Reverend Wright

[Radar]

Originally Posted by lookout123

Disclaimer: I don't think Obama should be tossed out of the presidential race over this issue.

Radar I don't think you are getting what I'm saying. Forget about all the blowup dolls that pass as journalists today and they way they are blowing things up and taking them out of context. Now stop and think about this:

The people you surround yourself with and the messages you freely choose to ingest repeatedly over a 20 year period speak to who you are and what you believe.

Whether it is political, religious, or philosophical, you certainly have the right to listen, believe, and speak on any issue from any angle you want, but don't be surprised if someday you are held accountable for the beliefs you surround yourself with.

My understanding is that White is well known for his rhetoric. I'm cool with that, it's his right. Obama has chosen to become and remain engaged with this man. That leaves two options: 1) Obama didn't ever agree with the man but became his mentee because of the political power he held and the influence he wields in Illinois, or 2) Obama did agree with the man but is now trying to distance himself so he can get into a bigger office.

That is the real issue I want to know more about because, for me, it speaks to Obama's honesty vs. political cunning. We've been asked to back him because he is going to make a "clean break with the ways of the past". Awesome, I just want to know if his own past is compatible with his new Hope.

You've known me for awhile now. You must know by now that in order for me to have any friends, I must have friends that I differ with politically. I've known many of them for decades. The same is true of family members which I've known from birth.

These people have repeated their nonsense to me for nearly 4 decades and my political views are not swayed by any of them in the least. There is no correlation between the people you associate yourself with and your political beliefs.

I don't care what anyone says other than the candidate himself. I don't care who his friends or family are, whom they have sex with, what religion they follow, etc. None of these have any bearing on the candidate's ability to lead or of that person's character.

[tw]

Originally Posted by lookout123

Yes they should. A person chooses which church, if any, they'll attend. If they regularly attend a church that espouses beliefs that they do not hold then they shouldn't be there.

Which proves I am a pedophile and that I endorse sexual attacks on children? Lookout123 suggests I even endorse protecting pedophilia because that is the intent and action of my church. My church also says church doctrine must be imposed on all Americans by changing American law. Lookout123 says I believe that because my church ordered church doctrine imposed on all Americans. Demonstrated is why religion must be removed from political arenas.

Radar makes the valid point.

In fact since religion has no place in our government, nothing that happens in a church should ever be questioned regardless of what church it is, or what the minister is preaching.

Should we also do everything our stock broker commands? No. Our preachers and stock brokers are only consultants. We don't worship our church, its preacher, our brokerage, or our stock broker. We seek their advice. Moderates then make their own decisions.

Political extremist mantra is why extremists are so dangerous and why extremists will believe everything Rush Limbaugh tells them. Only extremists don’t think for themselves whereas moderates do think - even ask damning, politically incorrect questions. Intelligent people also do something opposed by Rush Limbaugh disciples. Moderates consult with everyone. Our preachers, our stock brokers, and our most 'evil' enemies are nothing more than consultants to be heard. Does not matter what Obama’s preacher said. Better would be to have extremists such as George Jr learn something other than Cheney’s extremist decrees. But George Jr fears Obama's preacher. He might learn another perspective. Extremists fear anything not in 'black and white'.

If evil leaders listen to evil consultants (the extremist mantra), then McCain has a serious credibility problem. Two major advisors are Karl Rove and Carly Fiorina. These two are more flawed than Obama’s preacher.

Worry if a church (or Rush Limbaugh) tells an extremist what to think. Extremists do not think for themselves – the definition of an extremist. We need moderate leaders who hear from everyone. The superior, moderate leader consults even with our most ‘evil’ enemies. Only an extremist even fears talking to our enemies as they also would fear Obama’s preacher, Carly Fiorina, and Karl Rove.

Kennedy had to make the same point because too many were brain washed in extremist rhetoric. Extremists only understand blind obedience even to politically perverted ministers. Extremists believed Kennedy would do what his religion ordered. Religion has no place in government which is what intelligent people understand. Kennedy made that point. But 50 years later, we are again confronting myths: that a moderate will impose religious beliefs on us. Fear only those whose religious beliefs even influence their votes – also called wacko extremists. Fear people who don’t think for themselves and who refuse to consult with all other opinions. Radar is right on correct: “since religion has no place in our government”.

Using lookout123 logic also proves I am a pedophile, endorse pedophilia by my church, and condon protecting pedophiles. No? Then lookout123 is wrong even about Obama’s preacher.

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by tw

Which proves I am a pedophile and that I endorse sexual attacks on children? Lookout123 suggests I even endorse protecting pedophilia because that is the intent and action of my church. My church also says church doctrine must be imposed on all Americans by changing American law. Lookout123 says I believe that because my church ordered church doctrine imposed on all Americans. Demonstrated is why religion must be removed from political arenas.

Isn't your home care provider supposed to monitor your meds?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Radar

These people have repeated their nonsense to me for nearly 4 decades and my political views are not swayed by any of them in the least. There is no correlation between the people you associate yourself with and your political beliefs.

Yabut, you aren't normal.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

Using lookout123 logic also proves I am a pedophile, endorse pedophilia by my church, and condon protecting pedophiles. No? Then lookout123 is wrong even about Obama’s preacher.

He didn't say it proves anything, he said he wants Obama to address where he agrees with and differs from White's views. That's a legitimate question for a presidential aspirant to answer.

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by tw

I am a pedophile

eh, nuff said.

[aimeecc]

Originally Posted by Radar

I don't care what anyone says other than the candidate himself. I don't care who his friends or family are, whom they have sex with, what religion they follow, etc. None of these have any bearing on the candidate's ability to lead or of that person's character.

That's where we differ. A leader doesn't sit in a church for 20 years and have a personal friend, mentor, and spiritual advisor that is opposite of everything he stands for. Obama is against divisive people and politics. Rev Wright is divisive - Obama admits that. And that's his spitual advisor, and close mentor?

Several years ago I moved to a new town. I went to a new church. As I went in, there were folks standing in front getting peole to sign up for the pro-life movement and collecting donations and holding the vulgar signs of aborted fetuses. The sermon - you guessed it - was all about influencing our politicians to stop abortion. I am pro-life, but I don't want my sermons on Sunday to focus on this. I never went back to that church again.

This isn't some random person Obama talks to on occasion. Its his personal friend and mentor. "God damn America" may have been said to get the people riled up, and as strong language condemning the actions of the government. But were talking about a Presidential hopeful here - and he stands with people that repeatedly say "God damn America" and that whites purposely spread AIDS among blacks, and that its the whites fault blacks break laws and end up in jail. I certainly don't want a President that surrounds himself with people that think this way.

Obama has proven to me he isn't a leader - something I've suspected all along.

[Undertoad]

people that repeatedly say

Repeatedly! Do you know that? All we have is a video that strings together the worst possible moments of the guy over a long period.

[piercehawkeye45]

Aimeecc, no realistic presidential candidate has great leadership skills.

McCain has a much different stance than what he had ten years ago, Clinton flip flops to whatever the popular opinion is, and Obama has this.

Besides third tier candidates such as Kucinich and Paul, I don't think any candidate says what he or she actually thinks.

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

people that repeatedly say

Repeatedly! Do you know that? All we have is a video that strings together the worst possible moments of the guy over a long period.

How do we know those were his worst possible moments over a long period? How do we know that isn't just his regular MO? Do we have video that is all light and positivity? Is positivity a word?

Anyway, I don't really give a hang about this guy or his beliefs, but I can say that I do not attend the church in which I was raised due to the fact that I don't agree with much of its teachings. If a church goes against what I believe to be right then I am a hypocrite if I sit and listen to it and do not, from time to time, show my disapproval. Very civil disobedience tells me to dissassociate myself from that church, or at least from the hellfire sermons which I find to be divisive and against what I believe about humankind.

Otherwise, I may as well get in line for a glass of kool-aid.

[aimeecc]

The difference is Obama is suppossed to stand for hope and the future and unity. That's his platform.

We expected scandals and covered up deals from the Clintons. She isn't running on a platform that says "I don't have scandals and shady deals." Obama is running a campaign on "I represent the future and unity and Clinton is divisive" but he is surrounded by people (or at least one person) that are divisive as his mentors and who are about the past.

And yes, Wright said "God damn America" more than once. That makes its repeated.

[Flint]

Anyone who questioned Bush for his wacky born-again religiosity...
...is bound by the terms of intellectual honesty to equally question Obama for whatever it is y'all are talking about.

[Undertoad]

The difference is Obama is suppossed to stand for hope and the future and unity. That's his platform.

Right: the person who stands for unity, has friends who don't share his politics precisely.

There's no incongruity there. And I admire it. For most of the time I was a hard-core Libertarian, my best friend was a Socialist. That's a REAL oil and water situation! But if you're an adult, politics is only a small part of why you're in a relationship with someone. You can even admire them and think that they get a lot of things wrong. It's called being open-minded, tolerant, considering all sides.

Now let's admit it: like 50% of the population, you sought hard to find something not to like about the guy. And as of now, this is the worst people could come back with. Really? Because if that's the case, he has my vote.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Shawnee123

Anyway, I don't really give a hang about this guy or his beliefs, but I can say that I do not attend the church in which I was raised due to the fact that I don't agree with much of its teachings. If a church goes against what I believe to be right then I am a hypocrite if I sit and listen to it and do not, from time to time, show my disapproval. Very civil disobedience tells me to dissassociate myself from that church, or at least from the hellfire sermons which I find to be divisive and against what I believe about humankind.

All we see are short clips taken from long sermons over a long period of time. Until someone can tell me what happens during the other 99.9% of the service, I will reserve my full judgment about the Reverend. Fuck, you could show a short clip of Hilter or Pol Pot holding a baby and loop that over and over again and make him look like a decent guy. I don't judge celebrities over the one picture taken that makes them look like an idiot. We have seen at most three minutes of a guy, out of context by the way, that Obama has been connected too for at least 62,400 minutes (20 years, once a week, for an hour long service). That is a ratio of 4.81E-5 or 0.0000481. This is nothing more than propaganda.

I want to hear at least a guess to this question. Why is the Reverend taking so much flack for his words? They are not that extreme, why so intense?

Originally Posted by Flint

Anyone who questioned Bush for his wacky born-again religiosity...
...is bound by the terms of intellectual honesty to equally question Obama for whatever it is y'all are talking about.

I agree, I question Obama more than anyone because of his platform but this is not something that I can agree with. You just have to look through tw's long threads of Bush's repeated wacky born-again religiosity to see how it affects American politics but there is not enough evidence to show that Obama shares the same views as this guy or even that it will affect his leadership ability.

First, Obama is close to Osama and his middle name is Hussein.
Second, Obama is an Islamic extremist.
Third, Obama associates himself with an anti-American racist (I have yet to see anything that suggests he is anti-American or racist).

This is just a silly trend of conservative smear tactics. There are many reasons for Obama to be illegitimizes, but this is not one of them.

[spudcon]

Amen brother.