I've been reading some recent blog posts, linked by Instapundit, about Barack Obama's church, the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, an Afrocentric church that preaches what the New York Times calls Black liberation theology.
The senior pastor (and former pastor) of the church is one Jeremiah A. Wright. Rev. Wright, who, according to Obama, has had an incredibly profound influence on his life, has said many controversial things over the years, which a simple Google search will turn up. Browsing around I came across the fact that in November, the church's newsmagazine, The Trumpet, announced that it plans to "honor" Louis Farrakhan "this winter at its Sounds of the Shore gala with an Empowerment Award." Apparently, Rev. Wright himself heartily approves of Farrakhan.
"When Minister Farrakhan speaks, Black America listens," says the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, likening the Minister’s influence to the E. F. Hutton commercials of old. “Everybody may not agree with him, but they listen… His depth on analysis when it comes to the racial ills of this nation is astounding and eye opening. He brings a perspective that is helpful and honest. "Minister Farrakhan will be remembered as one of the 20th and 21st century giants of the African American religious experience," continues Wright. "His integrity and honesty have secured him a place in history as one of the nation’s most powerful critics. His love for Africa and African American people has made him an unforgettable force, a catalyst for change and a religious leader who is sincere about his faith and his purpose." (emphasis added)
I disagree with Barack Obama on almost everything, but I find him to be a likeable fellow and a very engaging speaker, and instinctively a more promising choice for president than his Democratic opponents (which, admittedly, isn't saying much). However, having harshly criticized Ron Paul for his dubious associations [even before the newsletter scandal], and even Giuliani for sucking up to Pat Robertson, I certainly don't think that Obama deserves a pass for his membership in a church that, among other dubious things, holds Louis Farrakhan to be a heroic role model, especially given Obama's campaign theme of being a "uniter." (Evidence that Obama has quietly worked for change on such issues within the church would be welcome.)
Unfortunately, my suspicion is that the MSM won't touch this story until Hillary operatives inevitably spread it before the Florida and Northeast primaries, at which time it will become, improperly, another "black-Jewish" issue, when it should be a "is Obama upholding the standards he claims to believe in?" issue.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Obama Responds to the Farrakhan Controversy:
- Cohen on Obama's Church and Farrakhan:
- Obama's Minister and Church:
There is a huge gap between associating someone with writings published under their own name and associating them with something said by someone who their minister supports.
I really hope the press doesn't try to ignore this story because they like Obama - you'd think they'd have learned their lesson with Kerry and trying to ignore the "Swifties."
Will you also criticize McCain for making nice with Jerry Fallwell, Huckabee for his statements advocating the quarantine of individuals with AIDS and his fervent religious opposition to homosexuality, and so on down the list? I appreciate your attempt to balance your criticisms of Paul with some of Obama, but it seems every candidate has some associations they ought to be ashamed of.
TUCC's mission includes (http://www.tucc.org/mission.htm)
The UCC as a whole (remember, it's a denomination in the covenanting tradition—i.e., non-hierarchical) has a significant emphasis on what it calls economic justice, so these emphases don't seem terribly outside the UCC mainstream (http://www.ucc.org/justice/issues.html).
But these political disagreements are minor compared to the fact that this church, as a representative of the body of Christ, has managed to bring me closer to God in my worship and beliefs than any church I've ever attended. It's a function of the pastorate as well as of the congregation and the mission activities. And that's really important, and hard to uncover from reading a website or newsletters.
Since the American people don't really know Obama, they will try to understand him by whatever proxy they find most understandable and convenient. If Romney can be questioned based on his faith, Obama can surely be questioned based on his.
Most often, your church membership follows the faith in which your family raised you. It is a poor proxy for what you actually believe, but many people use it nontheless.
Nice of you to say but Bush took a lot of shit for merely speaking at Bob Jones U. Good for the goose, good for the gander I say.
Surely you see important differences between being a member of a congregation and deciding to make a speech at a church of which you are not a member.
Well, if anything, being a member of a congregation shows a much higher degree of endorsement of that congregation than merely giving a speech at a church of which you are not a member. If Obama had merely spoken at Wright's church once, I don't think anyone would make a big deal out of it.
Crikey!
I meant "peculiar religious beliefs!" Fortunately it appears readers figured that out.
That's what I get for posting before coffee.
----
you think the press ignored the swifties because they liked Kerry? ... The reason they didn't pick up that story was much more likely because they had no credibility whatsoever....
Regardless of the merits of their claims, the mere existence of such a large and organized group of Kerry-haters was a significant political story in and of itself. Democrat primary voters deserved to know about it when trying to choose a viable candidate. I was aware of this potential problem for his candidacy in December 2003, yet obviously the were not, especially considering how many said they voted for him based on his perceived "electablity." A perception the press had already decided was the truth. (Scroll about halway down to get to the important part. BTW, I'm not alleging conspiracy here, just groupthink.)
If the Democrats nominate Obama without having a serious discussion of Obama's church, they'll be forced to have that discussion against the Republicans come October & November instead.
I second that.
I don't think that's right. The decision to join a congregation is a matter of religious faith, not an exercise in policy. And once you're a member of a church, you accept that you will disagree with others in the congregation, and you keep this to yourself.
I went to church eight days ago, and didn't like the sermon at all, for a variety of reasons. But I will be a part of that congregation well after that particular officiant has moved elsewhere.
So much for unity.
I wonder how long Andrew Sullivan will ignore or deny this one, as he's been covering Hillary's "tears" and the "You dissed MLK!" meme.
Jan. 21 is MLK day, and the perfect time to have this issue out in the open. If Obama is a Johnny-come-lately Christian, one has to wonder how firm he is in his Christian beliefs or if he joined this large church solely for political reasons to advance his Chicago political career.
Of course it's a fair topic for questions. Just as is the past drug use -- none of the past candidates got a pass on that one either, so it's nothing racial.
I agree that if Democrats don't confront these issues well before their candidate is nominated, the Republicans and the rest of the country certainly will.
Are you telling me that I should stop going to a Roman Catholic Church because that means I support the belief that homosexuality is evil?
You probably should study up on your professed religion. The Roman Catholic Church does NOT believe that homosexuality is "evil". Poke a bit further into the doctrine and you not only might learn something, but might understand the consistency behind their pro-life positions, on many issues. Then, once you're a bit more educated, you will have to search your soul to see if those beliefs meet your spiritual needs, or if you would do better to seek another place of worship, another congregation to participate in.
Do you imagine that he'd have left the Catholic church because of the Cardinal's comments?
I'm not sure we can hold Obama accountable for what one old preacher at his church says about someone else.
If Obama, his wife, and their children are active at their church, I'm not sure it's reasonable for him to look at his children and say, "As a matter of political protest, we'll be going to another church from now on." No doubt his children and his wife have developed social connections with others at the church.
For most, church going is not a political statement.
At this point, Obama is running for the Democratic nomination. Considering the crowd he's running in -- particularly Lady Macbeth -- Obama is the best of the lot.
I went to church eight days ago, and didn't like the sermon at all, for a variety of reasons. But I will be a part of that congregation well after that particular officiant has moved elsewhere.
How odd. In most churches, the preacher is educated to his/her own denomination's core teachings. Unless this was a renegade speaker, chances are that one particular leader's "moving elsewhere" does not reshape the whole faith doctorine.
Most often, your church membership follows the faith in which your family raised you. It is a poor proxy for what you actually believe, but many people use it nontheless.
But "most often" doesn't apply to this particular case: From an NYT article:
This makes his faith as relevant as Huckabee's rather than Romney's.
With the current dust-up over Hillary's and Bills remarks, Obama's supporters are crying 'racists'. Nothing shuts up a PC person faster than being called a racist. The press certainly doesn't want to be called racists, so they will give Obama a pass on this one, too.
Translation: If Obama gets the nomination, the Republican attack machine will continue to lie incessantly about his religious beliefs and a lot of people will end up believing he is Muslim.
Why not ask him before we nominate him? Again, when he has no record to speak of and is asking for tbe leadership position without having worked on any issues, clues like these are all we have to determine what "change" he really is promising, and to whom.
He's just not ready. And he is not uniting behind anything really. Just a bunch of empty promises in a sing-song cadence. Besides, don't many speak of the man's great "character"?
MLK he's obviously not.
And they can't find anything else significant with which to discredit him.
The past drug use question may be "fair" but it's also boring. Like Bush, Obama admits to having had a wild past, but claims to have reformed because of a religious conversion. Whether the reform is for real is both a fair and interesting question in both cases. But the details of the pre-reform behavior strike me as having little practical importance in either.
Not if you're running as president of all Americans on the "unity" ticket promise.
If we can ask Romney about his Mormonism, it shouldn't take Clinton's campaign to ask him about this issue.
American voters, particularly white ones, should inquire further, as they should about the land detail where coincidentally he purchased his house the same exact day as another more disreputable person purchased the adjoining property... portions of which were later sold to Obama to expand. His hands aren't as clean as you might think, no matter how much he might claim "sheer coincidence!"
Lol. If what David Bernstein has written here about his congregation and minister is indeed a lie -- and you are the one who brought up the "he's a Muslim!" spin in this thread -- then let Obama tell us it's a lie.
Just as John Kerry was free to defend himself from the Swift Boaters. No Free Passes -- no matter what your color, how good looking some might think you are, and all the empty promises you can spew.
Remember, this man advanced himself quickly -- coming from the outside -- in Chicago politics. It doesn't take a genius to see that he's simply not as "clean" and honest as some naives would have us think. The recent Ron Paul scandal should give us more incentive to continue asking questions... that's how you eventually get to the truth. And it's not just the Jews who should be concerned about his past.
There's actually a smidgen of truth to this. Ron Paul's skeletons had been in his closet for decades, but nobody bothered hauling them out and talking about them until he started getting double-digit poll numbers, because until then he just wasn't worth bothering with.
Similarly, now that Obama looks like he has a realistic shot it's time to take him seriously, and that includes serious examination of all possible negatives. Welcome to the big leagues.
I disagee, and I suspect a lot of the less hip voters do too. Did he sell drugs? Did the details of his drug-use background have him breaking laws that would have landed other users/possible sellers in prison? If so, why the special pass for this man? How does that past influence his current policy? It's pretty hard to enforce drug laws if the current president broke them too, and suffered zero consequences. If caught, would he even have been eligible for financial aid for college? We hold a past DUI against job applicants; why the free pass for this man? Because he's black?
I think you're underestimating the genuine conservatism amongst those voting for the Commander-in-Chief. Character counts, after all.
Maybe we should run a fresh-out-of-college candidate with no political past to speak of either. With no history of drug use, and membership in a denomination that has clearly outlined its beliefs and positions over time. This is too much a gamble to elect this man solely because of his race and promises to unite. Behind what?
He's running as the "no experience, change candidate". That's his problem if there's nothing there for which to credit him, no substantial successes to focus on. No free passes!
He will if voters demand it. Russert as a journalist is a tool.
<b>Not if you're running as president of all Americans on the "unity" ticket promise.</blockquote></b>
So if you disagree with some of your pastor's personal political views, you have to quit your church if you run for president? That's pretty harsh. Finding another pastor who shares the same opinion on every single issue won't be easy, and I doubt the rest of the family will enjoy being dragged to every church in the state to find one who's not a potential political liability.
I don't expect a law professor ((or a professor of law either) to have any trouble navigating these waters.
No, as written, that is quite correct.
I was this earlier question, which clearly is inaccurate, "Are you telling me that I should stop going to a Roman Catholic Church because that means I support the belief that homosexuality is evil?"
The key differences are the words ACTS and SINFUL. There seems to be some who wish to spread the idea that the Chruch believes homosexuals or homosexuality is evil. That's not the Church's position at all. It's the ACTS.
As I understand it, celibate homosexual Roman Catholics are clearly Roman Catholics, not evil or sinful, and quite welcomed. As are others, formerly practicing homosexuals who have repented and then are free to take the Eucharist in good conscience.
I blame active homosexuals like Andrew Sullivan, who want to perform their sexual acts, yet still consider themselves to be Roman Catholics as well. You really can't have it both ways, and rewrite the Church's teachings at whim. Personally, the more I read him, the less "catholic" I see; I suspect he just plays that card for publicity's sake.
If you know anything about his past, as well, it's hard to even put him into the box of formerly celibate homosexual who finds and commits to a single sexual partner, also homosexual. That person too would not be following the Church's teachings, but at least the modesty of body would seem to be present, as compared to those who took multiple sex partners merely to satisfy bodily urges.
If you have questions, or if you know a Catholic wondering about homosexuality, I strongly recommend you talk to leaders in that faith and not rely on how others would interpret things. Suffice it to say, the Church does not believe homosexuals are evil, and it's very sad that meme has gained such widespread currency.
That said, all three denominations have taken political views not only well to my left, but well to the left of mainstream America. Long gone are the days when the Episcopal Church could be described, as one wag did, as "the Republican Party at prayer."
But I decided long ago that I go to a church that meets my spiritual needs--not my political. Consequently, I give to my local congregation and not the national denomination.
I am not an Obama supporter but I think that unless he has expressly endorsed the political views of his church, this is a definite non-issue.
............Not if you're running as president of all Americans on the "unity" ticket promise.
So if you disagree with some of your pastor's personal political views, you have to quit your church if you run for president? That's pretty harsh.
No. But clearly you can no longer sit back and "keep this to yourself". As a presidential candidate, you will be called on to explain yourself. See Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee. No Free Passes based on race.
That’s because Obama is pretty much a blank slate—he has virtually no record on which to run. Are we supposed to judge him entirely on his happy talk speeches that are pretty lean on specific policy pronouncements?
Let’s face it—Obama is pretty much a media creation. A white person with his lack of experience would never have gotten anywhere near the media boost. Only two sitting Senators have ever been elected president, and for a good reason. They need some kind of executive experience to be a credible candidate.
Lecturer. He was a lecturer at the Univ of Chicago Law school. Ask a law professor to explain to you the difference if you're unclear.
By this taint-by-association logic anyone who remained Catholic following the pedophile priest scandal supports pedophilia, or at least believes pedophiles should go unpunished.
On another Obama note: perhaps buying a ten-foot strip of his neighbor's yard will sink his campaign, unlike Bill's philandering and Hill's magical cattle future profits.
Except I wasn't addressing you personally. You asked a rhethorical question, and I responded. I'm sorry if I personally hurt your feelings. I didn't realize you'd be so sensitive to an honest response when you asked the question:
Q: Are you telling me that I should stop going to a Roman Catholic Church because that means I support the belief that homosexuality is evil?
A: You probably should study up on your professed religion. The Roman Catholic Church does NOT believe that homosexuality is "evil". Poke a bit further into the doctrine and you not only might learn something, but might understand the consistency behind their pro-life positions, on many issues. Then, once you're a bit more educated, you will have to search your soul to see if those beliefs meet your spiritual needs, or if you would do better to seek another place of worship, another congregation to participate in.
This is what has kept me an independent voter all these years: both major parties take positions that make me gag. Yet I don't question the integrity of anyone who is a registered Democrat or Republican.
Sooo, will such experience translate into "destroying the coutntry?" No thanks. Winning elections, and winning wars, recharging the economy, securing the borders -- different skill sets, I think. See Karl Rove.
Also, it was former Gov. Ryan -- in trouble for his corruption scandals -- who did more to reshape IL's death penalty and the videotaping policies. Obama was not a leader on those issues.
Also, many believe it's impractical to videotape confessions, and I hardly think that's a national priority, so I'm not so certain that's the issue I'd hang my hat on.
Do you know much about Louis Farrakahn and the Nation of Islam? Some of us do. Trust me, it's an issue as it should be.
Even if you live in Iowa and have only seen black people on t.v.
Considering the success of COPS, law enforcement officers seem well up to the task of videotaping. In fact one of their videotapes generated quite a bit of discussion on this very blog.
Dave N - Well said.
I seem to recall that while then Governor Bush admitted to drinking and was still hit with an 11th hour story about a twenty-four year old DUI in the national media the weekend before the 2000 election. The story had the effect of convincing more than a few people to not to vote for him even though there really wasn’t any doubt that he had been dry for more than 20 years. Not sure if Barack Obama’s presidential campaign would be able to handle an eleventh hour revelation that he wasn’t just using coke in as part of his “wild past” but sometimes supplied it to his friends and classmates.
From the article:
That's not to say whether the criticism is accurate or not, whether we should or should not be concerned about Pastor Wright's views and their impact on Sen. Obama. But this is not simply "taint-by-association." This is not some casual acquaintance, a pastor who came to the church Obama had been going to. He is responsible for Obama's spiritual conversion, and Obama has counted him as a close friend and mentor for many years now.
Men are often judged, and rightly so, in part by the company they keep. Sen. Obama will be no different. For myself, based on what I know so far, I find plenty of other reasons to oppose Sen. Obama, and his ties to Pastor Wright don't give me too much concern. But they're proper grounds for coverage in a presidential campaign.
By this taint-by-association logic anyone who remained Catholic following the pedophile priest scandal supports pedophilia, or at least believes pedophiles should go unpunished.
On another Obama note: perhaps buying a ten-foot strip of his neighbor's yard will sink his campaign, unlike Bill's philandering and Hill's magical cattle future profits.
Difference is: the pedophilic priests were in the minority of priests overall. They didn't preach pedophilia from the pulpit, nor homosexuality. The ones who transferred them, rather than disciplining them, were not endorsing their acts either.
The land deal is much more than "buying 10 feet from a neighbor". Who was that neighbor? Why did they both purchase the properties on the same day, with previous connections between the two neighbors? It really sounds like there was a previous connection between the two -- that Obama was "helped" financially to make this Kenwood purchase; that he couldn't afford both lots on his own, and a deal was struck for someone with a questionable past to make the purchase on the exact same day, who later sold the buffer to his family. There really is more there than he has tried to explain away; this is Chicago, remember. Roots run deep, and the country doesn't need that kind of leadership at this time. Just like the Nation of Islam means something to Chicago voters, and not to those not in the know, who might just think, "What? It's just another religion, right?"
Question. Question. Question. If he's as good as he promises, he's stand up to these questions and pass the test. Trying to delect the questions just makes me question the Obama surrogates, and how long they think they'll get a free pass from those who see such questions and challenges as "racist because he's a black candidate." Not true, just plain not true.
You can decide for youself if the Church is bigoted or not. I was merely correcting your misconception that the Chruch thinks homosexuals are evil. Not true.
The difference matters if say, homosexuality is genetic. And if say, you are a young Catholic person who identifies as homosexual and wants to know more from your faith leaders. Those who would spread the myth that the Church thinks you're evil are just plain wrong and do a disservice by spreading this meme.
The Church would never condemn such a person, instead would offer information on the Church's teaching on homosexuality, which indeed does call for celibacy and refraining from homosexual ACTS. The "if it feels good, do it and you can still call hold yourself out as a practicing Catholic in the morning" teachings of homosexuals like Andrew Sullivan do nobody any favors, except maybe Andrew Sullivan. Please, if you have further questions, talk to your clergy. He's just making it up as he goes along... and spreading a lot of myths about Catholic teaching along the way, sadly.
Sounds an awful lot like his “religious conversion” was a tool of political expediency. Christianity is about your personal relationship with God, it’s not about trying to find acceptance among people who look like you.
"'And they can't find anything else significant with which to discredit him.'
That’s because Obama is pretty much a blank slate—he has virtually no record on which to run. Are we supposed to judge him entirely on his happy talk speeches that are pretty lean on specific policy pronouncements"
Isn't what you suggest exactly how Bar Examiners judge all the younger Bar applicant who have not yet had time to accumulate a record in life? So, by your formula, maybe the younger Bar applicants should not be whizzed through attorney admission without significant additional psychological/psychiatric testing to determine if they are future trust account thiefs, or will embezzle from their law firm employers, etc. Certainly, under the current formula of Bar admissions, the older Bar applicant is penalized for having a "record." Under the current formulation, the Bar Examiners are really comparing apples to oranges, since if all applicants (younger and older) were compared on equal footing we would not be comparing no record to someone with a record whereby the no record applicant might turn out post-attorney licensure to develop a record of someone like Matthew Hale.
As long as Bar Examiners across this Country are willing to take a chance on licensing a younger person with no record, I don't see any problem whasoever with entrusting Obama with the Presidency.
Besides, he is still a winner!! And those who don't like him are a bunch of poor losers.
Not in emergency situation, spoken as someone who knows a bit about policework. First, you have to haul them into the station where the video equipment presumably is located, wasting precious time. Second, not every precinct is equipped with officers with the best technical expertise, so if the equipment fails, you lose valuable information. If there's a problem with dirty cops, it might be good to voluntarily videotape. But it wouldn't be a wise mandate nationally, for reasons touched on above.
Gary A. : keep it up!
Barrack Osama -er Obama is a litle too shiny for me. To much Muslim influence in his past. Whether it sutck or not, time will tell.
Big difference between admitting someone to the bar, and electing them Commander in Chief. Big difference in disbarring someone who later fails in their lawyerly performance, and impeaching a president in office. Big diffence between a law student right out of school, and 48-year-old Barack Obama.
Distinctions people, not generalities. I sure HOPE you can understand that, and won't call for CHANGING bar admission procedures instead of more closely examining the records of presidential candidates.
The difference between Ron Paul, who put out a newsletter in his own name over which he had full control over its editorial content, and Barack Obama, who attended a church despite disagreeing with some of the things that the pastor said, is massive.
As a churchgoer, I do not agree with my pastor on numerous issues. But, that doesn't necessarily mean I am going to take the rather extreme step of changing churches, especially when there are many other things that I do agree with.
Obama is a member of a black nationalist church. Would you consider it a non-issue if one of the Republican candidates was a member of a white-nationalist church?
Are you serious? Transferring pedophiles from church to church, exposing the children of congregation after congregation to these men may not have been an endorsement of child molestation, but how can you argue that the Church wasn't protecting child molesters? By their actions, the Church essentially aided and abetted in molestation.
On the other hand, Obama has publicly disagreed with some of Wright's personal opinions. You can speculate as to the degree of sincerity, but your speculation doesn't mean very much. Trying to indict Obama because of his relationship with Wright while letting the Church skate on protecting pedophiles is pretty sad, and it speaks more towards your own personal indemnity towards Obama than to anything the electorate need worry about.
This is nothing more than a pathetic and petty smear. David Bernstein should be ashamed of himself. The man is a thorough disgrace.
You mean, like Dukakis? Going to a Greek-nationalist church, speaking Greek, dancing Greek dances, eating Greek food, doing business preferentially with other Greeks, having pride in his Greek ancestry? Is his church membership the reason he lost?
I wasn't talking in generalities, and there is no real distinction. In fact, many people holding federal office would never have remotely passed a State Bar character and fitness investigation.
And, yes, Bar admissions need to be changed to prevent debacles of misplaced trust such as Samuel B. Kent, and others of similar ilk.
Obama is not simply "a churchgoer", he is running for President of the United States. Everything he does and has done is subject to scrutiny, especially given his scanty political record.
And this case is not merely an instance of disagreement over interpetation of some element of the Bible. The church is question seems to be scarcely Christian at all.
In any event, is there any evidence that Obama disagrees with the teachings of this church? I mean evidence that preceeds his presidential campaign.
the minister will invoke the recent Ninth Circuit decision on unconstitutionally overborad background checks being discussed on another Volokh thread (below).
No, that is not what I mean. I mean exactly what I said. Like a white conservative Republican being a member of a white nationalist church.
How is that relevant to Obama's Afrocentric church, which seems on a par with Dukakis's Hellenocentric church?
Did you read the description of the churches principles? Substitute "white" and "European" for "black" and "African" and tell me you don't see anything disturbing about it.
Allow me to repost, from further up in the thread, the bit from the "about us" statement provided by Obama's church.
And now, allow me to post the Sixteen Commandments of the Creativity Alliance, formerly known as the World Church of the Creator, probably the most well-known of all white nationalist churches.
One of these things, as they say, is not like the other. The claim that Obama's church is anything like a white nationalist church is simply odious.
If you can find a comparable statement of principles from Dukakis's church, I invite you to do so.
A much better analogy would actually be Jews and the Jewish church.
That is a quite remarkable display of reading non-comprehension. The similarities are considerable, notably the emphasis on race.
No, the logic would be if the preacher was a pedophile, preached pedophilia, and you still went to that church. Would it be unreasonable to infer that you were ok with pedophilia?
Given that Farrakahn, from a Christian perspective, is a pagan, I'm not sure why you think this is an incredible leap. It certainly gives considerable weight to the idea that for this church, race transcends Christianity. And that is a very un-Christian idea.
Given that Farrakahn, from a Christian perspective, is a pagan, I'm not sure why you think this is an incredible leap.
Gee, and I thought it was okay to find virtuous qualities in non-Christians... maybe you should check out your Bible again and read about the "Good Samaritan".
A pox on all of you.
I am thankful that I don't have to face this problem, and, esp. that following such theology would deprive me (if I were born homosexual) of the ability of ever having fully satisfying sexual relations with another adult (given that same sex marriages are also forbidden).
But just so that you don't think that I am trying to gang up on the RC Church, I seriously doubt that Obama's church is any more forgiving in this area. On average, Black churches (and Blacks in general) seem to be more anti-Gay than do White ones, and overall, the more fundamentalist, the less tolerant of Gays.
Disclosure of biases: I am not Gay, Black, or Roman Catholic, but rather White, mainstream (i.e. liberal theology)Protestant.
As a matter of fact, I don't think it "disturbing" for Jews to express solidarity with each other, with or without the Holocaust. Jewishness is defined by its extreme sense of loyalty to other Jews. Christianity is not defined in similar ethnic or racial terms.
Whether it's appropriate for Jews to behave as they do is a whole different kettle of fish. I will concede that this attack on Obama is an odd one for a Jew to make. But that aside, Obama's church still looks pretty un-Christian.
Ain't that the truth. This is just DB trying to foment something out of nothing. "I disagree with Barack Obama on almost everything..." and you can leave out the rest of that statement.
My favorite Church had an Irish Catholic parish priest who told jokes during Mass. I still went to that Church. It is not unreasonable to infer that I am okay with Irish jokes. LOL
Farrakahn is a black David Duke. I suspect this church won't find "the good" in Duke.
Well it does kind of cancel out the "sick of the sleaze and corruption" modivation for voting against Clinton, which was likely the source of some significant fraction of Obama's support. If you're gonna vote for a corrupt machine politician, why not pick the one with experience?
Now, suppose that PJM's left-wing analogue ran a story entitled
Let's have a show of hands -- how many think David's head would explode?
Changed, not disavowed. There's a difference. I still, however, don't see it as a fruitful discussion with Romney (though we all know it will happen if he's the nominee, and has already happened). I think this questioning of Obama holds even less promise.
It's true that it's OK for a pastor to like "virtuous pagan," but it's also irrelevant to this case, as Farakhan is anything but "viruous."
What excuse is there for a supposedly Christian pastor to honor a hate-filled, anti-semitic heretical Muslim? It has been suggested that for him black solidarity trumps both Christian doctrine and American anti-racist ethics. If you have an alternate explanation, please present it.
Where is the evidence that the preacher at Obama's church ever gave speeches on the racial superiority of africans or african/americans?
Finding the good in everyone? How un-Christian can you get!
I suspect not, as I know there are several different clusters of "Churches of Christ," but I'd kinda like to know for sure.
Acknowledging SIG357's error, it remains the case that having Obama's church (and the pastor who personally recruited him into it) honor Farakhan is kind of questionable, and will raise the justified supicion that Obama secretly admires Farakhan too.
So Obama is going to have to make some kind of "not in my name" statement - unless of course he really does admire Farakhan, or (like Ron Paul) is unwilling or unable to piss off those of his supporters who do.
I haven't seen any evidence that Obama's church has crossed this line- and one positive statement by the church or its pastor regarding Farrakhan doesn't make that case. Can you show me any real evidence that the church have actually said african americans are superior to other races?
Hmmm...God's chosen people. Nope, never heard of it!
This thread is embarrassing.
Are you serious? Transferring pedophiles from church to church, exposing the children of congregation after congregation to these men may not have been an endorsement of child molestation, but how can you argue that the Church wasn't protecting child molesters? By their actions, the Church essentially aided and abetted in molestation.
Pedophilia never became an endorsed part of the Church's teaching, preached from the pulpit. Some sinned, not the majority of priests and leaders who have been tainted by these accusations. That's not an official part of Church teaching. You should take care not to put words in others' mouths.
As I understand it, this church we're talking about here has the info DB provided as part of it's official platform. Big difference. And why is everyone so quick to say Obama has disavowed himself from those teachings? I certainly haven't heard that from him yet.
Ever seen "Fiddler on the Roof?"
"Please, couldn't you choose somebody else for a change?
So, did Hillary 'stand up' and forthrightly answer all questions re: Whitewater? Re the *ahem* 'disappearance' of FBI files? Or of the 'disappearance' of her Rose law firm billing records? Or of her illegal leaking of personnel files? Or of her attempted travelgate firings, or her defying of court subpoenas? Or of her receiving 'financial help' through the cattle futures bribery of her long-time crony, Mr Red Bone of Arkansas? Or of the massive illegalities in campaign finance, and the breaches of U.S. security regulations, and the numerous coverups and potential obstructions of justice that Mrs Clinton was orchestrating with her co-conspirator husband?
No. Mrs Clinton dodged and weaved, tapdanced, backed and filled, prevaricated endlessly.
Yet, some would hold Obama to a much higher standard.
Why is that?
So what color star do you want us to pin on you, Bruce?
Of course, any homosexual Roman Catholic who would like to pursue a sexual relationship (or many) is free to do so. It's the problem of continuing to take the sacrament of Eucharist, to affirm that you believe and follow the Chruch's teaching that is not kosher. Especially troubling is the attempt to re-write doctrine to fit your own sexual needs. Hence, it's a myth that the Church thinks homosexuals are evil -- whether they are genetically conceived gay, it occurs during the mother's gestation, or indeed is a free choice. You're correct -- I was using the genetic Roman Catholic homosexual as but an example.
See my 1:49 p.m.
If Obama is no more unifying than George Bush and no less sleazy than a Clinton, what's the point of his campaign?
Yet, some would hold Obama to a much higher standard.
Why is that?
Ah, the pot calling the kettle black... Clinton has been thoroughly questioned on all those issues; we all know about them because the media brought them up.
This issue about Obama'a black church... and his land deal with shady characters... why shouldn't the media actively question and probe Obama's past just as they did the Clinton's?
You're not pushing for special treatment for Obama here, are you? If Clinton was asked and prodded for answers, why not Obama?
Wasn't he supposed to be weak on experience or demonstrable skills, but strong on uniting the country? So much for that.
I never claimed that Farrakhan didn't preach the superiority of the black race. Where's the evidence that OBAMA'S PREACHER preaches the superiority of black races.
"American voters, particularly white ones, should inquire further,..."
It seems rather odd that someone who professes to have a beef with Obama's minister's kind statements regarding a racist (Farrakhan), ostensibly because racism is bad, would make a nakedly race-based appeal in his post. Exactly why is it "particularly" important for "white" voters to know about this?
I stopped listening to Gary's misguided rants early, having noticed this glimpse into Gary's closet. If the Obama-Wright-Farrakhan chain is (or should be) troubling to intelligent, informed voters, then Gary has no reason for appealing particularly to "white" voters. I suspect he knows his Farrakhan boogie-man bogus link is particularly disturbing (in an irrational, primal fear-type way) to old, conservative "white ones" like Gary.
Gary, be ashamed.
Of course, if this "company you keep" meme has any relevance, Gary draws praise from Mark Symms who disgustingly went the third-grade route ("Barrack Osama -er Obama").
David Bernstein, thank you for raising the level of discourse around here.
Stay classy, wingers!
Because, presumably, just as it's white working-class students who tend to bear the burdens of affirmative-action programs for college admissions that benefit lesser-qualified black students, the sons and daughters of professionals and the middle-class -- it would be whites or ethnics who would be outsiders if indeed Obama's unity promise coalition is elected.
While black voters might be interested as well in whether the candidate shares the same positions professed by his minister or church, presumably they would have far less to lose under a President Obama...
Maybe because Farakhan is anti-white, and so is of particular concern to us in the same way (though obviously not to the same degree) that Nazis are of particular concern to Jews.
Not on your life!
I don't know "Mark Symms", nor have I sat through any of his sermons. Or converted, had my spiritual life changed because of his beliefs.
Some of you really are doing everything you can to run from this one, and it's going to need to be addressed sooner or later by your presumably preferred candidate...
Well said.
the only one i don't see is HDS (hillary derangement syndrome).
If Obama can't deal with questions like Bernstein's, he won't and shouldn't survive to win the White House. My prediction (at least my hope) is that he'll deal with these questions well.
I think it's unreasonable to hold Obama responsible for everything in his church newsletter, but it is fair to ask him his views on pastoral statements that affect public policy.
As to the Romney example, he was (is?) a leader (one of many "bishops") in his church, so we are entitled to know his views on the positions of that church that affect public policy.
In fact, the question itself is a weird kind of guilt by association (tbe fact that Senator Obama's last name is similar to Osama Bin Laden's first name is even weirder, but I digress).
The Boston Church of Christ is part of a larger group called the International Churches of Christ, which is a rather fundamentalist Christian sect.
The United Church of Christ is a mainline Prostestant denominatio formed in 1957 by a merger between the Congregationalist Church and the Evangelical and Reform Church. As far I can tell, the only thing the Internatioan Churches of Christ (including the Boston Church of Christ) and the United Church of Christ have in common are the words "Church of Christ" in their names.
In other words, implying the two denominations are the same because of similar names is like saying that Reggie Bush and George W. Bush must be related because they share the same last name.
As I said earlier, I am not an Obama supporter nor will I ever likely be one, but some of the comments on this thread are just plain silly.
I'd say Romney the bishop, Huckabee the preacher, and Obama the convert whose life was turned around have made religion a part of their story in a way that none of the other candidates have (at least to my knowledge), and therefore deserve closer scrutiny on the subject than the others.
Only if you leave out the second half of my post:
I suspect not, as I know there are several different clusters of "Churches of Christ," but I'd kinda like to know for sure.
Turns out I was wrong, there are two main clusters, but the principle is the same.
BTW, sincere thanks for doing the research I was too lazy to do for myself.
It doesn't mean "chosen because we were better." Indeed, unlike Christianity, Judaism doesn't claim that everyone who isn't Jewish is damned.
Have you heard of Godwin's Law?
Gary,
You are suggesting, based on Obama's connection with the senior minister of a church who once said something nice about Farrakhan, that "whites and ethnics" will be "outsiders" if Obama is elected?
Gary, the whites are under attack angle (e.g. "Birth of a Nation") is, to put it mildly, passe.
Ashamed for Gary, because somebody has to be.
No, it's the whole platform thing. Who do you suppose will be stuck paying for his uber-liberal policies? I see him united the illegal immigrants, the black people, reaching across the aisle to work with Republicans and corporations that favor the wealthy, but nothing about the working-class white people that traditionally has been the backbone of the Democratic party.
Ashamed for Gary, because somebody has to be.
Yep, I'm quite familiar with that liberal guilt, but sadly, your types tend to outreach just far enough to pull the rest of us in -- who don't share it -- to pay the costs of your guilty consciences. (see affirmative action programs, school bussing for we but still quite segregated neighborhoods for thee, etc. etc.)
http://www.ucc.org/news/thomas-denounces-smear-1.html
Tony Tutins, your disingenuousness about the Greek Orthodox Church is fearsome to behold.
So, you are claiming that Obama has a racist platform that will make true your statement that "it would be whites or ethnics who would be outsiders if indeed Obama's unity promise coalition is elected." Please, do present exhibit A to this amazing claim.
Don't confuse my being ashamed for you with guilt. I haven't a thing to do with your hysterical fear-mongering and don't feel a bit guilty about it. I am ashamed for you, Gary, not apologetic for you.
"school bussing for we but still quite segregated neighborhoods for thee"
I live in a quite integrated neighborhood, thank you for inquiring. Is your lame attempt to turn this thread into a discussion of the merits and demerits of affirmative action a concession of no real substantive point here or simply cover for your having unintentionally revealed that you view this as an "us" (whites) against "them" (blacks) issue?
AFG
Anytime someone has something decent to say about a person who has questionable beliefs should they attacked for holding the same beliefs? Asked if they hold those beliefs sure, but attacked without any reason to assume they hold the beliefs is unreasonable. And what is far more unreasonable is to attack Obama, who has made no statement regarding Farrakha, and merely associates with someone who had.
The best analogy would be if any of the Republican candidates had a very close religious mentor who publicly praised David Duke. Is there any chance the such a candidate would have kept *any* credibility?
Ron Paul has suffered tremendously from his association with Lew Rockwell (which is in many respects similar to Obama's association with Wright), and Rockwell would never have said something as controversial as praising David Duke (though he may have praised people who praised people who praised Duke).
I apologize for not including your entire post when I responded. Upon reflection, that was unfair to you. I was trying to rebut the implication that the two churches were related and I unfairly made it sound like you believed that they were.
Everything I've read about his political positions suggest the working class will lose under his presidency; I truly believe he is and a.a. candidate -- without his race, there's no way he'd be a credible presidential candidate at this point in his career.
I sure hope he doesn't get elected to provide the "evidence" that you seek to prove my points about who would be "in" and who would be left on the sidelines, stuck paying the price for all those liberal ideas.
And please, don't try to intimidate people like me with genuine concerns into silence by playing the race card. Remember, you're all about the "unity" candidate, but if already starting hearing about "cold white people" in a joking fashion. It's really no joke, based on the past few decades, who benefits, who works hard and has to pay for all these liberal ideas. Earn your way up, don't play the race card, is how I was brought up. I really hate to see our country divided, whether it's Republicans v. Dems, or blacks/corporations/illegal immigrants/white liberals v. working-class whites, in terms of representation of relevant issues.
Why go there? And why hate on those of us who have our eyes open to the clues showing, understand the past, and suspect we'll be the ultimate losers if this man is elected. Don't condescend to me, for starters.
Our rich tradition of segregation long relegated blacks to afrocentric churches, like the Missionary Baptist churches, the Churches of God in Christ, and the African Methodist Episcopal churches. Obama happens to go to a church open to all races. How many blacks belong to your church? Can you prove that you don't belong to a Euro-centric church?
K. Parker: there are a lot of Nationalist churches in America. Most if not all support their parishioners and their homeland. I don't see why an African Nationalist church is automatically suspect as evil. They are trying to raise their people up rather than tear other people down.
Also, I wanted to apologize for some of the odd nonsensical phrasing in my (numerous) comments. (Sorry to monopolize, but this subject on today's thread is close to my heart.)
My connection here is slow, and sometimes when I type, I have to wait while the cursor "catches up". In rereading, I realize often words are dropped mid sentence. So I apologize for coming off sounding very dumb, but you can piece together the gist of my sentences I hope, and I'll try to use the convenient "Preview" button next time I participate like this, to catch what's left out, and also correct things like verb tense, that I do accept responsibility myself for letting my fingers getting ahead of my thoughts. Sorry, and good night.
As most his policy points are not terribly distinguishable from Hillary's and, if anything, less liberal than John Edwards', his race seems to have little to do with your substantive complaints about Obama. To you, he's just another liberal.
You continue to assume I am a liberal simply because I find your race-baiting distasteful. Will "whites or ethnics" be outsiders if Clinton is elected? If so, your point is then that the Democratic Party at large is somehow anti-white? Or just anti-middle class-working-white? Either way, the claim hardly needs me to point out it is ridiculous.
I am not trying to silence you. I am quite happy that you have taken the opportunity to invoke a battle between the races when, your only substantive complaint, seems to be a policy matter shared by all the Democratic candidates.
What, again, does Obama's race, his connection to Wright (and Wright's connection to Farrakhan...and Farrakhan's connection to Kevin Bacon, is it?) have to do with the policies you don't like (affirmative action and bussing, two of the most important issues of the day...if that day is in 1972)? Nothing, of course.
So, after saying it is "whites or other ethnics" that will be "outsiders" if Obama is elected, you now backpedal to saying it is his policies you dislike and that will hurt those "whites and others" by which you mean middle class Americans, apparently, exclusive of African Americans. But his policies are virtually indistinguishable from Hillary's, yet you seem to prefer Hillary.
Now you say "without his race, there's no way he'd be a presidential candidate at this point in his career." Who, exactly, has been playing the race card? And your explanation for Edwards as a presidential candidate (2004 and 2008) after achieving little other than being an unremarkable, one-term Senator? Is he secretly black?
You make no sense, Gary, and you inject race and a create a spectre of the "whites" (your words) being "outsiders" if Obama is elected president.
By all means, voice your genuine concerns, but don't expect me not to call you when you blatantly pander to fears that once a black man is in the White House, it won't be safe for "whites" anymore. If you have genuine policy complaints, voice them. If you are genuinely troubled that Obama may secretly sympathize with Farrakhan, fine. But based on the thin reed you have, don't make this into a race war and expect not to be consdescended to.
Still, AFG.
P.S. How's GWB working out for you, Mr. middle class?
No free ticket like being black in America! Sometimes I'm stunned at how white folk are able to make a living for themselves in such a hostile environment.
his skin colorthe fact that a lot of people see him as the only candidate inspiring enough to unite a country that is very tired of being divided."Fixed.
Consider:
John F. Kennedy: 1 1/3 Terms in Senate; three terms in the House of Reps (arguably less valuable than Obama's experiences at the state level). Scion of one of America's oldest, wealthiest, and most established families. Younger than Obama by almost 5 years at time of election.
Jimmy Carter: One-term governor of Georgia. Two terms in state government.
Reagan: two-term governor of California. B-list movie actor. Union official.
Clinton: two-term governor of rural backwater.
GWB: Failed business executive (in several businesses). Two-term governor of Texas (a state with a relatively weak executive branch, Constitutionally). Scion of one of America's oldest, wealthiest, and most established families; recovering alcoholic.
Fred Thompson: 1 1/3 terms in Senate. Actor.
Say what you will about the merits of each of these men as President (or candidate). It's hard to (seriously)call Obama an AA candidate when his resume at time of running is compared to theirs (Two of the five -- JFK and Carter -- also had records of distinguished military service; but three did not). If I were a different kind of person, I might question your motives for callimg him that.
If I were a different kind of person, I might question your motives for callimg him that.
You are that person and you just did. If you mention black or Islam in the same sentence as Obama you are a BIGOT. We get it. However if you think this response is sufficient to silence people asking questions about OUR potential next president then you are wrong. I only speak for myself but if I don't get credible answers I will assume the worst and vote accordingly.
The ODS is coming from TeamHillary not the GOP. Name ONE Republican Presidential candidate who has attacked him the way Hillary or her minions have.
So you can sneer at the "Republican attack machine" all you want, but it doesn't change where the attacks are coming from.
Really, of the guys you name, every one of them had more and/or better experience. Like Obama, Thompson and Kennedy had no executive experience -- but they had far more federal experience. Carter didn't have any federal experience, but he did have a term as governor.
Also, you might want to do a little more research:By "two," presumably you mean "six-term." Plus a term as state attorney general.
Ha, ha, that's a good one. Somehow I doubt that Mr. Uniter's supporters are clamoring for compromise with Republicans. This is the same bullshit that Bush got called on with his 'uniter, not a divider' line.
If anything, Hillary's more of a uniter, both as a focus for hatred from the left and right and her poll-driven support of centrist positions on things like Iraq and the PATRIOT act.
No, here's how I dope it. Democrats will ignore this as much as possible, and so will Republicans, who fear a Clinton candidacy more than anything.
Now they can watch with undisguised pleasure as the Obama bandwagon rolls over Clinton.
Then, when we get past the conventions, they spring the Farrakhan trap on Obama.
Sweet, if you're whoever the GOP nominee is.
A few months ago, I'd have bet the Democrats could have elected a ham sandwich, because of the war.
Now, with the body count down and the Obama religious scandal in the wings, I can foresee a fall in which the Democrats have nominated a candidate who will not be voted for by either blacks or Jews.
Politics ain't beanbag.
That's a matter of perspective.
You seem to be claiming that both factors are operative (he's both black and inspiring). I'm claiming that the latter, not the former, is what's operative, and that you have no particular basis for claiming otherwise.
Right about now I'm sure many people are noticing that governors don't always make good presidents.
I know, but just wait about ten minutes.
You can be as cynical as you like, but I know something unusual is happening when commenters at a very righty blog are praising him and comparing him favorably to Reagan. I've seen a bunch of similar examples that I found fairly startling.
"This is the same bullshit that Bush got called on with his 'uniter, not a divider' line."
He "got called" on that? Really? Do you mean before he became president and proved he didn't mean it? Or after?
"If anything, Hillary's more of a uniter"
As I said, her primary achievement as a "uniter" will be to unite the GOP.
Of course in 2006 McCain retracted that and embraced Falwell. A little flip-flop. Still, McCain's statement seems to give Obama some cover, since any number of GOP pols (including McCain himself) have embraced Falwell and/or Robertson, much more directly than any alleged association between Obama and Farrakhan.
And if the matchup is McCain vs Obama (a reasonable likelihood, in my opinion), McCain might be inclined to stay away from this can of worms.
I don't support Obama for President, probably never will. There are major policy reasons why I do not. That said, I honestly believe the concerns expressed by some on this thread are completely unfounded.
Not true.
Majority-black churches exist because of segregation, but being "Afrocentric" is an ideological choice not all majority-black churches make. Many are just plain "Baptist."
Bravo. Good show.
My fear of fascists like Farakhan, and the results of their being tolerated as anything other than fringe kooks, is neither veiled nor based on race.
Farakhan should be getting the same banishment from mainstream public life that David Duke got. He's not.
Still, AFG.
P.S. How's GWB working out for you, Mr. middle class?
You misread my friend. Middle-class whites are likely to be unaffected by the policies of a President Obama. It's the working-class voters who will be left out in the cold, and forced to pay for his unity coalition.
I agree with the above that all of the presidents listed had more experience than candidate Obama. Short of Law Review editor, PIRG organizer, stage legislator, and first-term Senator, he has shown me nothing regarding his ability to get the job done -- except promises to "unite" various coalations, and work with Republicans -- to the detriment of the working class. No thanks.
Further, it is the Obama campaign continually touting his race. I didn't bring it up -- he did.
I stand by my honest belief that had he not been sired by an African, no way would Obama be where he is today. He came up in a.a. times, and no doubt in my mind benefitted all the way along by that degree of blackness. Were he a 100% white man today, no way we would even be talking about his qualifications at this time. Except -- you want to toss out the racist label when somebody honestly points that out.
Farrakhan is awful, but this connection is far too tenuous to be noteworthy. (I'm white and Jewish, by the way.) Giuliani hasn't been asked about the anti-war views of the Pope, and with good cause—because such questions would be an inane and preposterous attempt to foist guilt by association onto his candidacy.
We are absolutely seeing a double standard here where people get up in arms at even the slightest, most tenuous connection to anti-white racism but—whether consciously or not—find themselves treating other forms of prejudice with far more lenience. (An example being Bush's visit to Bob Jones University, as has already come up in this thread.)
Exhortations to look at the stated principles of Obama's church and replace "black" with "white" are disigenuous at best and intentionally misleading at worst. This country, which has been and continues to be controlled by white people, has a history of white people enslaving and killing black people for hundreds of years. So when "injustice" against white people has been mentioned, it was and is often a canard used as justification for continued efforts of oppression of other races. That's just how it's been in American history. "Injustice" against black people, on the other hand, speaks to many historical and current concrete examples of anti-black discrimination. So it makes sense that the state philosophy of Obama's church is perfectly acceptable as it refers to a black church and would set off alarm bells if it were a white church. This isn't a double standard; it's just a clear-eyed view of history and reality.
The Wright-Farakhan connection isn't new or trivial, it's wide ranging and goes back 24 years.
Black people can be bigots too, and most whites who aren't named Gore, Clinton, Kennedy or Bush don't control the country.
Read the thread and get yourself oriented.