at noon and sometimes other times), so the whole world can see what they’re up to (and believe me if you watch some you’ll see there’s nothing frightening happening there):  http://viewers.streamingfaith.com/viewer/viewerframes_parent.asp?b=&p;=&networkID=1058&WMP=1&WMPv=6&RPIE=0&RPNAV=1;

3) Obama’s church is one congregation within the United Church of Christ, a mainstream denomination that is predominantly white, and the head of the UCC has defended and explained what is sometimes misunderstood about Obama’s African-centric congregation:http://religion.beloblog.com/archives/2008/01/ucc_head_denounces_attacks_on.html.

Now, here’s the scoop about that paragraph you’ve quoted re “America’s evils”:

On Jan. 23, FoxNews.com ran a story about Obama defending his preacher (Rev. Jeremiah Wright) and church, but acknowledging they have differences sometimes:  http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/23/obama-defends-faith-against-ongoing-assaults/

This Fox story includes the following passage: “In a 2006 radio sermon attributed to him and now being circulated on the Internet, Wright lists what he says are America’s evils: its role as the No. 1 killer in the world, its imprisonment of Nelson Mandela, its support for Israel without regard for Palestinians, its radiation experiments on citizens, its creation of the AIDS crisis and its refusal to help blacks in this country.”

1) The quote in the Fox story comes from this youtube video:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfNEfEBYIZs.  It’s really just audio (apparently in a car and the sermon is coming in on the radio).  Whoever is speaking on the radio does not identify himself. The youtube title attributes the sermon to Jeremiah Wright. 
2) Here’s a video of Rev. Granderson Wright:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoiok6qDyAA&feature=related
3) Here’s a video of Jeremiah Wright: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rncgG5Bic-0

You can see clearly that the first clip containing the quote is Granderson, not Jeremiah.

Posted by ( Chris ) on February 04, 2008 at 4:26 pm

You have posed the question of whether a candidate should be judged by the religious company he keeps. Within the framework of this discussion your question of:"explain the difference between preacher/minister/pastor/priest who leads the church that you personally choose to attend, and a religious/political figure whose endorsement you seek” has a simple answer. The answer is...there is no difference within this framework.

You have made the inferrence or at least asked the question of “How closely should we associate Barack Obama with the pastor of his church?” and followed that with: “Exactly how uncomfortable are you with O�bama�s religiosity?” Doesn’t that question seem very similiar to those loaded questions you tend to quote as proof of a liberal press? Anyway, clearly those statements are an indication that it is legitimate to ask; can a candidate’s relationship with a contraversial religious person be equated with the similiar beliefs of that candidate? The only difference here is the general relationship between Obama, his pastor, and the GOP candidates and the far right figures mentioned. But again, within the framework which you set forth with your question of judging a candidate by the company they keep, then it is also legitimate to ask how closely we should associate the GOP candidates relationship with controversial religious figures with whom they keep company. We are not talking spirituality here but rather similiarity in political and social views. We all know that candidates don’t seek endorsements or at least accept them from people they vehemently disagree with.

As for your assertion: “Anyone up on the currently political scenerio in this country, as it applies to BOTH parties, will be aware that the three religious leaders you mention are not usually sought-after for their support these days.  They haven�t been for quite a while.” That is laughable. Perhaps you should re-quaint yourself with the importance of the Evangelical vote and how these three mentioned are leaders of a large portion of this voting bloc. Garnering support from these leaders gets you support from the christian right and vice versa. 

Need for proof? Well, let us start with Guiliani who sought and received the endorsement of Robertson, but not before Romney went to Regent University twice in two months giving the commencement speech on one of those occasions. He wanted it and Guiliani got it. It is documented here http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/05/AR2007050501081.html
When asked about Robertson’s endorsement, Romney said, “You can’t get them all” and then touted his recent endorsements from conservative activist Paul Weyrich and Bob Jones III, the president of the evangelical Bob Jones University in Greenville, South Carolina.

Romney has absolutely pandered to the right and obtained the endorsement of controversial religious figures as evidenced here: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1670621,00.html?xid=feed-cnn-topicsRomney. This article basically outlines how Romney has pandered to the religious right and how an upaid advisor has arranged several meetings with Falwell.

As for McCain, well in 2000 he talked about how people like Falwell and Robertson were ruining the Republican Party. He actaully called Falwell and “an agent of intolerance”. Most recently, before Falwell’s death, McCain reversed that position and told Tim Russert that he no longer meant that. He spoke at the 2007 commencement at Liberty University. I find it hard to believe that he didn’t change his view and go to Liberty unless he really wanted that support. Falwell said this of McCain “I do think, like any wise politician moving toward a presidential election, he is trying to build alliances,”.

As for Huckabee, I’ll let you decide if the Dobson endorsement was wanted. Just research the statements of Huckabee, I won’t do that for you.

The point here is that with just the few examples I gave above it is obvious and pretty much common knowledge that the GOP candidates pander to the religious right. They know how important that support is. They also pander to Dobson and Robertson. They have aligned themselves with them. Romney and Guiliani to Robertson, McCain to Falwell, Huckabee to Dobson. Should we equate those relationships with having similiar views? By keeping that kind of company do the GOP candidates endorse the unbelievable remarks of Falwell and Robertson. How uncomfortable are you with that type of religiosity?

In any event, since turnabout is fair play, I’ll expect you to give me some proof that any other entity other than right wing partisans are bringing this Obama issue to the public. You seem to be authorative with your statements: “O�Reilly is hardly the only journalist - editorial or otherwise - to bring up this issue” and “But to say that this �stinks of veiled attacks from the right� and to refuse to even acknowledge the obvious legitimacy of my question, sounds like a defensive knee-jerk reaction, not to mention a wee bit paranoid.” I’ll be waiting for that to be confirmed or do you want me to do that as well?

Posted by ( Lewis Loflin ) on February 07, 2008 at 3:38 am

Chris:

I went and looked up Obama’s comments on Farakhan and I quote,

“I decry racism and anti-Semitism in every form and strongly condemn the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan. I assume that Trumpet Magazine made its own decision to honor Farrakhan based on his efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders, but it is not a decision with which I agree.”

First, he did not condemn the racist bigot that made the comment nor has he condemned the racist bigot that operates the church he attends, even if he really disagreed with their statements. Then he cuts in and tells us all the wonderful things the black David Duke does.

This is a stupid as Bush fighting a “war on terrorism” but can’t name the enemy: Wahhabism and radical Islam, the state religion of Saudi Arabia that has spent (and continues to do so) $77 billion oil dollars funding and supporting it. But that’s not political correctness.

If Huckabee attended a church where the paster said the same thing about blacks that Wright says about whites, the screams of racism would be never ending. Why the double standard?

To compare Dobson to Wright might be OK, but why would you attack someone pandering to Dobson and not people like Wright?

The simple fact is blacks (and non-whites in general) are never held to account for anything they say or do. It’s always blamed on whites. Race crimes are always committed by whites, black crime and racism is the just reaction to white racism. It’s typical liberal racism from often self-hating whites.

Now show me a quote where Obama condemns Wright as a man for being a racist bigot. That he calls him a racist bigot, otherwise I think he is a liar. If he can’t do that, then it’s only fair to believe that is what he believes too. If I attend a KKK church, it’s fair I be considered a KKK sympathizer.

Yes the GOP panders to the Religious Right, and Democrats pander to the often racist (and anti-Christian) left, but that is OK.

Here is some more on liberal racism:

http://www.sullivan-county.com/wcva/liberal_racism.htm

Posted by ( chris ) on February 07, 2008 at 2:56 pm

Lewis,

At first I was just going to basically ignore this littany, but the more I thought about it the more incensed I became at your lack of reasoning skills.

So I will indulge you, again, in what is widely becoming increasingly vain attempts to introduce some logical thinking to you, again.

First, when Obama stated “I assume that Trumpet Magazine made its own decision to honor Farrakhan based on his efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders, but it is not a decision with which I agree.” that is clearly an indication that he does in no way agree with the honoring of Farrakhan, which in most circles can widely be regarded as a condemnation. Besides, by your logic then would it not be o.k. to then call everyone a racist who does not condemn Farrakhan or Falwell, Robertson, Dobson, etc? Furthermore, you suppostion that because Obama did not “condemn” farrakhan or Wright in the way YOU see fit it does not mean he supports this type of rhetoric. That is quite a stretch and quite frankly makes you guilty of ascribing motive,unless of course you are a certified mind reader. Perhaps you are.

Secondly, it is also quite a stretch to make the comparison between Obama not condemning these men (the way YOU want him to) and Bush not admitting who the enemy is. A logical fallacy to say the least. You still use those? Despite me pointing them out to you over and over in past threads?

Thirdly, the double standard you see revolves around your own misguided perceptions. I’m sorry that you feel minorities get special treatment. You poor white guy, how have you ever made it being white in this country?

Next, perhaps you should READ THE THREAD. The point I made is not about Obama pandering to Wright. BTW, that hasn’t occurred in the least. I challange you to show any pandering on his part for Wright’s support. The point, my friend, is that it is perfectly legitimate to ask how closely we should hold the GOP candidates to the beliefs of the far right religious extremists they pander too, since obviously it is legitimate, according to the far right talking heads, to ask this of Obama. Obviously you don’t agree, or maybe you do. Who knows???

Lastly, your assertion that if Obama does not adhere to your ideology that he must condemn Wright for being a racist and if he doesn’t then he is a racist, is absolutely ridiculous. That logic has not basis and you know it (or at least I hope you do). Are you trying to tell me that everyone who attends the particular church that Obama does is a racist? I want you to look up what a logical fallacy is Lewis, really. Think about it. If that is how you feel then fine. I’ll expect you to condemn every person who watches the 700 Club as anti-semites and gay haters since Robertson has been on record with those type of statements. I’ll expect you to condemn every person who is part of Falwell’s moral majority as believing that 9-11 was caused by lesbians, gays, and abortionists. I’ll expect you to condemn.....oh what’s the use?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??????

No wait, I’ll expect you to back up the strawman argument that the Democrats pander to the racist anti christian left. I’ll be waiting with wild anticipation.

Posted by ( chris ) on February 11, 2008 at 6:43 pm

Lewis,

God almighty man!!! You are the one who brought up Bush. Do you have any more of that stuff because it gotta to be good?

Just because Obama’s condemnation doesn’t meet your criteria doesn’t in any way make it less of a condemnation. Now, how about you addressing the point of legitimacy in the comparison. Just for logics sake????????

Posted by ( Jody Lee ) on February 14, 2008 at 2:06 pm

It would appear that alot of this discussion boils down to how you view the role of your minister/priest/pastor in your life.

For me, he is my religious guide.  He is my teacher in all matters religious.  He helps me to interpret God’s word and I look to him to be an example of how to live a life devoted to God.  His love of and devotion to the Lord inspires my own.

If he said or believed something that I felt was in strong and direct contrast to the moral guidelines found in the Bible and in my heart, I could and would no longer attend his church, because he could no longer fill the role I described - the role that, in my opinion, every minister/priest/pastor has.  I would not leave my faith or even my denomination.  But I would leave the church he leads.

He is of course allowed to be imperfect.  He is only human.  Now refer again to the above line that begins “If he said...”

Is it just me who looks to the leader of their church to fill this role?

Jody Lee

Posted by ( chris ) on February 20, 2008 at 8:38 am

Jody,

That is fine, but is it fair to then insert your feelings into what should be? This is obviously a religious matter to you so no changing of minds is going to happen. I don’t understand though why you feel Obama is beneath you because he won’t leave a church because the pastor says somehting he doesn’t agree with, since that is what you would do.

You people have this idea that Rev. Wright gets up every sunday and rails agains the White man and America. Whatever.

NOTE FROM JODY:  When did I ever say Obama is “beneath me”?  Answer - I didn’t.  You know, you have to be careful when you paraphrase others or worse still, put words in their mouth.  It is my wont to consider myself “above” or “better than” another person and I try hard to abide by that.  (I realize that is a broad statement and hope you will grasp my intent when saying it.) It denotes a judgement that I sincerely do not feel it is my place - or any man’s - to make (lest, of course, we be judged). 

To your point, do you mean to insinuate that Obama views the pastor of his church in a light other than that of spiritual leader and advisor?  If so, what exactly would that light be? 

Yes, this is a religious matter to me.  What else could be possibly be?  Nothing speaks more to a person than the God they choose to worship and their relationship with Him, so of course when it comes to a Presidential candidate, I am going to look at that.  Other than atheists (who might hold a person’s religiosity against them), who wouldn’t?  So yes, the person who is the head of your religious home therefore does matter.

And you might be being a tad presumptuous when you write “You people have this idea that....”.  Why would you think that?  I did not say that and do not recall any one else referencing the frequency with which Obama’s pastor “rails agains the white man” .  Whether he did it once or regularly is inconsequential, I believe.  That this was not an off-the-cuff later-regretted single comment is a given, so how often the sentiment is expressed really doesn’t matter.

Lastly, “inserting my feelings” into ANY issue - either character or policy related - is not only fair, it is an essential part of the decision-making process when choosing a President.  That is all ANY of us can do - compare the candidate’s sentiments and opinions and policies to our own ideas and see how they measure up.  We are not talking about me judging a neighbor.  We are talking about choosing a President.  That’s a whole different thing, don’t you agree?

Thanks as always for your comments,
jl