Jim,

I must respectfully disagree with you…The speech was good - at moral equivalency and playing the blame game. Barack Hussein Obama did all but address the issue at hand - how in the world he could not be aware of his pastor’s bigotry, hatred toward white people, and ignorance of the true facts for the past 20 years.

Barack has stood on the platform of HopeNChange and uniting the country - how can he do that if he sits in a church for 20 years that has sought to divide the country and calls white people “cracker” in his books?

[…] realize that Obama made another good speech today. He is good at that, isn’t he? There probably isn’t a better speaker in politics. […]

tennesseefree.com–How would you like him to communicate? Pantomime? And Eric–Did you even listen to the speech? Obama talked plenty about Wright’s attitudes, comments and anger–and about how Obama himself rejects that anger and ugliness. It was a thoughtful, honest discussion of race in this country, where we’ve been, where we are, where we might go. Why don’t you take a few minutes to think about it, before launching into your cliched Barack Hussein Obama diatribes.

I am not going to vote for the man based on his economic policy, but I agree with Lisa’s assessment of the speech. It appeared to me to be very frank and open about where we stand as a society when it comes to race and how people, white, black, and brown, still feel the effects of Jim Crow.

I can’t help but think about Aunt B’s post about luck and how the black community (in general) has pretty bad orlog or whatever.

Jim Voorhies:

Compare and contrast.

Obama’s minister’s tirades and this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/obamas-minister-committe_b_91774.html

Just so I understand, democommie; it’s okay for candidates to sit under the teaching of churches who espouse messages like “God damn America”?

Ned Williams:

Just so you understand, Ned? Did you read the text of the “God damn America” speech, or watch the video?

Since you ask the question. Is it okay for candidates to accept endorsements, to actually seek endorsements from fundamentalist whackjobs like Rod Parsley and John Hagee? I mean, you are planning on voting for John McCain, correct?

You’re displaying your penchant, Ned, for knowing what other people think. You’re asking one of those “do you still beat your wife?” questions. Cheap shot, Ned, shame on you.

Seems like there have been a lot of “Christians” who saw 9/11 as a message from God. Surely no one’s forgotten the 700 Club fiasco where Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson agreed (two days after the event) that America had got what it deserved.

The only substantive difference in the statements is that Falwell and Robertson blamed gays, lesbians, feminists, and the ACLU — Wright attributed our national sin to enduring racism.

Incidentally, there’s a longstanding jeremiad tradition in Protestant churches that have especially been embraced by black orators in the US. Douglass worked in this tradition, as did King. In that style of sermon, the speaker rejects the pieties of patriotic ritual in a country that refuses to recognize some basic citizenship rights with the hope of galvanizing his audience into action.

See, for example, Frederick Douglass’s “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?” in which he bitterly denounces the gap between the ideals of the nation and and the inhuman practices of slavery. It’s one of the most eloquent pieces of rhetoric in our US literature, but it is blistering in its pointed critique of American politics and society.
He also puts Christians on the hook for their hypocrisy:

“For my part, I would say, welcome infidelity! welcome atheism! welcome anything! in preference to the gospel, as preached by those Divines! They convert the very name of religion into an engine of tyranny, and barbarous cruelty, and serve to confirm more infidels, in this age, than all the infidel writings of Thomas Paine, Voltaire, and Bolingbroke, put together, have done! These ministers make religion a cold and flinty-hearted thing, having neither principles of right action, nor bowels of compassion. They strip the love of God of its beauty, and leave the throng of religion a huge, horrible, repulsive form. It is a religion for oppressors, tyrants, man-stealers, and thugs.”

Like all jeremiads, however, the purpose is to turn the listener — to shock the listener into a conviction of his or her deep sinfulness and need for God’s grace followed by a call to redemption. Douglass turns the corner and calls his listeners to political action in God’s name.

The point is, if you don’t hear an entire jeremiad sermon, any part taken out of the context of the whole makes the preacher sounds like a raging nutcase. I can’t believe that these good Christian conservative commentators can’t recognize a rather common sermon style when they hear it — maybe they don’t listen so well when they go to church.

Bridgett:

Thank you.

e tu, bridgett?

The “this is common in black churches” argument insults some very good friends of mine, who have NEVER said any such things from the pulpit. I’ve worshipped in LOTS of African American churches - I know the truth.

I am so disgusted with this right now.

It is common in Protestant churches, period. The critique of politics through the lens of religion has been going on in Christian texts since Jeremiah and Lamentations. And though particular black pastors might not use this style, the jeremiad is a oratorical style historically embraced by black ministers in the US at politically tense times. Even if your friends do not employ it from the pulpit, they know of this style, perhaps deliberately have chosen not to use it because of its potential to divide their (perhaps mixed-race?) church, that’s not to say that it’s not a recognized form of sermonizing that has had particular historical resonance for African-American congregations. That would be, as they say, just facts.

As a traditionally politically disempowered people, African-Americans have used alternate venues (most particularly churches) as sites of political speech, organization, and renewal. A part of that organizing has been done by lighting a fire under their congregations through the use of the jeremiad. I don’t know why pointing to the obvious would be insulting to anyone.

For all the apologists, focussing on his “anger” and the “God Damn America” part of it:
How do you write off his statements that America created the AIDS virus to kill of the black man?
Are you allowed to just make up crazy conspiracy theories if you’re “ANGRY”?

He’s either a nut, or woefully ignorant. Niether option makes me feel better about BO trying to explain it away.

I guess it was just too hard for him to admit that AIDS came from Africa.

Beats me, Exador. If Wright was the one running for Pres, I wouldn’t be voting for him. But he’s not. Why would someone stay and listen to that week after week? I don’t think most people would but I also don’t necessarily think excerpts of speeches give a good view of Wright. How much has Wright affected Obama? I don’t know that either. Obama did call what Wright said a profoundly distorted view of this country.

bridgett, I’ve thought about the whole jeramaid thing. The device you are speaking of would be effective if he were speaking to white powerholders. He is not.

If he is preparing the congregation for “the turn”, so they will repent, why isn’t he pointing out THEIR sins?

He is speaking to one group of people, pointing out the sins of others.

Are you familiar with Black Liberation Theology, and its mother - Liberation Theology? Although they first came to prominence in Latin America, they were ultimately the brainchild of marxist thinkers in Ivy League schools who wished to advance their political goals through religious conviction.

It’s another conversation for another day, but Liberation Theologies are heresy, because they, at most, use Christ as a prop or illustration. CHrist is most assuredly not at the center, as is, I think, a requirement for a church to call itself “Christian”.

It seems to me the people most upset over Rev. Wright’s comments never considered voting for Obama, anyway. Meh.
.

Thanks, Slarti. I agree with you 100%.

They are heresy. Jesus would never, and did never, use the type of inflammatory language that Rev. Wright espouses. And Bridgett, I did listen and did read the speech, and his moral equivalency is so obvious it makes my head hurt.

And apparently you’ve never been to a true Christian church. That type of language is not espoused or used by the church.

Rev. Wright is not of God, neither is anyone who would use “God d*mn” in any context. And apparently he doesn’t know his history, because Jesus is NOT black, he’s Hebrew. And if Rev. Wright thinks that Israel and Judaism is a “gutter” or “dirty” religion as he has previously endorsed and his best friend Louis Farrakhan says, then he is definitely not of God.

He is evil incarnate.

Oh, and he has blasphemed God…John Hagee, in contrast, has never said “God d*mn America” and has never blasphemed God or Israel.

And to dispute your point that what Rev. Wright says is “typical” African theology, you need to listen to Bishop T.D. Jakes or Dr. Frederick K. Price: they do not embrace “Black Liberation Theology”.

Eric, I think you’re over-extending yourself when you sit in judgment of my Christian experience and testimony. God, not Eric, is the judge of the condition of the human soul and He uses more than the Internet comments to determine that. If you have problems with my argument, that’s fine with me. I’ll consider the source.

Eric, I think everyone needs to calm down.

I have nothing but respect for bridgett, and I’d appreciate it if you kept this civil. She and I might disagree, but when you question her heart, then you and I have a quarrel.

I have some severe problems with Wright, and some of that reflects on the judgement of Obama. And bridgett presented some historical context that I think might be important (although I disagree somewhat about its applicability here).

And believe me, there is NO ONE who feels more angst about this than me. I am a self-described conservative, yet I voted for Obama in the primary and flirted with voting for him in the general, until now. His speech yesterday was masterful, but I still think I have the right to question just who Barack Obama is, and what he believes.

I do not relinquish that right just because some irreligious, clueless Obama supporters have declared the story over.

I think we agree on this.

But, I’m asking you nicely, do not turn your anger about this toward innocent bystanders.

Bridgett,

You are over-extending yourself by saying that I was trying to be “the judge of the condition of the human soul”. I said that apparently you’ve never been to a true Christian church. That said nothing of you or your soul.

I’d advise you to read thoroughly before you respond. Oh yeah, and you might want to re-read or re-watch Jerry Wright’s speeches.

Again, if you think that his diatribes are “common” for a Christian church, whether they be African-American or “whitey”, then you’ve never really been to a Christian church…You’ve been to gathering of people who are playing church.

And yes, Bridgett, I hope you do consider the source…Consider the source of this man’s hatred for our beloved country, and his racism against white people. Consider that the Democratic frontrunner has been mentored by this man for 20 years…How could he not be aware of his many vile, anti-American, anti-human, anti-semitic remarks?? I hope you consider that.

How very convenient that Obama’s pastor says things that push people’s buttons so that they can’t vote for him, “now”.

A lot of folks were ready to vote for Huckabee if he was the GOP’s nominee in November. Ready to vote for a man who was perfectly willing to trot out his fundamentalism.

Nah, a lot of folks are just looking for an excuse to vote for McCain (even though they think he’s not even a “real” conservative).

Oh, btw, (waves both hands) I’m not an innocent bystander.

Eric:

Do you have a degree in drama or is it an avocation?

As an Obama supporter, I do not think the Wright controversy is put to rest. It will likely dog the rest of Obama’s political career, because Wright’s sermon excerpts are so very incendiary.
But I do think that this controversy is slash-and-burn politics disguised as principled objection to Wright’s statements. Why? Because there is nothing about Obama’s personal life or political actions and words that remotely suggests he shares any of these views with Wright. Quite the opposite: Obama openly opposes this type of stupid, fury-ridden, racially charged propaganda. That is what matters to me.
I am not surprised at Obama’s membership at Trinity United. The church represents a lot more than Wright’s ugly side. When I imagine him as a young man in his twenties, far from his grandparents (his mother and father were gone by the late 90s), striking out on his own, it makes sense that he gravitated toward such an emotionally embracing congregration. Yeah, Wright’s ugly moments are grotesque, but by all accounts, this was not the dominant message of this church or its activities in the community.
Obama may lose this race, but he earned my complete respect yesterday. He didn’t disown Wright, but he quite clearly repudiated Wright’s angry rhetoric. To challenge a mentor, and continue to work to change hearts and minds, rather than to walk away self-righteously, with condemnation on the tongue–that to me is a true sign of leadership.

Sorry, just checking . . . is it okay now for candidates to sit under churches who ask God to curse America?

Sorry, just checking . . . is it okay now for candidates to sit under churches who ask God to curse America?

Given that we godless heathens find the whole “candidate goes to church” shtick quaint and amusing, yet necessary, yeah — we’re okay with that, Ned. I’m sure the invisible sky daddy will, indeed, damn America because of these cherry-picked words, too.
.

Wow, JP, that’s helpful. You should run a campaign. You could build one heck of a big tent with talk like that.

That tent won’t be much good for a revival though.

The general public does seem to care where a candidate chooses to attend church (’might ask Romney his perspective on that). I question just how much ‘guilt by association’ should weigh into a candidate’s ability to lead the country.

I saw a great deal of ‘hating-the sin-but-loving-the-sinner’ going on in OB’s speech. I doubt that Wright’s 20+ years of ministry is based on the foundation of the sound bites that we have heard repeatedly from a few sermons.

Paul,
Yes.

Lisa:

I am troubled by this whole situation (I posted it over at my place), and I just want to say that your comment is like a breath of fresh air in the midst of it all.

As I said elsewhere, I’m curious which one among us would be ok with an agenda-driven person cherry-picking four or five phrases out of every word we’d spoken in the last 20 years? Any takers??

Also curious if any of the church goers hear would like to submit that they agree with every sentence, every phrase, every word they’ve heard come from the pulpit?

From a personal standpoint, I don’t really care what the political views of a politician’s minister are until such point as those views become that of the politician and begin entering into policy.

Though I’d like to say to those who published the video: Mission Accomplished (sorta).

I will not be voting for Rev. Jeremiah Wright to be the President of the United States. Then again, I hadn’t planned on voting for him in the first place, didn’t even know he was on the ballot.

Dolphin, the videos are available in the church’s bookstore. The church is proud of those statements. They weren’t “found” or “dug up” by Republicans or Hillary backers. And this is not your average guilt by association. Obama’s relationship to Rezco is not important. That is unfair guilt by association. But this is and has been a close association. This guy is Obama’s chosen mentor. He is not some crazy relative. He chose this nutjob as his mentor. If he doesn’t agree with this stuff, then he has some really terrible judgment.

You apologists are amazing in your intellectual dishonesty. You know damn well that you would not apply this generous standard to anybody else in a different campaign. You all nearly crapped your pants when Bush spoke at Bob Jones. John Hagee has no relationship to McCain. He is not his pastor. But you all flipped out when he endorsed McCain.

I used to have a lot of respect for Obama. But he has proven himself to be a fraud.

Thanks, Ginger. I’ve felt pretty saddened by this situation myself. Yet yesterday, I also was glad to hear a major politician speak so honestly about the racial dynamics in this country. I’ve volunteered a little for Obama, and his campaign operation is one of the absolutely least racist, most naturally integrated environments I’ve ever participated in. Truly different in that regard. Talk about a breath of fresh air.

Glen, I’m neither an apologist nor intellectually dishonest. I deplore Wright’s comments: Forget just offensive, they’re stupid and they feed ignorance, which to me is far worse than just offensive. But Obama shows no sign of being infected by Wright’s anger at the Powers That Be. Moreover, Obama has, in front of African American congregations, spoken out against the homophobia and anti-Semitism that has crept into some elements of African American culture. What matters isn’t what Obama has heard, but what he himself believes, how he himself acts, and the policies he himself supports.

I didn’t give a damn when Bush went to Bob Jones (or anyone else - didn’t McCain speak there back in 2000?), I could care less who John Hagee, or Fidel Castro, endorses. None of that means that Barack Obama is a walking clone of everything Jeremiah Wright believes. I wouldn’t have him as a pastor and I doubt you would either, Glen, but I’m only speaking for myself.

Is this disturbing? Shit, yes it is. What am I going to do? I’m going to pray about it and I’m going to think about it. Ask me again in late October.

When John Kennedy said he would not be controlled by the Vatican, most people accepted his word. When Obama says that this is wrong, when he says that he repudiates what Wright said, should we give him less consideration than we did JFK? Is that the right thing to do? Is that the level of forgiveness and love of our neighbor we should show?

I have not heard another politician talk this directly about race.

Jim,

You’re absolutely right about we should forgive Barack Obama of his association with Jeremiah Wright.

That said, it still worries me that Barack Obama had a close relationship with this guy with everything that Wright has said. To put him in his campaign and still revere him as a spiritual leader worries me even more. It shows that Obama doesn’t have the true wherewithal to forcefully and emphatically denounce Wright’s anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism.

What matters isn’t what Obama has heard, but what he himself believes, how he himself acts, and the policies he himself supports.

Exactly, Lisa. Barack Obama said last week that he had never heard the controversial comments by Wright. Then just yesterday, he said he had. So which is it? Either way, he’s a liar. Actions speak louder than words, Lisa. The people you hang around and the things you do can never be repudiated by just words alone.

He must separate himself from that church and Wright if he wants to bring “HopeNChange” to this country and in turn unite it.

When in doubt, slander your grandmother.

Ron, no kidding.

I guess if I sat in on Klan meetings for twenty years, and the Grand Dragon was my mentor, it would be unfair to associate me with his controversial views.

[…] in a comment at MCB, had this to say about Black Liberation Theology. Are you familiar with Black Liberation Theology, […]

Glen Dean:

Do you actually equate what Wright did with the hatred of the Ku Klux Klan? Are you that stupid? How many white men have had crosses burned on their lawns in this country? How many white men have been lynched for LOOKING at a black woman? How many whites have been forced to sit at the back of the bus; refused service in a restaurant or refused accomodation at place of lodging–solely because of the color of their skin?

How dare you equate what Wright said with what the KKK has done in the name of “racial purity”.

If it makes me “an apologist” to acknowledge that Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Sen Barack Obama are in fact different people, then so be it, I could care less. Though I find it interesting that I could also careless about the stuff you’ve accused me of caring about.

What I find most interesting about this is the veracity with which the right-wing has jumped on this. It reeks of desperation. If you want to fire up the attack machine, why not focus on Obama (you know, the candidate)? Seems that desperate times call for desperate measures and unable to find anything to attack Obama about personally, and unwilling to take him on policy-wise, you’ve resorted to attempting character assisination through weak guilt-by-association.

Btw, nobody has answered my question as to whether they personally agree with every word that has ever crossed their own ministers lips.

Democommie, chill out with the drama. The point was that the Wright is just as racist as the Grand Dragon. They are the same person, just different skin colors. One once had the power of the majority. The other did not.

I would consider the ‘veracity with which the right-wing has jumped on this’ as just the beginnings of the smorgasbord of cold, dark dishes of just deserts that follow the Democrat’s BDS of the past, oh, seven years.

“Upon a pillory - that al the world may see, A just desert for such impiety.”

There’s no way to for democommie to chill out with the drama. The boy lives for it. He had some nerve to knavely ask Eric if he had a flair for drama!

BS on the Grand Wizard analogy. Rev. Dr. Wright has not called for the death of whites, nor their removal from American society, nor a world in which whites live subordinate to blacks because of a perverse understanding of human racial hierarchy. White supremacists say that blacks should be purged from American society by force and that blacks are inferior to whites; moreover, they act on these principles. They actually kill people and beat them up and drive them out of neighborhoods and burn down their businesses and such, whereas Wright delivers a controversial sermon every once in a while. Surely you can see the difference — if you can’t, remind me not to go to your church.

Thank you, Bridgett.

Here’s an interesting editorial on this subject. It even quotes a white (white!) man–okay, he’s educated and a professor, which might bias him as a thoughtful person–but he’s still white!–who has attended many services at Trinity United.
Seriously, though, I thought this was a fair take on where we currently find ourselves in this debate.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/opinion/20kristof.html?hp

Glen Dean:

You’re a liar. That comment of yours was so indicative of your true feelings. You’re quite the KKKristian.

Serridiot:

Once and always.

Bridgett: there’s a past, and there’s a now. I don’t think anyone does “kill people and beat them up and drive them out of neighborhoods and burn down their businesses and such” much, anymore. At least not on the scale you’ve brushed, broadly, and not in my backyard.

Granted, there’s the isolated backwoods draggings, the sometimes Church burnings, but those things are performed by the criminal element, usually teens, not by those who make differences. There’s no one who thinks who can espouse the burnings-beatings.

And, no one who preaches from a pulpit serving modern men and women should damn our country using God as the tool. If that were mainstream, we will hear of it. I don’t think there are many more like Wright, in any house of God.

If you really want to see that sort of behavior, you’ll have to find Islamic fundamentalists. But be sure to don a burkha before you go.

Everyone,

Here’s an article you should read…Be sure to click on the links, also. This puts in perspective Jeremiah Wright’s comments. As you can see, “cherry-picking” has not been happening…It’s a pretty consistent worldview he has.

http://www.bizzyblog.com/2008/03/17/tuccs-church-bulletins-from-july-2007-probably-make-whether-obama-was-present-on-july-22-irrelevant/

Wow, democommie…talk about drama…And you said that I was dramatic!

Okay, Eric, you’re right. I deny it no longer. You’ve discovered the cabal. The men and women of Trinity United are plotting the overthrow of Christian white America, they are going to kill all the Jews, join forces with Al-Qaeda and destroy the free market system. You will be redeemed by the Lord in the Rapture, but I must go join my people the Israelites to fight in the great war on the fields of Armageddon. (You know they have a bus stop there now! So convenient.)

Lisa,

Wow. Your malevolence stupefies me. Is it a malevolence of all Christians, or is it just of a particular few? Your execrance of the Scripture, Christians, and God is clarion.

Oops…that should have been “execration”…my typo.

Lighten up, Eric. No malevolence against Christians at all. Just mockery of some of the overblown rhetoric here that suggests Wright is one “goddamn” short of the devil. The way you, Glen and Obama opponents elsewhere have discussed this Wright matter has been ludicrous, fear-mongering, hysterical and just plain stupid. You’ve come just short of screaming “Bogeyman!” So, what do you expect, a continued attempt at rational discussion? Yesterday Hannity said on national television: Now what if Obama really does agree with and believe what Wright said–there’s no evidence he does–but WHAT IF HE DID?
Oh yeah, What If??!!
Please, how do you have a rational argument with that kind of nonsense posing as actual debate? I checked out that bizzyblog link of yours, and I thought, forget it, these people are hysterical and nuts. So I answered with a bit of mockery. Can’t take it? Think I’ve reduced Christianity to a caricature? Well, dude, that was the point–not because I disrespect Christianity–but as satire. Does it ever occur to you, Glen, and others making these arguments that you are trying to reduce Obama’s faith to a caricature? You refuse to consider the full picture at Trinity, you refuse to consider the true, positive things Obama might have found there, completely unrelated to Wright’s comments at their most hyperbolic. You refuse to consider that perhaps Obama was drawn to the church for its social work with the poor and struggling in that community, or for its message of hope in a community wracked by economic and social disintegration. You are more than entitled to disagree with Obama’s political stances, but you refuse to judge the man’s life and ideas on their own merits, ignoring the very Christian and dignified life he has led, raising a family and working in his community for change. Look at his record, listen to his words, maybe even read his books, listen to his description of his relationship with Wright, stop assuming everything he says is an absolute cynical lie and then tell me what you think. Or you could rant and rave over his pastor’s anger at white America.
You don’t like it when people caricature your faith? Well, you shouldn’t like it. Nor should you caricature others’ faith to serve your own political ends, because it really doesn’t feel that good, does it?

[…] is a commenter on a thread over at Music City Bloggers named Lisa who, to me, has had the most level-headed take on the whole thing (that I have come across).  […]

It is common in Protestant churches, period.

For the record, it’s not common in my church, nor would any church where it was common be my church for long.

Though it is my policy to ignore people who ignore me, aside from a couple of assertions about Predestination over the past 9 years, yes, I have agreed with everything that has come from my church’s pulpit. Of course, they don’t talk about politics except for one aside about abortion and one brief announcement about the Biblical view of marriage (d’oh! that might make dolphin not want to talk to me!?!).

I doubt that Wright’s 20+ years of ministry is based on the foundation of the sound bites that we have heard repeatedly from a few sermons.

Actually, afro-centrism was (is?) fundamental to Obama’s church, I believe. I’m a little embarrassed that I didn’t pay attention to this earlier–I must admit that I treat african americans and african american-related things (like religious issues) with a kid glove. And, no, I wasn’t going to vote for a Liberal candidate like Obama, but I certainly am not going to let the Left pooh-pooh the fact that Obama has subscribed to this “doctrine” for 20 years or the fact that Obama has only seen fit to talk about this now.

kid gloves, actually.

Lisa,

What, exactly, are his merits and accomplishments? Can you tell me? Oh yeah…He has a record for “NV”…Go check this link out. He didn’t vote on 67% of the “Welfare and Poverty” votes. He didn’t vote on 100% of the “Women’s Issues” votes. He didn’t vote on 40% of the “Veterans Issues” votes. He didn’t vote on 62.5% of the “Transportation Issues” votes. He didn’t vote on 29% of the “Trade Issues” votes. He didn’t vote on 50% of the “Technology and Communication” votes. He didn’t vote on 60% of the “Reproductive Issues” votes. He didn’t vote on 39% of the “National Security Issues” votes. He didn’t vote on 100% of the “Indegenous Peoples” votes. He didn’t vote on 52% of the “Health Issues” votes. He didn’t vote on 50% of the “Foreign Aid and Policy Issues” votes…The list goes on and on. So what is his position? What are his qualifications? You tell me.

And I am not “caricaturing” others’ faith. I am questioning his seemingly poor judgement and inability to make decisions.

Lisa:

Don’t waste Eric’s time. He needs to pray for me (at least he says he does). You know there is no convincing the people who already know the WILL OF GOD that they might be wrong in the less important areas of everyday life.

Ned Williams:

I actually believe that you never question you church’s pronouncements. But, then that’s what sheep always do.

DC:

I never said I knew the will of God. I don’t, at least not for everything. I do know that it’s His will for everyone to be saved, and to spend eternity in Heaven. But as for His will for each individual’s life, I don’t. Never said I did.

Bring on the personal affronts, democommie.

But, just to be clear dc, you’re being a little squirrelly here . . . is it okay to go to a church that calls down judgment on America?

Just to correct my statement, then I’m done:

It’s God’s wholehearted desire for everyone to be saved. However, there will be some that reject Him, as democommie has apparently done. DC, I’m still praying for you.

Many senators have comparable NVs intheir records, Eric. This guy http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=53270, has quite a few. He’s either voted no or NV’d on every vetrean’s related legislation, 60% of reproductive issues, etc. None of that means the legislation itself was any good and that means more than anything. That’s a link to McCain’s record, btw).

that should be veteran, not vetrean.

Eric, giving me stats that date predominantly from the campaign period do not impress me.

Again, think about what it means to reduce a man’s faith, church affiliation and entire career to a series of inflammatory statements by his pastor, and then get back to me. Otherwise, don’t waste my time.

Jim,

Yes, I saw that too. (BTW, I’m not a big fan of John McCain.) Thanks for keeping things “fair and balanced”.

What strikes me, though, is that most of these “NVs” have been while they have been running for President. McCain has 21 years of Senate service prior to running for President (this go around); Obama has 3. And Barack has failed to vote many, many more times than McCain has. My point is, Barack hasn’t been there long enough to establish his voting record - and thus, his experience on the issues. McCain has.

Lisa,

Those are not predominately from the campaign period. That’s from his entire stint in the Senate.

Again, I’m not reducing his faith.

I am questioning his seemingly poor judgement and inability to make decisions.

that should be veteran, not vetrean.

Thanks for the clarification . . . I was worried there was some new diet-based category of people I was going to have to assimilate into my consciousness.

Lisa,
You’ve got to admit that his resume is thin . . . you’ve got to. Now that doesn’t mean he isn’t capable of leading, but his list of accomplishments isn’t his strong suit.

And that’s why news about his beliefs is making such headlines.

Eric,
I’m having trouble finding sources you might consider impartial re: Obama’s state senate career. Roundups seem to come from pro-Obama-type sites or right-leaning sites, and I don’t know that you would accept his campaign site as a good source. Google the subject and see what you think. Try Thomas.gov for Obama’s Senate legislative record.

All that said, I’m guessing from your commentary that you do not/would not agree with many of his positions and votes. Frankly, I’m always eager to hear opposing viewpoints on policy. But the church-baiting, racially charged stuff? It saddens me no end. It is so destructive and corrosive.

yeah, they only eat bark from old trees

Ned–
Now talking about his resume–its relative thinness or thickness–I’m with you, totally legit topic. We may agree or disagree, but it is a discussion worth having. I just think that the so-called “beliefs” debate–centered as it is on the most inflammatory, dramatic video snippets to be found–is a bit disingenuous. It is playing on people’s fears and prejudices, leaving rational discussion on the cutting room floor.

Maybe we should all hop on a bus to Chicago and visit Trinity one of these weekends, just to put an end to all this speculation!

On second thought, does it have to be a bus? That’s just too masochistic. How about we drive?

Isn’t it pretty well established that they believe in afro-centrism and a variant of Black Liberation Theology?

I agree that playing on fears and prejudices is wrong, but wouldn’t you agree that some things we ought to be “afraid” of and prejudiced against. Of course, I don’t hate on FoxNews, but I can conclude a lot without having to watch every sermon or visit the church. Frankly, there are NO such snippets or disappearing webpages at my church or any one I’ve ever attended.

Lisa,

You’re right. I do not agree with his positions. And that’s from him being on the left, and me on the right. And yes, you are right. The racially-charged stuff and church-baiting are destructive and corrosive.

Your idea of attending TUCC is not a bad idea, either…I wonder what kind of reception we’d receive?

Ned,

I’m not afraid of Afro-centrism and black liberation theology. Honestly–and I really don’t want to sound like an apologist here, because I am not making excuses–I just don’t think it’s that big a deal. The more radical folks don’t have any power. They have few followers. I do think that perfectly moderate versions of Afro-centrism grew out of an attempt to find pride in what for years was a curse–being black in America.

When I hear Wright screaming “God damn America!” I feel pity. When he blames the U.S. government for AIDS, I feel pity. (This theory, by the way, has been around the global block, too. See: South Africa.)

I admit, too, that I am not afraid when the relatively weak rail against the powerful. “There’s no there there,” as they say. Wright does not espouse violence. (His comments about 9/11 and chickens coming home to roost I find offensive, but check out Prophets in the Bible. That’s what it’s all about, sin and punishment, sin and punishment. Wright is drawing from the same well as Robertson and Falwell. I guess now we all know how gays feel.) There is no evidence Wright’s a racist in terms of how he treats white people. He doesn’t call for anyone’s rights to be curtailed or abrogated. Even in his most obnoxious clips, he’s basically just venting anger, as awful as it may sound to us. At the same time, there are plenty of whites who say they’ve been/go to Trinity United and feel welcome.
As for liberation theology–well, you might disagree with the direction in which it grew, but it, too, has deep roots in the Judeo-Christian tradition, starting with the Exodus and moving forward toward “the meek shall inherit the earth.”
Maybe a word or two of explanation: I’m a Jewish woman who’s sat in rooms with young PLO members in Gaza and listened to them talk about terrorism as the only route to freedom. Now that’s kinda scary. (Luckily, I don’t scare too easily.) The frustration you sometimes hear in the African American community just doesn’t compare. Child’s play. Really.

And Eric,

I honestly believe that we would be perfectly welcome at Trinity United. I do. I’m going to Chicago over Memorial Day weekend. Do you think I should check it out. Put my money where my mouth is?

Sorry if that post is just crazy long.

Well, I hesitated to use the word “afraid” because I’m not afraid of it either. But that (its perceived harmlessness) doesn’t make it any less offensive or stupid. But it is up for debate whether or not it is truly “harmless” . . . these ideas are used to justify a lot of institutional racism or race-based policies. As a result, the rhetoric (not to mention the racist policies) only drives deeper the wedge between the races and serves to undermine what Obama (and many other Liberals) purport to be their objectives/values.

And do I need to point out the irony of the Left and Liberation Theology? Liberation Theology takes the “wall of separation” to all-new levels of non-existence.

Ned, as unlikely as this may seem to anyone following this thread, I think we agree on something … I absolutely do not think the rhetoric we’ve been talking about is harmless.

Lisa,

I honestly wish I could go to Chicago with you. I’d love to check it out - get a first-person view of it. I really think you should check it out and report back to us.

Ned Williams:

You asked that question of me early on in this thread.

My reply to your question:

“Ned Williams:

Just so you understand, Ned? Did you read the text of the “God damn America” speech, or watch the video?

Since you ask the question. Is it okay for candidates to accept endorsements, to actually seek endorsements from fundamentalist whackjobs like Rod Parsley and John Hagee? I mean, you are planning on voting for John McCain, correct?

You’re displaying your penchant, Ned, for knowing what other people think. You’re asking one of those “do you still beat your wife?” questions. Cheap shot, Ned, shame on you.”

to which I guess your reply was:

“Bring on the personal affronts, democommie.

But, just to be clear dc, you’re being a little squirrelly here . . . is it okay to go to a church that calls down judgment on America?”

But no answer to the several questions I asked of you.

I have listened to the “terrible and unpatriotic” comments of Pastor Wright and they sound, to me, like a rhetorical device. But then again, I’m just an empty headed liberal who only has my own conscience for a guide and not the WORD OF GOD, speaking through me, like you.

In the case that you ask me about, is it okay for Barack Obama (that is after all who you are talking about, Ned, isn’t it) to sit under the teachings of churches who espouse messages like “God damn America”?

Well, Gee whillikers, Ned Williams. I’m getting the vapors here? How do I answer a question like that, asked by such a smooth country lawyer like yourself. If I say, “Yes”, then I’m in favor of people who hate my country (or, worse, maybe I hate it myself). If I say, “No”, then the only right thing for me to do is repudiate Barack Obama for his stupidity, treachery or duplicity. Of course, I could just say, it’s a loaded question that you asked deliberately to get a simplistic answer that would make you feel superior (although I’m pretty sure that you already feel that way).

So, I’ll tell you what Ned, you think about giving me some answers (you’re bein’ just a li’l bit “squirrelly” there yourself) to the questions that I posed to you and we’ll see how it all shakes out.

Eric:

Like I said on the other thread up the page. Don’t pray for me. I consider your prayers to be a waste of your time and I don’t want to be “saved” to spend eternity with a bunch of sanctimonious twits who think that God loves right wing white men. Okay. I mean, you keep saying prayers for me and I’m gonna ask God to give ‘em to Obama to help him get nominated and beat John McCain like a rented mule. Think on that.

Your idea of attending TUCC is not a bad idea, either…I wonder what kind of reception we’d receive?

Well TUCC is a member of the larger UCC denomination which was the one who released the “controversial” ads awhile back that said “Jesus didn’t turn anyone away, neither do we.”

[…] the Atheistic heathen Obama supporters amongst […]

democommie,
Was there an answer in there?

No, I didn’t listen to the whole GD america speech, but as I said, I’m not sure I need to hear any more of the sermon to get his gist. Did you listen to it?

Yes, I do plan to vote for McCain.

I’ve already said that cursing America isn’t necessarily wrong or bad (and, indeed, have been interested to get you and other Liberals on the record as saying that it is now okay to do so).

I generally answer questions if they seem relevant and/or more than rhetorical.

But, then that’s what sheep always do. That was the personal affront I was responding to. It’s actually pretty obvious, but given your “penchant” for personal affronts, maybe it is difficult to keep track.

Ned Williams:

You generally answer questions, from me, indirectly if you answer them at all. Do you own a mirror?

You consistently fault others for narrow mindedness, gullibility and illogic. You are pretty thin skinned, especially considering your own tactics of denigrating those with whom you disagree.

I read and listened to enough of the “God damn America” speech to realize that it was tent revival rhetoric. The cadence of it was like MLK’s “I had a dream”. It wasn’t the method of saying “God damn” that I or most people I know employ in our normal speaking patterns. It was part of a homily. I know they probably never do such things at your church, but believe me they have some serious hellfire and brimstone preachers in various places I’ve lived and they use what it takes to energize the crowd. His call was not for armed revolution. His call was for involvement and participation. I know that will not resonate with you and others that don’t want to think that there is still patterned and consistent racial inequality in this nation. That’ your problem not mine.

BTW, you didn’t answer my question about Hagee.

No, I answer questions that are relevant or non-rhetorical. Most of your questions seem to fall outside those requirements. I also am less inclined to respond to name-callers and dismissive types. You often fall into that category.

But I guess you’re not denying it was a personal affront? It is amazing to watch when you come to the point of playing “democommie” the victim. I’ll admit that you are not one of my favorite commenters, and it has nothing to do with the power of your contrary-to-me arguments. But I’m not going to respond to a vague, ambiguous accusation . . . bring up specifics.

Hagee? From what I know about him (not much–I hadn’t heard of him until Huckabee opponents brought him up way back when) he thinks that the Catholic religion is wrong . . . it’s okay for religious leaders to say stuff like that, isn’t it? I’m on the record with what I think about such statements from pastors–I’m just glad that Liberals are now on record about such statements . . . they’re no longer wrong or indefensible.

But I do challenge the assertion that there is “patterned and consistent racial inequality” in America. But are you saying that whatever it takes to “energize the crowd” is okay? Is a call for “armed revolution” the only rhetoric that can be challenged or condemned? Of course not. My church definitely stands for personal reflection, character development, etc. but the “involvement and participation” he seemed to pretty clearly be calling for was laden with politics. I personally bristle at using (abusing?) a pulpit for that purpose. That being said, it’s fine for him to do that . . . and it’s fine for me to criticize him, right?