"I am not suggesting that every progressive suddenly latch on to religious terminology - that can be dangerous. Nothing is more transparent than inauthentic expressions of faith. We don't need that." -Barack Obama

http://www.getreligion.org/wp-content/photos/Obama_01.jpg

I am more interested in the timing. Did his campaign think the Florida Michigan focus would take away from this or vice versa? He should join McCains church now and take the wind out of the right wing atack machines sails...

The problem was making a big deal about religion in the first place. It looks bad if he stays and it looks bad if he leaves. It's a problem of his own making it seems to me, he chose to make religion an important part of his campaign

But this is, of course, completely false. Obama isn't having problems because of religion - he's having problems because of a religious figure engaging in inflammatory political speech.

None of the comments that came from these troublemakers were missives from a higher power, or spoke of the 'chosen people', et cetera. They could just as easily have been said by any militant pro-black leader. Frankly the comments are incredibly similar to the stuff that woman leading the "the Democrats are sexist because Hillary is going to lose" protest was saying.

So it's not about religion at all.

It's also a bit strange that you seem to have this reaction to anybody 'making their religion an issue', yet of course you make your lack of religion an issue. It's natural for people to discuss and unify/dissent based on their core beliefs. Religion, or the lack thereof, is a core belief.

And I also have to mention that I've heard very little outrage from left-wing people over the comments made by Obama's friends, except for the standard "oh Conservatives is making too big a deal about this". This is because all these guys are saying is stuff left-wing commentators, particularly pro-black leaders, have been saying for years.

Sooo, this clip goes more with the Ickes clip, no?

I don't know what to say about the timing of Obama's disassociation from his church, but here's what he himself said:

from this: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/us/politics/01obama.html?th&emc=th

“I make this decision with sadness,” said Mr. Obama, speaking in subdued tones as he stood before a bland background. “This is where I found Jesus Christ, where we were married, where our children were baptized. We are proud of the extraordinary works of that church.” Mr. Obama rejected suggestions that he denounce the church, which is one of Chicago’s largest and most socially active black churches, with a wide array of respected social programs. Several of the most prominent black theologians in Chicago attend the church. “I’m not denouncing the church, and I’m not interested in people who want me to denounce the church,” he said in response to a question. “It’s not a church worthy of denouncing.” Mr. Obama said that his resignation was not a matter of political convenience, but rather that he had reached the point where neither he nor Trinity’s pastors and congregants could worship in peace. He noted that reporters now pored over sermons and that some had called sick members at home to ask about the church. “I suspect if you were in my shoes, it seems plausible at least that you wouldn’t want your church experience to be a political circus,” Mr. Obama said. “I think most Americans will understand that.” ... Mr. Obama said he and his wife would search for a new church but probably would not make a decision until after the election in November. He acknowledged that the search would be a tricky business, not least because African-American pastors often pride themselves on speaking with a clear “prophetic voice” about social and racial injustices. Their aim is not to force parishioners to agree with every word, they say, but to spark thought. ... [and] Now that Mr. Obama has addressed his ties to the church and pastor in a long speech and fully broken with both, it is not clear what else he can say or do to ameliorate the continued concerns of some voters about those associations.

I also see why Obama needs to play to the religious contingent. I would prefer he had not done it so much, but there are a number of liberal religious folk. Thinking politically/socially, Jesus of Nazareth was a fairly progressive dude. And so it goes.

oops; my bad. The link takes you to what became NYT article content. Still, the clip you provide, it goes down a bit, no?

As time goes by, and the more and more that I learn about both Hillary and Barack, the better McCain looks.

Get used to saying it. President John McCain.

As time goes by, and the more and more that I learn about both Hillary and Barack, the better McCain looks.

McCain has the advantage of staying out of the media, at least compared to the other two. The less is known about him, the more tempting he looks when things get nasty on the Democratic side.

At any rate, I assume you're joking. Which particular bit of McCain appeals to you? His non-existent economic and health care policies? (Unless 'cut taxes and let the market work it's magic' is a policy). His violation of election rules to keep his campaign afloat? How about the preacher endorsements, one from someone who thinks it's the "historic mission" of the U.S. to "destroy" Islam, and the other who thinks we need to support Israel to precipitate the 'last days'? How about staying in Iraq indefinitely? Or his reversing himself on the Bush tax cuts, torture, and illegal surveillance?

As I said, the less is known about McCain, the better things will be for him. He's a mediocrity without any real policies, aside from some plainly injudicious ones. His greatest boon is this ridiculous circus that the Democratic party has become.

At any rate, I assume you're joking' '

Yes, of course I'm joking (On my behalf). (You know me all too well ;) )

But looking at this through the eyes of the majority of voters in the U.S. I can see that John McCain looks better and better every day as compared to either HIllary Clinton or Barack Obama.

Norm,

Most of the problems Obama has had with Wright and now this Catholic goofball would have surfaced even if Obama had not put religion into his campaign. Right-wing diggers of dirt would have uncovered tapes of Wright anyway. Wright would have been criticized anyway, and I see no reason to think that it wouldn't have played out just the same.

Much I hate to agree with calligraph, on one point I have to: all the problems that McCain and Obama (and Clinton too, if Obama had elected to go after her that way) have to do with these guys stems from their behavior. Obama's fairly innocuous religious references are totally mainstream and he is a proponent of religion-state separation.

Sure, Obama has been in Wright's church for twenty years, and in those twenty years Wright has said some objectionable stuff - and I agree that the media has decided that Obama's 20-year relationship is the more negative connection. But I don't see it that way - I suspect that Obama saw Wright achieving some positive things in some mean neighborhoods or therefore overlooked Wright's negatives. It's seems like a what I, and most of us do, in order to get by in the world - overlook crazy aspects of people. The glassblower in my department is a political loon who plays Limbaugh 24/7 at high volume - people let it slide because they need glass blown. Hagee and Parsley were cynical alliances - I doubt that McCain is even particularly religious. McCain overlooked their stink because to kiss up to the religious right - he's the one who invited in the problems. Of course, I don't expect the media to agree with me.

Does anyone now believe that Baracks overt religiosity is a good thing?

Nope, I think it's a bad thing.

But I also think Hillary would fellate Jesus, God, and/or Satan on live TV in order to win this election — and I think some of her supporters would think it an acceptable campaign strategy.

So nope, I think it's bad. But not as bad as the alternative.

Now, could we please stop shitting on Obama?

Well, I'll be damned, calligraph, you can articulate reasonably coherently while avoiding ad hominem attacks and stereotyping at the same time!

Perhaps the time you have spent in this veritable viper's pit of lying, liberal fascists, or else some other factor, has instilled in you a recognition of the need for civility in public discourse...but I'm guessing that's a bit much to hope for in the long run. In any case, it's nice in this instance to be able to read an entire post by you without getting the sense that it was written by a homunculus instead of a homo sapiens. Here's hoping this becomes a trend.

On to the matter at hand:

When will they ever learn, John McCain has had to dissassociate himself from Hagee and Parsley and Barack from Wright and now this new guest pastor at his Church.

Yes, that's true. But while I'm not thrilled about the behavior of Wright or Pfleger (the latter being far more offensive, in my view), their ill-considered remarks aren't nearly as noxious as those of Hagee and Parsley.

If [Obama] hadn't made such a big deal about his belief in the first place he wouldn't have been in this position.

Again, true enough, as far as it goes. However, if he really is genuine about his faith, he really had little choice about the matter. Hypocrisy would have been to choose political expedience over principled conduct, not the other way around. And I, for one, don't see much inconsistency between Obama's expressed beliefs and his behavior.

The problem for Barack is that this was his Church for twenty years and so it seems to me that this will be more of a problem for him than McCain's problems with his Christian nutjobs.

It depends on how they each handle it. One can just as easily point to McCain's inconsistency and his willingness to violate his own stated beliefs just to get votes. Obama can make the argument that he has stuck to his principles (which is different from sticking to his church), whereas McCain has played both sides of the fence according to the convenience of the moment.

I understand the need to claim to be religious, but it seems to me that the way to do that his pick some unassailable mainstream church, a church that the media and other groups will find difficult to attack.

The problem with this idea is, his political identity was established and grew largely through his affiliation with Trinity and its activist base: a church of the (self-described) disenfranchised & dispossessed. Unassailable mainstream churches, on the other hand, are typically not filled with people who are easily moved to activism. That's part of why we ended up with Bush: evangelists are, by definition, activists, while "comfort Christians" are not.

As for calligraph's input,

Obama isn't having problems because of religion - he's having problems because of a religious figure engaging in inflammatory political speech. [...] So it's not about religion at all.

From a secular and even legal standpoint, I'd have to say you're right (even though it makes me feel a bit icky to do so), but for the devoutly religious, faith encompasses everything, including politics. So from that standpoint every issue is a subset of religion. And, after all, if religion is basically about "right behavior" (a.k.a. ethical conduct), then it becomes very difficult to argue otherwise.

The distinction between Obama and McCain is that Obama's woes are not because of religious beliefs. It's because of the political beliefs of his church. They aren't predicting the second coming, they are spreading radical leftist dogma.

It's too bad he thought it was a good idea to wear his religion on his sleeve.

Even if he had never said a word, Clinton's researchers still would have found the tapes of his church and paid some poor slob to watch them all.

This will have no effect on the primary, he will be the nominee

If this is what you believe isn't it time to start getting behind the man? Although I may not have agreed with the views of his pastor, I also wasn't offended by what he said, at least not nearly as much as by what I hear coming from the mouths of a lot of high-profile, conservative Christian leaders. Do I need to give examples? Obama is being swift-boated and you are helping to float the boat by harping on this non-fucking issue. What is worse: a few radical words by a powerless black preacher in Chicago or a Republican administration engaging the country in a hopeless, endless war under false pretenses? Or choose any other failed policy Bush has carried out these past 7 years. Running on the issues, the Republicans don't have a chance so they need to run on these non-issues.

And I also have to mention that I've heard very little outrage from left-wing people over the comments made by Obama's friends

I'd say the same thing about the utterances of all the right-wing nut-job preachers and the silence of their followers on the right. Instead of outrage, they are invited to the White House for prayer breakfasts.

Hilary is not going to win the nomination; she and her followers need to accept that and move on for the good of the party.

Running on the issues, the Republicans don't have a chance so they need to run on these non-issues.

Exactly.

Line 'em up: Energy, Economy, Interest payments on Debt, Iraq - and foreign policy generally, infrastructure investment, Education, college costs, Health Care, ...

Over the past twenty-eight years, economic growth has almost entirely benefitted the wealthiest Americans - and practically the only only years when that wasn't true were during a Democratic administration. The past eight years have been the worst for people at the bottom, and for people at the middle.

Why discuss pastors? This is bullshit that will have zero effect on the lives of 99.99999% of Americans. By ceaselessly echoing this crap you're furthering the GOP nonagenda.

Line 'em up: Energy, Economy, Interest payments on Debt, Iraq - and foreign policy generally, infrastructure investment, Education, college costs, Health Care.

Hang on, wait - what's the Democrat magic bullet for all these problems, again?

Oh yeah. 'Change'. Sorry, I forgot. Change solves everything.

Why discuss pastors? This is bullshit that will have zero effect on the lives of 99.99999% of Americans.

Nobody is actually discussing pastors. They are discussing the inflammatory rhetoric of people that the candidates have openly stated were very influential in their lives.

You can say it means nothing, but if you found out a white candidate was attending KKK rallies you'd be justifiably upset. A black candidate attending sermons given by a rabidly anti-white pastor ... that is troubling.

That said I don't think Obama is a militant black man. He's too successful. I think he aligns himself somewhat with the militant black cause just to win votes and support. But the things his religious leader said are pretty ridiculous and inflammatory:

"The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a form of genocide against black people"

"Black people should not say 'God bless America' but 'God damn America'"

As I've said before, a lot of what he said doesn't tick off liberals b/c they believe it too. Like the whole thing about how 9/11 was justified because we nuked Hiroshima. Guess all we have to do is start a war for world domination with two other ruthless Axis powers and everybody will pity us.

Well, well, the homunculus returns. Calligraph, I knew you couldn't keep your head out of the troll trough for long.

A black candidate attending sermons given by a rabidly anti-white pastor ... that is troubling.

It would be, if it were true.

(a) Wright is not anti-white.

(b) Pfleger isn't either - he's anti-entitlement - and Obama didn't attend his sermons.

[T]he things [Obama's] religious leader said are pretty ridiculous and inflammatory:

[...]

"Black people should not say 'God bless America' but 'God damn America'"

Now you're just making shit up. Wright

(a) is not his religious leader.

(b) never said that.

[A] lot of what he said doesn't tick off liberals b/c they believe it too. Like the whole thing about how 9/11 was justified because we nuked Hiroshima.

What "whole thing about..."?

Your MO seems to be, pull a wad of shit out of your ass, play with it until it resembles something passingly recognizable, then triumphantly hold up the glistening mass as support for your misanthropic worldview.

Grow up, little man-child.

doesn't tick off liberals b/c they believe it too.

I think you are doing too much mind reading there cal.

Some fringe people might believe some of this, but liberals over all do not.

I would say I disagree with all the remarks but they don't anger me because because to some extent they are made by people somehow wronged by American society. So I am just disappointed.

Its so odd to here a republican scolding anyone for not trusting the government.

Right wing conspiracy theories abound and are often more absurd.

BTW....

if you found out a white candidate was attending KKK rallies you'd be justifiably upset.

It's a bit of a stretch to relate Wrights remarks to a KKK rally.

On the other hand, this is a pretty good imitation.

In his sermon, "The Final Dictator," Hagee described the Antichrist as a seductive figure with "fierce features." He will be "a blasphemer and a homosexual," the pastor announced. Then, Hagee boomed, "There's a phrase in Scripture used solely to identify the Jewish people. It suggests that this man [the Antichrist] is at least going to be partially Jewish, as was Adolph Hitler, as was Karl Marx."

Wright is not anti-white.

Really? Maybe you should tell him. Quotes attributed to Jeremy Wright:

"(America) believes in white supremacy and black inferiority and believes it more than it believes in God."
"(America is guilty of) starting the AIDS virus to kill off Black people, training professional killers, importing drugs and creating a racist society that would never elect a black candidate president." (and I love how people keep saying this when a black guy is running away with the election).

And these are just the results of a two-minute search.

Now you're just making shit up. Wright (a) is not his religious leader. (b) never said that.

Obama attended his church for 20 years, and called him his 'spiritual adviser'. And I'm not going to argue with you about whether or not he said it. He says it in a video you can watch on YouTube and it is cited all across the Internet.

Some fringe people might believe some of this, but liberals over all do not.

I don't know how true that is. Guess it depends how much faith you put in polls, like the one that said a large percentage of the US actually believes 9/11 was a conspiracy. Something like 1 in 5 black people polled said they believed AIDS was created by white America to destroy the black man.

I'm willing to accept that rational people don't believe this - because they are irrational beliefs - but rational people don't blindly follow one political ideology.

It's a bit of a stretch to relate Wrights remarks to a KKK rally.

It's always a stretch when it comes to recognizing the sexism and racism spoken by a woman or a minority, but we can just free associate with white men. It's a rather tiresome double-standard.

"Nothing is more transparent than inauthentic expressions of faith.

The problem was making a big deal about religion in the first place. It looks bad if he stays and it looks bad if he leaves. It's a problem of his own making it seems to me, he chose to make religion an important part of his campaign and now he is reaping what he has sown."

This argument strikes me as somewhat like Karl Rove blaming Kerry for the Swift Boat lies. Kerry brought up his military service and made a point of it. That's not an excuse to lie about the record. Nothing that Obama has said in his campaign about religion gives anyone any more justification to be worried about Wright than they had previously. He didn't have to bring up religion for people to notice that he has a long a serious committment to his church.

It's a bit of a stretch to relate Wright's remarks to a KKK rally.

It's always a stretch when it comes to recognizing the sexism and racism spoken by a woman or a minority, but we can just free associate with white men.

The Klan went further than speaking racism - they lynched and bombed people. Unless you know more about Jeremiah Wright's church than the rest of us - it is more than a bit of a stretch - it's a huge stretch. Wright says crazy, paranoid things - no question about it. But I've seen sweeping generalizations and crazy reactions to perceived slights from a participant on OGM that reflect wild paranoia too:

Liberals hate the military...

In response to an Air Force recruiting billboard defaced with the words "End the Occupation Now":

Yes, it's good that you can cheer outright treason like that.

These don't make you comparable to a KKK member, just a run-of-the-mill nutjob.

but we can just free associate with white men. It's a rather tiresome double-standard.

Ahhh the white man's burden. Very few of wrights comments were directed at white males.

But to call oppressed bigoted for calling out the evils of their oppressors is an absurdity.

Here is the difference between people who feel that this Wright thing is an issue and the rest of us: you are outraged over the words of a powerless black preacher whose name wouldn't mean a damn thing to anyone if he wasn't associated with Obama. We feel outrage because Bush has dragged America into a long, bloody, expensive, and un-winnable war that has wrecked our standing in the world, destroyed our economy, caused crude prices to skyrocket, and divided the nation.

calligraph, the quote you cherrypicked was unsourced, and contained what appear to be interpretive edits ("America" and "America is guilty of"). It completely failed to make your case that Wright is anti-white.

I missed the part where Wright said anything like "Down with white people!" or even, "White people believe in...". You see, to be anti-white, he actually has to express anti-white sentiments or perform anti-white actions. It's kind of an A = A tautology.

On the other hand, Wright HAS said:

Reconciliation means we embrace our individual rich histories, all of them. We retain who we are as persons of different cultures, while acknowledging that those of other cultures are not superior or inferior to us. They are just different from us.

John 3:16, Jesus said it much better than I could ever say it, “for God so loved the world.” World is white, black, Iraqi, Darfurian, Sudanese, Zulu, Coschia (ph). God loves all of God’s children, because all of God’s children are made in God’s image.

We have members of other races in our church. We have Hispanics. We have Caribbean. We have South Americans. We have whites. [P]lease understand the United Church of Christ is a predominantly white demonstration.

My source? Fox News.

I could go on, and on, and on. I, and others, could bury you with information that demonstrates irrefutably how wrong you are. But in your case it would fall, as always, on deaf ears, because you have already made up your mind and closed your accounts with reality.

calligraph, your mind is open like a vomiting drunk's mouth.

Tell it to the porcelain.