PhilO

More on Obama and his church

80 posts in this topic

At http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/14/ob...ept-11-attacks/

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., in his taped sermons, also questioned America’s role in the spread of the AIDS virus and suggested that the United States bore some responsibility for the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.

[...]

The pastor also said: “The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied.”

[...]

“This is not just someone that Barack Obama has a casual relationship with,” said Tom Bevan, executive editor of RealClearPolitics.com. He noted that Wright married Barack and Michelle Obama, and Wright’s words were the inspiration for the title of Obama’s book, “The Audacity of Hope.”

I assume that this religion is better than the Republicans' because it's associated with a Democrat?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose it was another lie that condom use protects against HIV transmission?

I love Obama's reaction:

“Senator Obama deplores divisive statements whether they come from his supporters, the supporters of his opponent, talk radio, or anywhere else.”

In other words, "Whatever it is he said that offended you? Yeah, I'm against that!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I assume that this religion is better than the Republicans' because it's associated with a Democrat?

Of course not. It's better because it's openly and hopelessly anti-American. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rush Limbaugh has been on this the last couple of days. This was really revealed by Christopher Hitchens a couple of months ago, but this is OBombAmerica's spiritual and intellectual mentor, and has been for twenty years, and he's still a campaign advisor.

Here is the video Rush referenced:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPjVp3PLnVs

Apparently there is another sermon he gave after 911 where he blames America and says we had it coming. Rush played excerpts from that as well.

So, OBama is a racist and a socialist. Draw your own conclusions as to what that could mean if he’s elected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rush Limbaugh has been on this the last couple of days. This was really revealed by Christopher Hitchens a couple of months ago, but this is OBombAmerica's spiritual and intellectual mentor, and has been for twenty years, and he's still a campaign advisor.

Here is the video Rush referenced:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPjVp3PLnVs

Apparently there is another sermon he gave after 911 where he blames America and says we had it coming. Rush played excerpts from that as well.

To be fair to Obama, Wright is no worse than any pastor. Clinton's a Methodist and McCain went so far as to convert from Episcopalianism to Baptist (talk about an extremist church). I know enough people in various UCC denominations to know that they are a fairly left-of-center religion that is often at odds with mainstream Christianity for taking liberal views on matters such as abortion and gay rights. As for Wright himself, I don't know enough about him or his church, but I do know enough about presidential elections to know that operatives will find the most controversial thing anyone has said.

Let's face it. We really don't have a good choice in this election, and shouldn't pretend that any of the two credible alternatives to Obama presents a better choice. I don't know why many Objectivists seem to have sympathies for the GOP. Bush has been a disaster economically (spending money as recklessly as any Democrat). McCain is anti-abortion, is responsible for McCain-Feingold and the rise of the "527s," and, quite worryingly, went from the 6th most liberal GOP senator in the 107th congress to the 2nd most conservative in the 109th (meaning he pulled a Romney and got away with it). Clinton wants to use the tax code as the enforcement tool for the nanny state, with artificial tax "credits" for various types of "desirable" social behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's face it. We really don't have a good choice in this election, and shouldn't pretend that any of the two credible alternatives to Obama presents a better choice.

I can agree that are choices are not good. But, between the three, at least McCain (who I loathe) will keep the fight going while the other two want to open the gates and let our enemies in. If one can take a long term perspective, McCain will give people such as Objectivist time to keep changing the culture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's face it. We really don't have a good choice in this election, and shouldn't pretend that any of the two credible alternatives to Obama presents a better choice.

I can agree that are choices are not good. But, between the three, at least McCain (who I loathe) will keep the fight going while the other two want to open the gates and let our enemies in. If one can take a long term perspective, McCain will give people such as Objectivist time to keep changing the culture.

I am with you there - with McCain, I think there be less will change for the worse. My fear is that if Obama or Clinton gets in the white house, the US will just travel further and further towards a more socialist government at a much quicker pace. McCain appears to be the one that may cause less damage than the other two.

I read Obama's speech he gave last week - a pretty speech (he always speaks well when he has a speech in front of him) and I thought it was very well written. However, I cringed when he compared what Geraldine Ferraro said, and what his grandmother said (racial slurs he mentioned) to what his pastor was preaching from the pulpit. First, I don't think what Ferraro said was racist. I don't think someone with the short and not very exciting polictical record that Obama has would be in the position to run if he wasn't a minority. I do believe that gave him the exposure, this uniqueness, that he needed to become well known. When he won his sentorial election, it was covered in many national magazines - a huge story. Second, I doubt very much that his grandmother went around spewing racist thoughts in public and she certainly wasn't on stage speaking to numerous people that looked up to her as a leader. The comparisons were not applicable.

What irks me a lot about this situation is how he says he is opposed to so many things that the pastor was preaching. Yet, he has been a member of the church for 20 years! If it were an isolated situation - a few foolish comments here and there, maybe it wouldn't bother me. But it isn't. And it doesn't seem to me that a person of intergrity could sit through listening to such sermons for 20 years ESPECIALLY when they were going into politics, and supposedly has an opposite view. If Obama didn't consider the man such a wonderful mentor to him, or was maybe someone that went to church here and there, maybe it wouldn't bother me so much. But he has several times mentioned in print and in public the positive impact the man has had on his life.

I wonder if perhaps Obama has thought about leaving the church because of the garbage the pastor spouts. I wonder if he never did it because it would have been too painful and difficult. He cares for the man very much. Perhaps a lot of unearned guilt ("I should be loyal to him after what he has done for me") is what is muddling Obama's decisions in regards to the pastor and his church.

And that, is another reason I cannot vote for him. If he cannot stand up for his stated views and integrity in an issue like this - how can I trust him to always do it as a president? Will he bow down to special interest groups or other groups that have supported him on his road to the white house if they want him to support something that isn't right? I don't think McCain is in anyway an ideal candidate, but I think he is a bit stronger than Obama right now.

I will say one thing though: If Obama doesn't win (and I hope he doesn't) I would be willing to consider him 4, 8 or 12 years down the road if he actually does something useful in politics and drops some of his socialist agendas, and can show that he can actually stand up for what is right even when he has to stand against those he considers friends. I think he could be a great leader at some point in town if he could be more objective. He has a lot of potential, and it saddens me to think someone with potential is going to waste it with socialist politicals and misplaced loyalties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will say one thing though: If Obama doesn't win (and I hope he doesn't) I would be willing to consider him 4, 8 or 12 years down the road if he actually does something useful in politics and drops some of his socialist agendas, and can show that he can actually stand up for what is right even when he has to stand against those he considers friends. I think he could be a great leader at some point in town if he could be more objective. He has a lot of potential, and it saddens me to think someone with potential is going to waste it with socialist politicals and misplaced loyalties.

Why do you think he "could be a great leader at some point"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rush Limbaugh has been on this the last couple of days. This was really revealed by Christopher Hitchens a couple of months ago, but this is OBombAmerica's spiritual and intellectual mentor, and has been for twenty years, and he's still a campaign advisor.

Here is the video Rush referenced:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPjVp3PLnVs

Apparently there is another sermon he gave after 911 where he blames America and says we had it coming. Rush played excerpts from that as well.

To be fair to Obama, Wright is no worse than any pastor. Clinton's a Methodist and McCain went so far as to convert from Episcopalianism to Baptist

Sam Harris has a great quote on ths concept that I'm bastardising somewhat

"You may as well have a dispute about the names of Santa's elves"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really liked what Krauthammer said about Obama's speach. Charales Krauthammer's article

Obama condemns such statements as wrong and divisive, then frames the next question: "There will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church?"

But that is not the question. The question is why didn't he leave that church? Why didn't he leave — why doesn't he leave even today — a pastor who thundered not once but three times from the pulpit (on a DVD the church proudly sells) "G-d damn America"? Obama's 5,000-word speech, fawned over as a great meditation on race, is little more than an elegantly crafted, brilliantly sophistic justification of that scandalous dereliction.

"I can no more disown [Wright] than I can my white grandmother." What exactly was Grandma's offense? Jesse Jackson himself once admitted to the fear he feels from the footsteps of black men on the street. And Harry Truman was known to use epithets for blacks and Jews in private, yet is revered for desegregating the armed forces and recognizing the first Jewish state since Jesus's time. He never spread racial hatred. Nor did Grandma.
( B ) White guilt. Obama's purpose in the speech was to put Wright's outrages in context. By context, Obama means history. And by history, he means the history of white racism. Obama says, "We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country," and then he proceeds to do precisely that. What lies at the end of his recital of the long train of white racial assaults from slavery to employment discrimination? Jeremiah Wright, of course.

This contextual analysis of Wright's venom, this extenuation of black hate speech as a product of white racism, is not new. It's the Jesse Jackson politics of racial grievance, expressed in Ivy League diction and Harvard Law nuance. That's why the speech made so many liberal commentators swoon: It bathed them in racial guilt while flattering their intellectual pretensions. An unbeatable combination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To be fair to Obama, Wright is no worse than any pastor. Clinton's a Methodist and McCain went so far as to convert from Episcopalianism to Baptist (talk about an extremist church).

How is the Baptist church an "extremist" church? Could some be? Maybe. But I personally grow up in an area where the predominant denomination is Baptist and find not a single church (and I have been to many) "extremist". The true extremist, in my experience, have been almost every single Pentecostal church to which I have been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How is the Baptist church an "extremist" church? Could some be? Maybe. But I personally grow up in an area where the predominant denomination is Baptist and find not a single church (and I have been to many) "extremist". The true extremist, in my experience, have been almost every single Pentecostal church to which I have been.

It really depends on the pastor. My family attended a Baptist church for ages, because they liked the pastor. I was in grade school at the time, but I remember I liked him also. He lived in a house just across from the church, and I remember watching cartoons with one of his daughters. He also came over to our house and helped me to get a badge for cub scouts, something related to religion (I don't remember the specifics). We even took a trip to NYC with him, I think we went to visit a church there. I really looked up to the man, he was larger than life and one of the kindest adults I knew as a child. I also remember loving Vacation Bible School, because we got to do a lot of crafts (I was particularly proud of a marionette I made) and watched puppet shows. We also sang in church performances. We had hay rides in the fall... It's funny I haven't thought about those years in a long time, but I have many fond memories.

It wasn't until Pastor King left and a new one replaced him that the church changed - in Sunday school we learned that watching movies was immoral, and what to tell friends who invited us to go to them. They also believed playing cards and dancing were wrong. After my dad butted heads a few times over that stuff, we did some church "shopping".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It really depends on the pastor. My family attended a Baptist church for ages, because they liked the pastor. I was in grade school at the time, but I remember I liked him also. He lived in a house just across from the church, and I remember watching cartoons with one of his daughters. He also came over to our house and helped me to get a badge for cub scouts, something related to religion (I don't remember the specifics). We even took a trip to NYC with him, I think we went to visit a church there. I really looked up to the man, he was larger than life and one of the kindest adults I knew as a child. I also remember loving Vacation Bible School, because we got to do a lot of crafts (I was particularly proud of a marionette I made) and watched puppet shows. We also sang in church performances. We had hay rides in the fall... It's funny I haven't thought about those years in a long time, but I have many fond memories.

That is very typical of what religion really means to most Americans.

Most American don't value religion because they are evil mystics and altruists but because their church is a benevolent social club associated with fond family memories and, in our current cultural climate, a refuge from political correctness, cultural relativism, and nihilism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[...]Most American don't value religion because they are evil mystics and altruists but because their church is a benevolent social club associated with fond family memories and, in our current cultural climate, a refuge from political correctness, cultural relativism, and nihilism.

Though Americans generally are certainly not evil, churches even for the non-religious are beacons of morality. The problem I see is that benevolence is equated with altruism by most Americans. Charitable giving by the devout and the non-religious are motivated by altruism (see page 45 of the PDF, for example), basically, which is the opposite of the BB&T sort of giving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is very typical of what religion really means to most Americans.

Most American don't value religion because they are evil mystics and altruists but because their church is a benevolent social club associated with fond family memories and, in our current cultural climate, a refuge from political correctness, cultural relativism, and nihilism.

I think that's why they value church, but not religion. They value religion because they equate morality with mysticism. Religion is also a security blanket, what with the afterlife, baptism, confession etc.

However to their credit, Americans implicitly recognize that mysticism is impotent, because they rely on reason, not divine providence, to succeed in life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most American don't value religion because they are evil mystics and altruists but because their church is a benevolent social club associated with fond family memories and, in our current cultural climate, a refuge from political correctness, cultural relativism, and nihilism.

Yes, I'd agree that's why Roman Catholicism is the dominant church in much of the north. That said, converting religions is far more of an "active" decision, which is what makes me suspect of McCain's conversion to Baptism. As for my "extremist" comment, perhaps it's because I equate Baptist with redneck, country music-loving, wear-it-on-your-sleeve "patriots."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With all the fuss about Obama's church, to be fair, the United Church of Christ as an organization is a fairly typical liberal sect. They run a bunch of not-for-profits and are a major sponsor of one of Chicago's largest hospital systems, and, thus, while a small church, are by no means considered "extreme" around here. Trinity, of course, is primarily a south-side African American church that happens to be a member of the congregationalist UCC, so probably is a bit less socially liberal than the sect as a whole. I can't say I ever heard of Wright before this presidential campaign. What he says can be heard at any number of churches on the South and West Sides, so I can't say I'm really shocked or surprised by them.

That said, I am quite surprised that Hillary Clinton's part of the "Fellowship" (or is it "Family") of ultra-conservative, almost fascist bible study groups, and why it hasn't gotten much press.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barbara-ehre...te_b_92361.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I'd agree that's why Roman Catholicism is the dominant church in much of the north. That said, converting religions is far more of an "active" decision, which is what makes me suspect of McCain's conversion to Baptism. As for my "extremist" comment, perhaps it's because I equate Baptist with redneck, country music-loving, wear-it-on-your-sleeve "patriots."

Not meaning to jump your gun again :), but what is wrong with country music-loving people who wear American flag T-shirts? :).

I guess that is the image that non-Southerners have of us down here. However, down here, a redneck is not somebody who listens to country music or is very proud of America (most people down here are very open about their pride in America, and a good many listen to country music). A redneck is synonymous with "white trash". They tend to be uneducated, unhygienic, irrational drunkards with large families supported by welfare. Thankfully, I rarely see those people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With all the fuss about Obama's church, to be fair, the United Church of Christ as an organization is a fairly typical liberal sect. They run a bunch of not-for-profits and are a major sponsor of one of Chicago's largest hospital systems, and, thus, while a small church, are by no means considered "extreme" around here. Trinity, of course, is primarily a south-side African American church that happens to be a member of the congregationalist UCC, so probably is a bit less socially liberal than the sect as a whole. I can't say I ever heard of Wright before this presidential campaign. What he says can be heard at any number of churches on the South and West Sides, so I can't say I'm really shocked or surprised by them.

That said, I am quite surprised that Hillary Clinton's part of the "Fellowship" (or is it "Family") of ultra-conservative, almost fascist bible study groups, and why it hasn't gotten much press.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barbara-ehre...te_b_92361.html

Hamas run a bunch of not-for-profits as well, in the form of welfare services in the West Bank and elsewhere. I would not call them anything but nihilistic and thus the running of said institutions doesn't exempt any religion from criticism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Most American don't value religion because they are evil mystics and altruists but because their church is a benevolent social club associated with fond family memories and, in our current cultural climate, a refuge from political correctness, cultural relativism, and nihilism.

Yes, I'd agree that's why Roman Catholicism is the dominant church in much of the north. That said, converting religions is far more of an "active" decision, which is what makes me suspect of McCain's conversion to Baptism. As for my "extremist" comment, perhaps it's because I equate Baptist with redneck, country music-loving, wear-it-on-your-sleeve "patriots."

I think McCain is very traditional and typical when it comes to religion. He’s certainly much better than Bush. His problem is his lack of appreciation for the greatness of America and his willingness to compromise our freedoms to altruism, which he is worse than Bush on.

I also want to know why you're trashing country music. It's a big part of Americana and, I believe, the most popular music in America. To be sure, I'm not an aficionado, but Dolly Pardon doesn't strike me as a bad influence. I mean, genres such as heavy metal and rap seem quite a bit more negative.

Also, what’s wrong with wearing your patriotism on your sleeve? You can rationally be a patriot of America.

With all the fuss about Obama's church, to be fair, the United Church of Christ as an organization is a fairly typical liberal sect.

The church is strongly racist and anti-American. There is no sugar coating that. The only way to save yourself from that is to realize you're wrong and go through years of purposefully extirpating the bad premises from your mind. If I'm going to use the phrase "to be fair", I'd say "to be fair" it's inexcusable to subject yourself and your family to those kinds of ideas for twenty years. There is no rationalizing your way out of this.

Btw, a lot of people are pointing to this as an example of religion, and it is to a point, but Wright's rhetoric is more in line with postmodernism. I'll bet postmodernist professors are agreeing 100% with Wright.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With all the fuss about Obama's church, to be fair, the United Church of Christ as an organization is a fairly typical liberal sect.

The church is strongly racist and anti-American. There is no sugar coating that. The only way to save yourself from that is to realize you're wrong and go through years of purposefully extirpating the bad premises from your mind. If I'm going to use the phrase "to be fair", I'd say "to be fair" it's inexcusable to subject yourself and your family to those kinds of ideas for twenty years. There is no rationalizing your way out of this.

I will go further to say that KPO'M's campaigning for Obama - yes, campaigning - on this board is thoroughly offensive, given all we have seen and heard from the man-hating bastard. I can't bear to hear him speak anymore. He readily calls Clinton "disingenuous," yet he cannot say boo to Wright.

The good news is that Americans are going to reject his evil. The Obama campaign for Third-World values has come to a full-stop.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The good news is that Americans are going to reject his evil. The Obama campaign for Third-World values has come to a full-stop.

In conservative Indiana, I see no bumper stickers for Clinton, but a lot for Obama. That coupled with national news reports leads me to project that the race will probably be between Obama and McCain. It would not surprise me a bit to see Obama become president, though it would certainly be bad for the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hamas run a bunch of not-for-profits as well, in the form of welfare services in the West Bank and elsewhere. I would not call them anything but nihilistic and thus the running of said institutions doesn't exempt any religion from criticism.

True, but one thing I don't like about our foreign policy "experts" in Washington is how they fail to grasp how Hamas providing charitable services gives them a cloak of credibility (however undeserved) among many in the Middle East. It's not about agreeing with them, it's about understanding how to effectively counteract them.

As for the UCC as a whole (which is mostly a white religion, actually), they are a pretty ruthless bunch, and not easy to do business with. I'm suspicious of all religious organizations. My point is that the UCC isn't any more worthy of suspicion than, say, the Catholic church.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[

I will go further to say that KPO'M's campaigning for Obama - yes, campaigning - on this board is thoroughly offensive, given all we have seen and heard from the man-hating bastard. I can't bear to hear him speak anymore. He readily calls Clinton "disingenuous," yet he cannot say boo to Wright.

The good news is that Americans are going to reject his evil. The Obama campaign for Third-World values has come to a full-stop.

Who says I'm campaigning for Obama? I don't really care for him. However, I do want him to win the Democratic nomination since I think Clinton is worse. There's nothing really to look forward to in the general election. McCain is a social conservative and fiscal liberal, just like Bush. Obama is a social and fiscal liberal. Clinton is a fiscal socialist (even by Democratic standards) and, as it turns out, a social conservative. The only thing McCain has going for him is that he is old and might well retire after one term, giving us a better shot for a decent candidate to emerge in 2012.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites