Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Obama and the Pastor
Denver Post columnist, occasional reason contributor, and recovering orthodox Jew David Harsanyi on Barack Obama's yes-no-but relationship with Jeremiah A. Wright:
Choosing your church means something. If you're a practicing Catholic and support gay marriage and abortion, you're in the wrong place. If you're a Scientologist knocking back Excedrins every day, think your membership is over.
Barack Obama should have done the same years ago.
This week, Obama delivered a rhetorical masterpiece confronting the issues stemming from the words of his pastor. He distanced himself from the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright's detestable and conspiratorial words, but he also deflected the most important question: What about the past 20 years?
Is Obama responsible for the words of Wright? No. But whether he likes it or not, supporting the man for 20 years is relevant. Obama claims he had no knowledge of the nastier Wright tidbits. If true, that would make him the most naïve candidate ever or the most willfully ignorant.
Episiarch|3.21.08 @ 9:12AM|#
Oh noes, Obama is responsible for his associations just like the rest of us! Please, Obama-humpers, come tell us why he in fact isn't responsible for his associations but everyone you don't like is.
Other Matt|3.21.08 @ 9:15AM|#
Ep-Agreed, but isn't it "Obama-humpees", or is that term reserved for the rest of us if he does make it?
jj|3.21.08 @ 9:16AM|#
I agree with Obama that you don't just drop friends and family members because of their views and actions. That is something I would expect from most politicians (e.g., the Clintons), and it is refreshing to me that Obama's not doing it, despite the risk. No, Episiarch, I'm not an Obama supporter, I'm a Paultard.
|3.21.08 @ 9:21AM|#
I think it depends on whether or not Episiarch is suggesting the
Obamapologists are tops or bottoms. Of course, he could just be
saying that they like to dry hump his leg--outercourse, if you
will.
Of course, I'll heap invective on Obama only when Hillary deigns to
explain her 30-plus year association with Bill. If we have a
viscous round of guilt-by-association, Hills is gonna lose...
|3.21.08 @ 9:38AM|#
If you're a practicing Catholic and support gay marriage and
abortion, you're in the wrong place.
Actually, about 3/4 of practicing Catholics oppose the Church's
position on birth control.
Fuck you very much, for telling people you've never met how they
should organize their religious worship.
|3.21.08 @ 9:40AM|#
Jeremiah is a crackpot, who works himself into a lather of wrath about the U.S.A., a country where he and his congregation are, in fact, quite happy. He deserves to be taken to task for his lazy self-indulgence. But, excuse me, is he a bigger liar than, you know, George Bush and Dick Cheney? Why isn't John McCain being forced to "explain" his relationship with them?
|3.21.08 @ 9:40AM|#
This just in: people who don't go to church don't think you
should, either.
More news at 11.
|3.21.08 @ 9:44AM|#
It's really amazing how lame and vacuous the attacks on Obama are. With all the concrete things to despise about McCain and HRC, the more these weak "reasons" to dislike Obama are argued, the more I like the guy.
Simmer|3.21.08 @ 9:45AM|#
There are no pro-choice Catholics - if you're pro-choice, by definition you aren't a Catholic. Sorry if that asks too much of "cafeteria Catholics" but nobody said that getting into heaven would be easy. Maybe you can make a government entitlement out of it.
|3.21.08 @ 9:47AM|#
joe's right. I don't agree with most of the catholic church's teachings, and I rarely pay attention during mass. For all I know, my Pastor might think the CIA spread AIDS too. My church experience is one of meditation and community, and I enjoy it. The idea that Obama should leave his community because Wright said a few crazy things is ridiculous.
Taktix®|3.21.08 @ 9:47AM|#
This just in: people who don't go to church don't think you
should, either.
Generalization is a sign of ignorance, joe. I don't go to church,
but I could give a flying fuck what you do with your time...
the innominate one|3.21.08 @ 9:48AM|#
Alan:
not only that, but why isn't McCain being taken to task for his
association with Pastor Hagee, whose approval his campaign actively
sought?
also, are the words of Obama's pastor a representative sample of
his typical message?
|3.21.08 @ 9:48AM|#
Breaking...breaking...apparently, Wolf, certain members of a
religious sect are declaring that other members of that sect, with
whom they disagree politically, are infidels.
Details are sketchy at this time. More as events ensue.
|3.21.08 @ 9:49AM|#
"If you're a practicing Catholic and support gay marriage
and abortion, you're in the wrong place."
joe beat me to it. This is the dumbest statement I've ever heard.
People go to the church where their friends and family go. They go
to be part of a community. Most people don't have a liturgical
litmus test.
|3.21.08 @ 9:51AM|#
That's me, Taktix: profoundly ignorant.
If you aren't lecturing people on the best way for them to do
something you neither know nor care about, then you don't have to
be so defensive about put-downs of those who do.
|3.21.08 @ 9:52AM|#
I think the problem, Lamar, is that people who actually do think
of their church as the central organizing principle of their
political lives assume that everybody else does, too. Or at least
should.
The whole Cesar/God thing just doesn't register with some
people.
charlie|3.21.08 @ 9:55AM|#
I'm as much a basher of the Obama cult as anyone, but give me a
fucking break. A good deal of what Jeremiah Wright had to say was
inflammatory but not untrue -- the US has imprisoned a
great deal of the African-American population because of the drug
war, and the CIA did look the other way when our good
friends the contras smuggled cocaine into this country. And you
know what? Truman did order the incineration of the
populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki without batting an eye, all
in the name of impressing the Soviet Union and launching the Cold
War.
And to say that someone can't criticize this country if they live
comfortably in it is just another way of saying "love it or leave
it" -- in other words, it's bullshit.
Paul/Wright '08
|3.21.08 @ 9:56AM|#
joe, it's either that people see church is a central organizing principle for their politics, or more likely, these people were never going to support Obama anyway, and this incredibly weak excuse is convenient.
|3.21.08 @ 9:58AM|#
I agree with Obama that you don't just drop friends and
family members because of their views and actions.
Nobody is suggesting that Obama drop his family members at
all.
And nobody is really suggesting that he can't continue to be
"friends" with Rev. Wright. After all, he could go to another
church and still be buddies with him (unless Rev. Wright cut him
off for leaving his church, as I would expect).
What people are worried about is why he had a 20 year relationship
with Rev. Wright, supported his divisive church, and cites him as a
political adviser and inspiration. Obama's attempt to waft these
questions away on a cloud of obfuscations and false equivalences
isn't working.
|3.21.08 @ 9:59AM|#
Remember how terrible it was when Bill Clinton said "You cannot
love your country and fear your government?" You sure as hell
can.
You can also love you church and think your pastor's politics are
loony.
Mad Max|3.21.08 @ 10:01AM|#
Catholics who believe in abortion, etc. would be better off
going to Mass on Sunday rather than doing the NYT crossword. If
you're in church, you're more likely to encounter challenges to
your, ah, *interesting* views, and maybe even reconsider
them.
The Church shouldn't give up on the abortionists - remember that
Dr. Bernard Nathanson, formerly one of the most prominent
abortionists and pro-abortion lobbyists in the country, is now a
Catholic and a prominent pro-lifer. See The Hand of God: A Journey
From Death to Life By the Abortion Doctor Who Changed His
Mind,
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/089526174X/reasonmagazineA/
|3.21.08 @ 10:01AM|#
Actually, RC, everyone from other churches who visited that
"divisive church" reported feeling completely welcome and
uplifted.
and cites him as a political adviser Link?
Obama's attempt to waft these questions away on a cloud of
obfuscations and false equivalences isn't working. Not for you
anyway. But how cares? See Fasula's comment.
Episiarch|3.21.08 @ 10:03AM|#
I think the best part of this (because I couldn't give two shits
about who wins, they are all scum) is watching the Obama supporters
losing their shit over this. The fact that it may cost Obama the
nomination, but is really no big deal, is killing them. McDreamy is
getting shafted!
(Nelson "ha ha")
|3.21.08 @ 10:03AM|#
Say, what exactly was Wright's official role within the campaign? I keep hearing references to that, but I haven't actually seen anything specific. That is a significant issue, and even Obama's Greatest Speech Since God Spoke to Moses on Sinai™ doesn't address it. I'll grant that the role may have been a token one, but does anyone know for sure?
|3.21.08 @ 10:05AM|#
I remember being 13, too, Episiarch.
Saying "everything sucks" is a good way for someone too insecure
and uniformed to venture an informed opinion to cover.
|3.21.08 @ 10:06AM|#
Pro Lib,
He was on the "Black Religious Leadership Committee," an outreach
group to black churches.
Episiarch|3.21.08 @ 10:08AM|#
joe, your discomfort and rationalizations over Obama's possible demise are all I need to enjoy this Friday. Weak attempts at equating a choice between giant douches and turd sandwiches and being juvenile are just gravy.
|3.21.08 @ 10:10AM|#
I agree with charlie. If Obama had said, "What Pastor Wright
said is painful, but true -- except for that batshit loony stuff
about AIDS," I might have considered voting for him.
That's probably why I've never voted for a winning candidate, and
most likely never will.
|3.21.08 @ 10:15AM|#
joe's upset because we won't drink the Kool-Aid with him. You
just have to believe! Our cynicism is upsetting him, though he
should expect it from libertarians, who see this all as a corrupt
power grab.
joe,
Okay, I figured it was something like that. If I had to guess, I'd
say that Obama historically has used Wright for working the black
vote. He had been able to do that without much controversy in the
past, but this time he got called on it. I'm not sure this sort of
issue wouldn't have been avoided by a more competent campaigner.
He's made some pretty silly goofs (like his statements after the
Virginia Tech shootings). I think his best approach would've been
to have just said, "Yeah, he says some crazy stuff now and again,
but he's usually okay" and to have not officially involved him in
anything.
|3.21.08 @ 10:18AM|#
Episiarch,
You've yet to offer any facts or arguments on the issue, and I
don't care about your feelings.
some guy|3.21.08 @ 10:18AM|#
Actually, about 3/4 of practicing Catholics oppose the
Church's position on birth control.
Fuck you very much, for telling people you've never met how they
should organize their religious worship.
zing, ftwz
|3.21.08 @ 10:20AM|#
I think this sums it up. From William Saletan's "Lessons
Learned" from his support for the Iraq War:
2. Suspicion can become gullibility. I'm all for suspicion,
particularly in foreign relations. The world is full of bad people,
and bad people are more likely to claw their way to power in other
countries than good people are. But past a certain point,
suspicion can make you credulous. This is what happened to
Dick Cheney. He was so suspicious of Saddam that he bought-and
spread-rumors, lies, and exaggerations about Iraqi WMD.
Worse, he failed to recognize his credulity, since he
thought he was being suspicious. The next time somebody feeds you
rumors in the name of vigilance, remember this.
Reflexive reactions are the opposite of thoughtful questioning.
This is true, even when your reflexive reaction is couched as
world-weary cynicism. It can be just another reason not to think,
or just a front people put on to cover for their own
insecurity.
Episiarch|3.21.08 @ 10:21AM|#
You've yet to offer any facts or arguments on the issue, and
I don't care about your feelings.
Oh no...must cry now. After I finish laughing.
Facts and arguments? You're not presenting any, why should I?
"Obama shouldn't be held responsible for anything" is not an
argument, d00d.
|3.21.08 @ 10:21AM|#
"Actually, about 3/4 of practicing Catholics oppose the Church's
position on birth control."
Joe, is this from a recent and reliable survey?
adrian|3.21.08 @ 10:22AM|#
but Obama gives us HOPE and CHANGE! How can you forget about
that! Utopia is within our reach if we only vote for Obama!
HOPE and CHANGE and higher minimum wage in '08!
|3.21.08 @ 10:23AM|#
Episiarch,
You've been a fed a heavily-edited 30 second video consisting of
5-10 second clips from three sermons. Along with that, you've been
fed a line about a politician being bad.
And you swallowed the whole thing hook line and sinker, because the
con men know exactly what button to push to make you accept things
uncritically.
|3.21.08 @ 10:23AM|#
Biggest. nonissue. of.all. time.
Really. I just can't take people seriously who work themselves into
a lather over this. Hell, Wright sounds a lot more entertaining
than any pastors I ever saw in New Hampshire Catholic or
Congregationalist churches. If I was a pol and had to go to church
in order to pretend I was a believer I'd probably pick someone like
Wright as well. At least he keeps you awake.
Episiarch|3.21.08 @ 10:26AM|#
And you swallowed the whole thing hook line and sinker,
because the con men know exactly what button to push to make you
accept things uncritically.
Of course, because Obama is dreamy! I see your logic, joe: Obama is
perfect and anyone who criticizes him is a con man who is adept at
fooling idiots like me. I'm such a fool :-(
|3.21.08 @ 10:26AM|#
Facts and arguments? You're not presenting any
What are you, fucking kidding me? I haven't been shy over the past
week, you might have noticed. I've got plenty of record to point to
in terms of facts and arguments I've laid down.
That's how up your own ass you are with your little pose: you can't
even tell when a position is backed with facts and logic vs. being
a mere assertion. All you can see is whether someone has taken a
position, and you are rendered incapable of even noticing, much
less considering and judging, the strength of the facts and logic
behind it.
It's a nice pose, if you're 13 and realize the conversation is over
your head.
|3.21.08 @ 10:30AM|#
See, this is your problem, Episiarch:
Everything I've written - about the difference between a church and
a pastor, about the difference between a pastor's politics and his
religious leadership, about loving the sinner and hating the sin,
about the role people's religious community plays in their life -
you can't even recognize that those arguments are there, much less
respond to them.
All you can see is Of course, because Obama is
dreamy!
That's why you never have anything useful to add to the
discussions: the only political position you are capable of
articulating is the pouty faux-wordliness of a teenaged poseur.
|3.21.08 @ 10:31AM|#
But past a certain point, suspicion can make you credulous. This
is what happened to Dick Cheney. He was so suspicious of Saddam
that he bought-and spread-rumors, lies, and exaggerations about
Iraqi WMD. Worse, he failed to recognize his credulity, since he
thought he was being suspicious.
Very insightful words, but you'd actually have to think about them
to learn anything.
Episiarch|3.21.08 @ 10:31AM|#
What are you, fucking kidding me?
Oh noes, joe thinks his defense of McDreamy is based on logic and
not emotion!
The conversation is totally over my head, joe. I mean, struggling
to defend a stupid politician against a stupid, but
career-affecting, story is way above my pay grade. It's totally
beyond my capability to endlessly pontificate on why Obama
shouldn't be responsible for his associations while simultaneously
arguing that McCain should.
It's just so unfortunate I'm not smart enough to join you up
there.
|3.21.08 @ 10:33AM|#
If you're a practicing Catholic and support gay marriage and
abortion, you're in the wrong place.
What a stupid comment. I'm a practicing Catholic and I don't have a
big problem with gay marriage and I don't support outlawing
abortion. And a lot of Catholics I know feel the same way. For most
people church is not about doctrine, it's about tradition and
community. Most American Catholics can't tell you the first thing
about what the Church truly teaches. If you support the death
penalty you shouldn't be a Catholic, if you don't truly believe
that the Pope is completely infallible on matters of doctrine you
shouldn't be Catholic, if you don't sincerely believe that Christ
is "really, truly, and substantially present" in the Eucharist you
shouldn't be Catholic, etc. But I bet a majority, at least, of
American Catholics don't agree with Church teaching on those
issues. And most Protestants are just as ignorant, or apathetic,
about what thir Church doctine really teaches.
|3.21.08 @ 10:33AM|#
Well, I'm certainly not infinitely skeptical, wallowing in my
own solipsistic visions of the world. I can be convinced that a
politician or government action is good. But, as for any
extraordinary claims, I require extraordinary evidence. It simply
doesn't exist for Obama or any other of the major candidates.
Distrust of government and politicians is an American virtue, not a
vice. If that distrust can be honestly overcome, great, but a few
platitudes and nice words aren't going to do it. Especially when
backed by the usual questionable career of a national politician.
Bah.
|3.21.08 @ 10:34AM|#
the role may have been a token one
Oooh, you are so gonna go to Hell for that...
|3.21.08 @ 10:37AM|#
P Brooks,
Dear Jesus, you're right! I didn't mean it that way! Oh, no, my
campaign to be the first non-Catholic Pope/American Secretary
General of the U.N. is in jeopardy! Damn my loose fingers! Damn
them to hellll. . . . .
|3.21.08 @ 10:41AM|#
I love it. Glenn Beck keeps saying: This isn't guilt by association because Obama is really associated with this guy.
|3.21.08 @ 10:42AM|#
Choosing your church means something. If you're a practicing
Catholic and support gay marriage and abortion, you're in the wrong
place.
Really? You can be the one to tell my grandparents, then. I don't
think they'll like to hear that they're not really Catholic after
35 (extremely active) years with the same church, but truth hurts,
I guess.
|3.21.08 @ 10:44AM|#
For most people church is not about doctrine, it's about
tradition and community. Most American Catholics can't tell you the
first thing about what the Church truly teaches.
I must be missing something; the last time I checked, the Pope is
God's spokesman on earth, and the doctrines of the Church are the
received Word of God (or some such thing). I'm pretty sure that God
doesn't qualify for the "crazy uncle" treatment. In fact,
it really pisses Him off!
If you want "community" join a fucking bridge club. Stop kidding
yourself.
|3.21.08 @ 10:46AM|#
Okay, look. This is stupid. When somebody says "church doctrine isn't the most important thing about religion to me," quoting doctrine at them is not an effective counterargument.
|3.21.08 @ 10:48AM|#
If you're a practicing Catholic and support gay marriage and
abortion, you're in the wrong place.
Well, whether this is a view one adheres to depends on one's notion
of what it means to be a congregrant as well as one's view of the
authority of the corporate body in question.
BTW, is the conciliarist tradition completely moribund in the RCC
these days?
|3.21.08 @ 10:49AM|#
It seems from my experience in churches that many, maybe most, congregants are there for social interaction, business contacts and family tradition. I often wonder if this is what the bible refers to as taking the Lord's name in vain.
|3.21.08 @ 10:50AM|#
The conversation is totally over my head, joe. I mean,
struggling to defend a stupid politician against a stupid, but
career-affecting, story is way above my pay grade. It's totally
beyond my capability to endlessly pontificate on why Obama
shouldn't be responsible for his associations while simultaneously
arguing that McCain should.
It's just so unfortunate I'm not smart enough to join you up
there.
Still not arguments? What a shocker.
You don't even realize the difference between what you feel, and
what you know, so you don't bother to know or think about anything.
And then you pretend THAT makes you sophisticated.
|3.21.08 @ 10:51AM|#
P Brooks,
Well, throughout history for the majority of people who have been
part of a faith group doctrine has been a secondary issue at best
(and this becomes a more prominent feature of religious faith as a
religion matures).
Fluffy|3.21.08 @ 10:53AM|#
Take, for example, the treatment of his reference to his
white grandmother. Of course you can go after him in all the ways
that people have gone after him-if what you want to do is go after
him. But suppose you approach Obama's text under the twin
assumptions that (a) he is trying to communicate with you, and, (b)
your obligation is to make a good-faith effort to understand his
meaning. I read what he said about his grandmother, and his words
left me in no doubt about two things: He really loves his
grandmother, and he was saying something important about race that
I recognized from my own experience. I bet many of the people who
have slammed him recognize it from their own experience too. The
guy was being honest, and he was being right. What the hell more do
you want?
Charles Murray on the Obama speech.
|3.21.08 @ 10:54AM|#
Pro Libertate,
That's a fine statement, and it's reasonable to draw the conclusion
that you SHOULDN'T believe things said about Obama.
Where Episiarch goes wrong is to make the mistake that he SHOULD,
based on that logic, BELIEVE UNCRITICALLY the charges against
Obama, because, as a politician, he must be guilty of whatever gets
thrown at him. Ergo, he doesn't have to consider
counter-arguments.
Yours is a real skepticism, and his is the pose of an insecure
child.
|3.21.08 @ 10:55AM|#
... | March 21, 2008, 10:52am | #
why aren't more people talking about the "typical white person"
gaffe?
I guess we all look the same. maybe it's the tall pointy hoody
Fluffy|3.21.08 @ 10:57AM|#
joe beat me to it. This is the dumbest statement I've ever
heard. People go to the church where their friends and family go.
They go to be part of a community. Most people don't have a
liturgical litmus test.
Just a slight correction: this is what stupid people do,
or perhaps people who don't really care about their religious
choice one way or another.
But to claim that you can believe whatever you want and still be a
Catholic because you show up is silly.
If I went around calling myself a Communist, I'd be a god-damn
idiot.
dhex|3.21.08 @ 11:01AM|#
But to claim that you can believe whatever you want and
still be a Catholic because you show up is silly.
then most american catholics aren't actually catholic.
an odd way to view religious participation - but to each their
own.
|3.21.08 @ 11:03AM|#
Fluffy,
But to claim that you can believe whatever you want and still
be a Catholic because you show up is silly.
Well, doesn't this depend on who gets to define who is and who is
not a Catholic? Note that this particular question is about as old
as the church is.
Fluffy|3.21.08 @ 11:04AM|#
then most american catholics aren't actually
catholic.
This is actually true.
If I started going to Mass every Sunday, it wouldn't matter how
many times I sat my ass in a pew if in my mind I didn't accept
Catholicism as true.
an odd way to view religious participation - but to each their
own.
Religion is a matter of belief, not participation.
You can be in a union by participating, even if you don't believe
in unions. You can be in a marriage just by participating, even if
you don't believe in marriage.
But you can't be in a church just by participating if you don't
believe in the teachings of the church. That makes you a voyeur or
a fellow traveler, but not an initiate.
Terry Michael|3.21.08 @ 11:07AM|#
As a practicing atheist, I don't understand how any intelligent politician can cling to any of the "world's great religions." But they do, and so do an ungodly number of Americans. I suppose I could make what I regard as irrational views about deities and miracles and the insanities of Leviticus a litmus test for who to support for Leader of the Free World....and I would end up with no choice at all. What I DO know is that Barack Obama is who he says he is, not who his pastor is. And I do know that the speech he gave on race--an actual coherent, nuanced argument, rather than a collection of sound-bites--was something completely different in American politics, a straight-forward critique of liberal racism (like America's First Black President could have given, had he had the courage.) And I do know that I am tired of the holier-than-thou advice of those who expect Obama to turn his back on an individual with whom he obviously has a complicated personal relationship.
ace|3.21.08 @ 11:08AM|#
Just a slight correction: this is what stupid people do, or
perhaps people who don't really care about their religious choice
one way or another.
it's only stupid if 1) said people don't feel it's trumpingly
important to be with their family, which is a legitimate position
held by many, and 2)there are no positives that
counterbalance/overpower the negatives.
full disclosure: i am certifiably godless; i think the idea of a
sentient god who cares about us is absurd. but obama's defense of
his religious choices is one of the most moving and convincing I've
heard.
|3.21.08 @ 11:09AM|#
Fluffy,
Actually, religion is as much about practice as it is about belief;
and in the history of religion the community aspect of religion has
always been far more important than doctrine for the vast majority
of adherants.
|3.21.08 @ 11:10AM|#
"But to claim that you can believe whatever you want and
still be a Catholic because you show up is silly."
Silly but true.
Episiarch|3.21.08 @ 11:10AM|#
Where Episiarch goes wrong is to make the mistake that he
SHOULD, based on that logic, BELIEVE UNCRITICALLY the charges
against Obama, because, as a politician, he must be guilty of
whatever gets thrown at him. Ergo, he doesn't have to consider
counter-arguments.
Oh joe, you are so involved in your pathetic little soap opera that
you can't even understand that some of us just don't give a shit.
So sad.
|3.21.08 @ 11:10AM|#
But to claim that you can believe whatever you want and
still be a Catholic because you show up is silly.
An atheistic Amen to Fluffy. The kvetching of religionistas who
want to have their cake and eat it, too is hilarious. Catholics,
your leadership has said "no" to birth control and gay
marriage...just man the fuck up and leave the Church already.
As for this "I go there for the community" junk, well, how
hypocritical and shallow can you be? There are plenty of
communities with fun, interesting people you could join that don't
require you subscribe to a whole host of patently stupid
notions.
Go work at a homeless shelter or take a cooking class, if you want
community. But if you don't believe in Catholic tenets, you
shouldn't be Catholic.
|3.21.08 @ 11:12AM|#
I do know that I am tired of the holier-than-thou advice of
those who expect Obama to turn his back on an individual with whom
he obviously has a complicated personal relationship.
Frankly, I'm tired of the Cult of Obama telling me I can't
criticize him for being such a psychological chump that he can't
tell a certifiable idiot to get away from him.
If he's not stupid then he's co-depedent.
Abdul|3.21.08 @ 11:12AM|#
I think there's a difference between attending a Catholic church
and a Protestant church. Under Catholic doctrine, if you separate
yourself from the sacraments, you cut yourself off from grace and
foreclose upon your avenues to redemption. Protestants believe that
redemption is a personal affair (hence their talk about a personal
relationship with the Savior). Faithful Protestants are free to
choose their church with no peril to their soul, faithful Catholics
who disagree with any doctrine of the faith still have to attend
Mass regularly or cut themselves off from any chance at
grace.
Be that as it may, joe has a good point about attending a church
despite disagreeing/ disbelieving some tennants. Erasmus once
commented that he would not join the Reformation because he would
rather repair his house than burn it down and build a new
one.
None of this gets to why Obama attended the church for years,
brought his kids there, donated over $20K in one year, but never
once confronted his pastor's "distorted view" until he was called
out on it. Obama had more freedom to change his church membership,
and was presumably good enough friends with this guy to confront
the issues.
If people didn't like Bush for failing to confront Brownie over his
incompetence, how will Obama be any better?
|3.21.08 @ 11:14AM|#
"Religion is a matter of belief, not
participation."
Tell that to the Jews, Catholics, most protestants and Muslims.
|3.21.08 @ 11:15AM|#
In stature noble, and in mind discrete? Yes, that's me ☺
I suppose I tend to believe negative statements about politicians a
little easier than positive, but that's hardly an absolute. I
imagine that Episiarch probably isn't buying everything negative he
hears about Obama, either, having a healthy skepticism of, at
least, the motives of those pushing such claims. The Wright
association, though, does have some true negatives. I think the
issue really is--barring any new information--the weight to give
those negatives.
Do I think it hurts Obama? Some. Do I think he should fall for the
association? No. I honestly don't think he's aligned with Wright. I
cynically assume that the association had more to do with political
expediency than anything else. Obama does have a narrower tightrope
to walk on race issues going forward; it'll be interesting to see
what challenges Clinton and the GOP throw in front of him. I still
think he's in jeopardy for the remainder of the primary if Clinton
forces him to address divisive issues like, say, reparations.
Fluffy|3.21.08 @ 11:15AM|#
it's only stupid if 1) said people don't feel it's
trumpingly important to be with their family, which is a legitimate
position held by many, and 2)there are no positives that
counterbalance/overpower the negatives.
Well, if you're going because you want to be with your family and
you don't really care about the doctrines, this would put you in
the category of "people who don't really care about their religious
choice one way or the other".
Well, doesn't this depend on who gets to define who is and who
is not a Catholic? Note that this particular question is about as
old as the church is.
That question was settled at the Council of Nycaea.
And maybe the answer to that question was dead wrong in "God's"
eyes, and the "real" one "true Church" would be a different one
with different doctrines. But once you go out and pick different
doctrines, that means you are no longer a Catholic but are instead
a member of "the really, truly much more awesome reformed
Church".
|3.21.08 @ 11:17AM|#
Ayn_randian: I'm as atheist as they come, but your take on why
people go to church is absurd.
More importantly, it is unclear why people should leave an
institution in which they've invested substantial time and money,
just because they disagree on some issues with the leadership. Do
you realize how stupid that sounds?
|3.21.08 @ 11:17AM|#
Fluffy,
That question was settled at the Council of Nycaea.
Yet not everyone agrees with that and the question continues to be
asked. Honestly, you are straying into circular reasoning here as
best as I can tell.
Fluffy|3.21.08 @ 11:22AM|#
Actually, religion is as much about practice as it is about
belief; and in the history of religion the community aspect of
religion has always been far more important than doctrine for the
vast majority of adherants.
This has been true when social conditions [such as illiteracy] made
it unlikely that a Church member would even form an opinion about
doctrine.
But even then, if you stopped chewing your cud long enough to
active form an opinion about doctrine which deviated from what was
acceptable, you placed yourself outside the body of the
Church.
Tell that to the Jews, Catholics, most protestants and
Muslims.
Judaism is replete with doctrinal disputes about who is and who is
not a Jew. If doctrine isn't important to Judaism, why are there
different sects?
And the entire reason there are thousands of Protestant sects is
because of disputes over doctrine. If doctrine does not control,
why isn't there just one big Protestant church?
And one becomes a Muslim by making a statement of belief. One
becomes an apostate if one renounces that statement of belief.
There's lots of "lab" in Islam, but it would be hard to come up
with a case where belief was more the controlling factor. If I
convert to Islam, go through all of the "participation", but then
stand up and say, "You know what? I no longer believe that Allah is
the only God, and I no longer think Muhammad was a prophet" I am an
apostate, and no participation can change that.
|3.21.08 @ 11:23AM|#
I'm a practicing Catholic and I don't have a big problem
with gay marriage and I don't support outlawing abortion. And a lot
of Catholics I know feel the same way.
I believe what makes one a member of the Catholic Church is baptism
and confirmation. Thus anyone who was baptized and believes that
abortion is okay can still rightfully claim to be a Catholic.
However those people are deluding themselves if they believe that
skipping confession and penance, taking communion when not in a
state of grace, and ignoring the Ten Commandments will not
negatively impact their afterlife. If you are ignoring the
teachings of the Church you can't really call yourself a
"practicing" Catholic.
|3.21.08 @ 11:23AM|#
Do you realize how stupid that sounds?
No, I don't. It's obvious that this atheist thinks that you should
choose your worldview and your entire lifecode with more
seriousness than you would, say, a country club.
Furthermore, I don't think I have to take people seriously who say
"yeah, well, I don't agree with the major temporal issues of the
Church, but hey, my friends go there and we got new carillon bells
this year...oh yeah, and this crazy priest, my supposed spirtual
adviser and leader? Yeah, I don't think much of his thoughts
either, but I'll let him lead me."
|3.21.08 @ 11:23AM|#
Lamar,
As far as I can tell most religious adherants (no matter what the
religion is) are not terribly familiar with the ends and outs of
their various beliefs, yet I wouldn't say that they are not
adherants of the religions that they identify. The religious
impulse in humanity isn't really explained by doctrine and doctrine
doesn't seem to be the foundation of religion for most religious
people.
alan|3.21.08 @ 11:26AM|#
I just received this chain e-mail from a cousin on the
honky/baptist side of my family tree. She is a real babe, but not
so bright upstairs:
Remember--God is good, and is in time, on time--every
time.
According to The Book of Revelations the anti-christ is:
The anti-christ will be a man, in his 40s, of MUSLIM descent, who
will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a
MASSIVE Christ-like appeal....the prophecy says that people will
flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and
when he is in power, will destroy everything. Is it OBAMA??
I STRONGLY URGE each one of you to repost this as many times as you
can! Each opportunity that you have to send it to a friend or media
outlet...do it!
If you think I am crazy..Im sorry but I refuse to take a chance on
the "unknown" candidate
The irony here is our late grandmother is infamous for propping her
preacher up against a wall Darth Vader style (she was a pretty
scary woman) and nearly choking him to death in 1960 when he came
by her house to inform her not to vote for JFK because he was an
agent of the pope.
ace|3.21.08 @ 11:26AM|#
Well, if you're going because you want to be with your
family and you don't really care about the doctrines, this would
put you in the category of "people who don't really care about
their religious choice one way or the other".
for smart people like obama, accepting doctrines is never a black
and white issue, no pun intended. in his case, some things repel
him, and if we're to take him at his word, more things attract him.
there's a crucial distinction between a) swallowing your misgivings
and going because deep down you don't give a shit and b) doing a
cost-benefit analysis in your head and deciding that the positives
overwhelm the negatives.
|3.21.08 @ 11:31AM|#
Fluffy: I didn't say doctrine was unimportant. I'm just saying
that it is naive to say that ethnicity, community, and even
administrative law aren't substantial parts of the religious
heritage.
Being an atheist, I have a hard time understanding how anybody can
truly believe that Jesus zapped the world into existence. My biases
lead me to assume that people go to church solely for the
community aspect.
|3.21.08 @ 11:31AM|#
In the big scheme, how important is this? Meh.
But Obama really set himself up for the beating he is getting on
this. His appeal was largely based on a mixture of being the
"post-racial President" and being a "new kind of politician".
Its hard to claim to be post-racial when the man you claim as one
of your mentors and political advisors (to the point of inspiring
the title of your book) is pretty much a racialist nut.
Its hard to claim to be a new kind of politican when the most
benign explanation for your 20 year association with him is that
membership in his church was essential to getting you the street
cred with the black community you needed to get your political
career off the ground.
He's learning that when you put yourself on a pedestal, its easy to
get knocked off.
Fluffy|3.21.08 @ 11:32AM|#
Yet not everyone agrees with that and the question continues
to be asked. Honestly, you are straying into circular reasoning
here as best as I can tell.
Well, no.
It's only appears to be circular reasoning if you want to insist
[as some do, for whatever reason] that the beliefs of these
associations cannot be discretely identified.
I suppose if you are starting a new association with no existing
framework of belief, then the content of that association is
determined from the bottom up - everyone who joins contributes to
the conversation about what that framework will be.
But in the case of the existing Christian sects, there are
pre-existing doctrines that are already in place. If you accept
those doctrines, you are part of the association; if you don't, you
aren't.
If this isn't true, then these religions carry no content at all,
and are nothing more than names, empty vessels that can be filled
with any meaning anyone wants at any particular moment in time. And
that basically makes a whole lot of proper nouns effectively
useless and worthless.
I think it's going a bit far to invalidate the doctrines of all
religions everywhere just because some people want to make their
parents happy and join the Catholic Church even though they
disagree with virtually everything it has to say.
|3.21.08 @ 11:34AM|#
Lamar,
Well, it brings up important questions of where the religious
impulse comes from and I doubt that it comes from doctrine.
|3.21.08 @ 11:37AM|#
Fluffy,
It's only appears to be circular reasoning if you want to
insist [as some do, for whatever reason] that the beliefs of these
associations cannot be discretely identified.
I'm not suggesting that what some think to be the doctrines, etc.
of a religious body cannot be discretely identified; I am
suggesting that the for the vast majority of adherants of any
particular religious body (generally speaking) that they just
aren't the meat of religious belief. Make of that what you
will.
Other Matt|3.21.08 @ 11:39AM|#
Awwww...joe's having a bannder day here...I don't even feel like
commenting other to say that that whole projection thing might be a
goldmine of self improvement for joe.
On Catholics, there's a big difference. Obama chose to go to a
racist church ("Unabashedly black"), fine, but there appears to be
some societal excusabilty for that that a politico that chose to go
to an "Unabashedly white" church would not get. Other than being
racist, I don't know what the specific belief system of the church
is, but it doesn't appear to be widespread.
Catholocism, on the other hand, has a belief system embodied in the
catechism which says "We believe this, if you're with us, you're to
believe this...you don't have to be with us, but if you are, here
it is". People that choose to continue to identify themselves as
"Catholic" when they don't particularly ascribe to that belief
system are at least being dishonest with themselves. While there
are some priests who will refuse people at the alter, I believe the
current church doctrine after Vatican 2 was that anyone that shows
up shall be given communion and god will sort it all out. Not sure
on that, though.
For record purposes, I don't go to church and tend to be more
taoist in my approach to the world than anything.
|3.21.08 @ 11:44AM|#
"Well, it brings up important questions of where the
religious impulse comes from and I doubt that it comes from
doctrine."
Well said. I don't really know where it comes from, but I know
enough about history to know that religious doctrine isn't what
drew people to church for the last 2000 years. Perhaps that started
to change in the reformation, and has accelerated today. People who
shop for churches based on doctrine are probably still in the
minority.
I highly doubt that every single person in a mega-church believes
100% the same thing as the preacher. They go to the mega-church for
the "mega" part, not the "church" part.
|3.21.08 @ 11:49AM|#
Lamar,
Well, to flesh out this point a little more, doctrine seems to be
the capstone for most people when it comes to their religious
belief (or disbelief for that matter).
|3.21.08 @ 11:50AM|#
All this yapping has persuaded me to duck out of the office and head to the noontime Good Friday service at the church next door. My soul thanks you all.
Fortisquince|3.21.08 @ 12:04PM|#
I've read often on this board that libertarians tend to be folks
who base their decisions/associations/politics on adherence to
basic principles such as the noninitiation of force. I've also read
that this is unusual among the general populace. So maybe it's not
so surprising that libertarians have difficulty accepting that
anyone can "belong" to a group they don't actually "believe
in".
snarkily - Just because YOUR club requires adherence to doctrine,
doesn't mean mine has to.
Mike Laursen|3.21.08 @ 12:06PM|#
Just curious. Is Hillary Clinton a member of any congregation? She doesn't seem to be.
|3.21.08 @ 12:10PM|#
All that Heaven and Hell stuff is purported to be more
significant than a preference for "chunky" over "creamy."
As for the Barack and the Preacher Man story, I will say this: I am
less offended or disturbed than I would be if I looked at Google
news and saw three thousand stories on, "Jesse Jackson Obama's
Newest Advisor."
GG|3.21.08 @ 12:14PM|#
Still?
Race relations will never improve as long as we keep talking about
race.
I'm not going to clutch my pearls and fan away the vapors with my
hankie over some pissed off black man's Sunday morning, anti-whitey
pulpit rants. He has every right to be pissed off (the paranoia is
a little much, however).
If true, that would make him the most naïve candidate ever or
the most willfully ignorant.
Barack's association with that church doesn't bother me either. I
believe it was purely political, but yeah, it was god damn stupid
of him. I read Oprah left that church years ago because of Wright's
rhetoric. How did Obama fail to realize this would come
back to bite his fine ass?
Alas. Had they listened to John Brown those many years ago we would
not be in this mess. Miscegenation was the only way to go. Why,
just look at Larry and Loretta! Larry David and the
Blacks are the happiest, most delightful family in the
country.
Seriously though, I'm not voting against Obama because he's black,
or because he attended that crazy church that hates me, or because
Wright is the angry, paranoid, crazy uncle he refuses to
disown.
I'm voting against him because he's a fucking socialist.
|3.21.08 @ 12:17PM|#
Adherence to doctrine is supposed to be a mainstay and a
requirement to belong to a particular church or denomination.
Religion is supposed to be more important than the country club
membership or politics. That doctrinal belief and adherence is what
defines our denominational choice.
Spiritual belief, if one chooses to have such, should be more
important than anything else in our lives. If I am willing to
compromise that in order to please my family, or for growth in my
business, or for political gain than I compromise my very soul.
Nothing should come before God.
|3.21.08 @ 12:21PM|#
"That doctrinal belief and adherence is what defines our
denominational choice."
Or, most people are born into their religion.
|3.21.08 @ 12:26PM|#
Lamar,
Well, since I guess the 1960s the strength of that particular
factor has apparently weakened considerably (at least in the
"West").
|3.21.08 @ 12:30PM|#
Or, most people are born into their religion.
Which doesn't really explain why I'm supposed to give Sen.
Socialist McEmptySuit a pass. He chose the church, chose not to
walk away and is too much of a codependent twit to tell the loony
tune to "Please vacate the premises." If the only way he deals with
the crazies is to venerate them, I don't want him governing.
|3.21.08 @ 12:38PM|#
Is Hillary Clinton a member of any congregation? She doesn't
seem to be.
Au contraire. She is the High Priestess of Hillary the All-Knowing
Savior. Bow down to Hillary!
|3.21.08 @ 12:41PM|#
Ayn_Randian: I can see you're upset by this. Frankly, you lose
me at the point you say, "this isn't what Obama says, but there's
this other guy who's crazy....."
I doubt Obama is ready to lead for a number of reasons. Sitting in
a church while a pastor rants and rambles on isn't one of them.
|3.21.08 @ 12:46PM|#
I'm not voting for him 'cause he's--and I quote--"a fuckin' socialist". As is his current opponent who I am also not voting for. These other issues are just side dishes to the entrée I am not ordering.
|3.21.08 @ 1:08PM|#
Flulffy,
If I went around calling myself a Communist, I'd be a god-damn
idiot.
If you attended the local party meetings every week, marched in the
rallies, read your Marx, tried to win converts, but disagreed with
the party chiefs about whether factories should be owned by local
workers councils vs. the national government, you'd still be a
communist. You'd just be an unorthodox one.
Now, if you believed that the role of the state was to defend
private property, and that Marx was an idiot, you wouldn't be a
communist.
So the question is, is believing that the proper role of government
in a liberal democratic republic is a limited one, which does not
extend into a person's womb, is that more like not believing Jesus
is the Son of God, or more like not believing that the church's
roof should be redone with asphalt shingles instead of a rubber
membrane?
Since it has nothing to do with theology or personal morality, I'd
say the latter.
|3.21.08 @ 1:14PM|#
Randian, Fluffy, since neither of you go to church or believe in a religion, is is possible that you just don't understand the inner lives of those that do?
|3.21.08 @ 1:22PM|#
brotherben, maybe you are right. Maybe everyone SHOULD only
attend churches when they are 100% on board with every single
statement of doctrine promulgated by the clergy. Maybe Galileo
should have stopped going to mass.
But as this thread pretty effectively demonstrates, most people
don't agree with you. Most people feel that there's a little more
wiggle room, room for their own conscience. (What's that you say? A
conscience informed by study and prayer? Sounds familiar.)
So, for that reason, I find it entirely plausible that Obama a)
doesn't actually subscribe to every one of the beliefs of Rev.
Wright, and b) stayed in that church because he got a great deal
out of it anyway.
|3.21.08 @ 1:31PM|#
Agreed Joe.
My personal beliefs would require that Obama or anyone else for
that matter would leave such a situation.
One of the more interesting things to me in all this is seeing
people being critical of Obama for not leaving that are guilty of
similar behaviours. A good example is Hannity being publicly
christian and pro-life but willing to support pro-choice candidates
because they don't scare him like Hillary.
But it is always easier to tell omeone how to live than to show
them how to live.
Other Matt|3.21.08 @ 1:40PM|#
So maybe it's not so surprising that libertarians have
difficulty accepting that anyone can "belong" to a group they don't
actually "believe in".
Putting aside the snarkiness for a minute, my point was that I
don't believe that Obama's church has something that says "this is
what we stand for, and you must pledge allegiance to our stuff to
call yourself a member of the church".
However, Catholic doctorine does exactly that, it says if you're
not in full communion with the church, meaning, you ascribe to the
promulgated beliefs, you can observe the mass but not participate.
The fact that a number of people ignore that doesn't change that
the doctrine is that you cannot call yourself a "Catholic" without
agreeing to the belief system.
There is a lot that gets confused with catholocism also, a lot is
just practice but is not "official", for example the rosary. The
rosary is good to do, but is not mandatory. It's only the
"official" stuff which counts in terms of being in communion, but a
lot of what people have in their head as "Catholic" is the non
official stuff.
To restate: The Catholic Church itself, being a single institution
with a heirarchy (including Roman Catholic, Eastern Rite, etc, all
those that swear allegiance to the pope), proclaims a set of
beliefs that THEY say you must believe in to be a Catholic. To call
yourself a Catholic while not holding those beliefs would be akin
to joe calling himself a well reasoned, logical, caucasion loving
guy. It's ridiculous, no matter what volume you scream it.
A lot of people do ignore what their own church says, and joe is
still here still hating himself and projecting it on us. The world
ain't perfect, but it still doesn't make it "right" and logically
supportable.
|3.21.08 @ 1:43PM|#
Joe, the question is: does God see abortion as murder. If we are
seeking the guidance of a particular group in spiritual matters for
the salvation of our eternal soul, I find it hard to disagree with
them based upon a secular decision on the proper structure of
government.
I must abide by the law of the land allowing for abortion but that
doesn't change the sinfullnes of the act. If I were to disagree
with what I see as a basic foundational principal of my religion
based upon secular law, then I would be forced to question my
faith.
Other Matt|3.21.08 @ 1:59PM|#
If I were to disagree with what I see as a basic
foundational principal of my religion based upon secular law, then
I would be forced to question my faith.
No, you're confusing "faith" with religious doctorine. One is what
you believe. One is what you sign up for. What you would question
is your judgement in calling yourself an "X", whether that be
Baptist, Catholic, Jew, whatever, when you don't believe that
religion. You'd be right to question yourself, and if you find it
irreconcilable, you'd be right to leave.
If you didn't, you'd be hypocritical at least, but most definitely
it wouldn't be an issue of "faith" as an issue of religion. They
are very very different.
|3.21.08 @ 2:03PM|#
Just wondering, Were any of the defenders of Obama here part of the lynch mob that went after Ron Paul for these similar associations?
|3.21.08 @ 2:05PM|#
Randian, Fluffy, since neither of you go to church or
believe in a religion, is is possible that you just don't
understand the inner lives of those that do?
WTF, joe? You're giving me the "It's a woman religious
thang; you wouldn't understand?"
Does that come in a T-Shirt?
Also, joe, if you don't think there isn't a lot of fire and vinegar
involved in "Who and who is not an Objectivist, Randian,
Neo-Objectivist, et. al.", you're sorely mistaken.
Finally, I haven't always been atheist.
is that more like not believing Jesus is the Son of God, or
more like not believing that the church's roof should be redone
with asphalt shingles instead of a rubber membrane?
Wow, joe, what a snooty denigration of the Pope's worldview on the
subject. "Excuse me, Your Holiness, but I believe that your ardent
pro-life stance is akin to decorating ideas!"
Like Fluffy said before, you're attempting to void the definition
of "Catholic" because you don't like all that it entails.
|3.21.08 @ 2:09PM|#
Other Matt,
if i'm seeking navigation for my eternal soul, it would seem of
utmost importance to find a churh where the religion is based on
the same tenets as my faith. If my church's doctrine varies from my
faithful beliefs, it is the wrong church. If my faith allows me to
ignore or repudiate doctrine because of political beliefs, than my
faith is weak.
|3.21.08 @ 2:13PM|#
That being said, I would have to question Obama's willingness to
seek spiritual guidance that affects the condition of his soul from
a man whose life views he has serious reservations with.
Any time religion is used as a political tool, it backfires. I give
you, George W. Bush, a religious poltical tool
|3.21.08 @ 2:14PM|#
If you're seeking navigation for your eternal soul, why would you storm out based on the pastor's politics? Wouldn't you overlook his political idiocies if it meant you were prepared for glory?
|3.21.08 @ 2:23PM|#
Lamar,
The short answer is his political idiocies have no place in the
pulpit. If he is that much of a dumbass about the easy things, how
can he possibly understand the difficult.?
|3.21.08 @ 2:27PM|#
Anyway, it is pretty clear that for most people the lived religious experience has has far less to do with doctrine than other matters and that those religious people who do focus on doctrine are a minority of adherants. Some people may view this as hypocritical but I just think it is an important aspect of the general sociology and psychology of religion.
deron|3.21.08 @ 2:28PM|#
Who here wants consistency between the President and the words
coming out of the pulpit?
By the test suggested the only person able to run would be an
atheist, which doesn't appear likely in the US.
|3.21.08 @ 2:37PM|#
Calidore, I agree with your assessment of peoples adherence to
doctrine. Not so much with that being important. I think it more a
harm than a good.
deron,
an athiest president is fine by me. IMHO a christian has more
important things to do.
|3.21.08 @ 2:46PM|#
By the test suggested the only person able to run would be
an atheist, which doesn't appear likely in the US.
No one said anything about a test. Most of us are just (slightly)
concerned that a nice guy didn't have the testicular fortitude to
cut a lunatic out of his life. And, to add to it, called him a
spiritual and social influence.
Jeepers.
Other Matt|3.21.08 @ 2:57PM|#
If my church's doctrine varies from my faithful beliefs, it
is the wrong church. If my faith allows me to ignore or repudiate
doctrine because of political beliefs, than my faith is
weak.
True. So, what you'd question is not your faith, but the church,
and you'd leave.
deron|3.21.08 @ 3:05PM|#
I have no issue with an athiest either, but American's seem very
inclined towards religious babble with little religious action.
Given the wide range of what can be called faith, I take comfort in
this inconsistency.
It's as if we've all read "The Prince" and come to the doctrinal
conclusion that not only was Machiavelli correct, but that his
descriptions must remain immutable with regards to the ruler and
faith.
Fluffy|3.21.08 @ 3:38PM|#
Most of us are just (slightly) concerned that a nice guy
didn't have the testicular fortitude to cut a lunatic out of his
life.
Come on, dude - a lunatic?
The guy has non-mainstream political opinions, but the only "crazy"
[as opposed to "extreme"] thing I've heard is the "AIDS was
invented by the government" thing. And the Tuskegee experiment
really makes it hard for me to describe someone who thinks that as
insane.
I would think that someone who calls themselves "Ayn Randian" would
tread lightly about calling people lunatics based on their
political opinions.
Absolutely nothing Wright had to say is remotely as crazy as
believing that angels intervene in human affairs, or that Jesus
will help you win a high school football game - but if this
preacher talked about angels or prayed on the sidelines of a game,
no one would blink an eye.
|3.21.08 @ 3:48PM|#
Doesn't this support the theory that Reagan was a fuckin'
genius? He wasn't a member of any church, still got the religious
right to drool at the mention of his name, and avoided the slings
and arrows that plague a candidate of any religious
denomination.
Kerry caught it for being a pro-choice Catholic. Romney caught it
for being a Mormon. That ignorant hillbilly whackjob preacher got
it for being an ignorant hillbilly whackjob preacher.
Reagan finessed the whole superstition relgion thing.
Pure political genius.
|3.21.08 @ 3:57PM|#
I think things are a bit different now than in reagan's time. The moral majority developed into christian supremacy and the contract on america.Those that didn't subscribe to it developed a much keener sense of whack job detection.
|3.21.08 @ 3:59PM|#
It is much easier now to convince people that different is scary and wrong. Not everyone is as open minded as me ya know?
Mad Max|3.21.08 @ 4:18PM|#
I can honestly say that the Rev. Wright thing hasn't made me any less likely to vote for Sen. Obama.
|3.21.08 @ 5:19PM|#
It is much easier now to convince people that different is
scary and wrong. Not everyone is as open minded as me ya
know?
I am extremely open minded as well. Those that aren't should be
rounded up, imprisoned and re-educated.
|3.21.08 @ 5:38PM|#
J sub D, as long as they are re-educated to see things my way, I am good with that.
|3.21.08 @ 10:53PM|#
Come on, dude - a lunatic?
You have to remember, Fluff, Other Matt has race issues. We're
talking about somebody who uses the "you hate white people" charge
against people who are too anti-racist for his taste. This is
somebody way out on the fringe.
Reverend Wright scares the holy fertilizer out of him.
|3.22.08 @ 2:44AM|#
Fluffy - what should I call someone who is a mix of ridiculous
religious fervor and paranoia? A wild-eyed sane man or
something?
Reverend Wright should be holding a cardboard sign on the street
corner, not hustling fear, loathing and mythology to Chicago's
poor.
Fuck him.
|3.22.08 @ 11:49AM|#
You have seen 28 seconds of video, Randian.
Don't be a dupe your whole life. The sermons are available on You
Tube.
You've been lied to.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245