Obama quits Chicago church after long controversy

[Gokul43201]

I don't think he shares wrights opinion on race.

This is what arildno asserted, I objected to, and you appeared to be agreeing with him on.

But come on, it took him 20 years to finally distance himself. I got to roll my eyes on that one. He only distanced himself after those clips made the light of day, or he would STILL be in that church.

I rolled my eyes too, but that isn't what I refuted arildno about.

 

[Cyrus]

This is what arildno asserted, I objected to, and you appeared to be agreeing with him on.

I rolled my eyes too, but that isn't what I refuted arildno about.

But I think there is some truth to what arildno said though. I mean, if your sticking around for 20 years, you are agreeing with SOME of what wright said.

 

[Gokul43201]

But I think there is some truth to what arildno said though. I mean, if your sticking around for 20 years, you are agreeing with SOME of what wright said.

Yes, but he can agree with 90% of what Wright had preached and still disagree with all the things the appeared on 2 minutes worth of youtube video! Do you know what else Wright preached? Have you read the Audacity to Hope sermon? After all, we know that sermon was important to Obama. Obama must have sat through over a hundred hours of sermons - there can be a whole lot of stuff in there that he agreed with that wasn't fun enough for Fox.

 

[TVP45]

There is a stream of Christian thought (James Cone is perhaps the best known, but not the most articulate, proponent) which believes that followers of Christ must accept marginalization and must seek opportunities to stand against the ruling hegemony. Father Pflegger, though obviously "chewing the rug", was preaching squarely in that tradition. One can find the same sort of "drama queen" performances and inflammatory words in Amos, Jeremiah, Mark, and Revelations among others. This is what prophetic Christianity looks like and it ain't always pretty, but the man is confrontational, not nuts. And, he was playing to his audience, who loved it.

 

[Astronuc]

No, I agree with arildno here. For 20 years the man was a part of this chruch. This is def not something new to him. To be 'outraged' so late at the game is just BS. I am sure he knew exactly what was said in that chruch when the spotlight wasnt on him, and he ate it up. If he's going to claim its suddenly not in line with his views, what did he do there for 20 years, sleep through the sermons?

One can be a member of a church, but not attend Sunday services on a regular basis, or even not at all. It is not clear or evident what Obama heard or didn't hear, or with what he agreed or doesn't agree.

The pastor is not the church, but rather the church is the community or congregation, and it is up to the congregation or officials of the church to hire or remove a pastor, depending on the contract. I can't comment beyond that since I don't know the specifics of Trinity's structure or the relationship with Wright.

What I heard from Pfleger is troubling, because it is so negative and over-the-top ('rape' was used metaphorically for injustice, which is in contrast to Obama's positive message. But what I heard from Pfleger is consistent with what I have heard from some African Americans, and the fact that 'white folk' just don't get it - and IMO - most don't. America is still - for the most part - segregated! I see that everyday myself when I walk around town where I work, or visit any metropolitan area in the US.

If Wright suggests that African-Americans need to do more for themselves, i.e. empower themselves, then I think Obama would agree, and rightly so, but if Wright believes that the US or more controversially, that white America owes blacks some special compensation or reparation, then I think Obama would strongly disagree.

Like Gokul, I would caution people about making factual claims without any evidence or based on hearsay and innuendo.

 

[Cyrus]

One can be a member of a church, but not attend Sunday services on a regular basis, or even not at all.

That really does not make any sense though. How can one say they are a member of a church the never go to!

 

[Astronuc]

That really does not make any sense though. How can one say they are a member of a church the never go to!

One could meet the minimum requirements of membership in a church, e.g. register as a member and provide a tithe or some other financial support, and then perhaps only attend on holidays or special occasions. I know many people who do exactly that. The church my family attended, when I was a kid, would have a few hundred in any typical Sunday service, but at Easter or Christmas, over 3000 would attend.

Besides the Sunday service, there are often religious education programs for children, youth, and adults, in which one could do instead of or inaddition to the service.

People go to church to enjoy the socialization and interact with friends.

In the past, I have taught 'Sunday School' rather than attend the Sunday service, but what I taught was essentially 'comparative religion' (classes covered many perspectives including atheism, agnosticsim, humanism, as well as all major and minor religions) and 'principles of morals and ethics'.

 

[lisab]

That really does not make any sense though. How can one say they are a member of a church the never go to!

Oh, that happens all the time. Many Christians go to church only on Christmas and Easter.

 

[Cyrus]

Well, as an athiest, at least its good to know people ant going to church!

 

[TR345]

I have a few problems with Obama. First of all, there is no knowing who he is because he will act, say, or sign up for anything that will make him look good and advance his career. Who knows if he ever really was religious in the first place. He probably joined the church to help his career, now he quits to help it. Who is Obama really besides the person he thinks his voters want him to be. I would like him to stand up for what he really believes in, but how can he do hat if he has been living lies for 20 years?

 

[Gokul43201]

First of all, there is no knowing who he is because he will act, say, or sign up for anything that will make him look good and advance his career.

Are you saying he has no principles whatsoever?

Will being a good President make him look good and advance his career?

 

[TR345]

Yeah maybe, but what does he want out of it, money? Maybe he wants to get payback on whites? Who knows what he wants out of the deal?

 

[TR345]

It is ironic because his opponent because McCain doesn't act he just says whatever he feels, or wants and doesn't give a blank what you think. At the same time, Bush was kind of the same way. He knew we knew they were screwing us, and they knew we knew that was the reason for the smirky grins. McCain will be the same, he tells it like it is, it is just too bad that how it is, is so messed up.

 

[Gokul43201]

Wait a minute...Obama is all deception, and McCain is a straight talker? I think you are living 8 years in the past. You've got some catching up to do.

Anyway, this is not the thread for this discussion.

 

[TR345]

Are you saying he has no principles whatsoever?

I think he is smart, so that is better than nothing, but as to his morals beliefs and positions on the issues, I have no reason to believe anything other than pandering.

 

[Evo]

Pfleger also has made contributions to Obama (D-Ill.), and his church programs have received thousands of dollars in state earmarks championed by Obama when he was a state lawmaker.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/30/chicago_cardinal_criticizes_re.html?hpid=topnews

While these two actions "alone" wouldn't raise eyebrows. I want to see how many churches Obama earmarked money for that never contributed to him. I want to see that for all candidates. I think that will be a "real" teller of what kind of politicians we are dealing with.

Statement of Cardinal Francis George concerning remarks of
Fr. Michael Pfleger about Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton during
an address at Trinity United Church of Christ on Sunday May 25, 2008

The Catholic Church does not endorse political candidates. Consequently, while a priest must speak to political issues that are also moral, he may not endorse candidates nor engage in partisan campaigning.

Racial issues are both political and moral and are also highly charged. Words can be differently interpreted, but Fr. Pfleger’s remarks about Senator Clinton are both partisan and amount to a personal attack. I regret that deeply.

To avoid months of turmoil in the church, Fr. Pfleger has promised me that he will not enter into campaigning, will not publicly mention any candidate by name and will abide by the discipline common to all Catholic priests.

http://www.archdiocese-chgo.org/

 

[TR345]

Wait a minute...Obama is all deception, and McCain is a straight talker? I think you are living 8 years in the past. You've got some catching up to do.

Anyway, this is not the thread for this discussion.

Also, you are putting words into my mouth which is a deception. I only said that I have no reason to believe that he is all deception, but he is without doubt at least part deception. When he acts as though he didn't know anything about the church he has gone to for 20 years. It is kind of insulting to our intelligence to play us for fools like that.

Is it not obvious where McCain stands and who he is?

 

[Gokul43201]

Also, you are putting words into my mouth which is a deception.

I put no words in your mouth. I asked you a question. Note the question mark.

Is it not obvious where McCain stands and who he is?

It used to be that way a decade ago. Today, not in the least bit.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI&feature=related


The McCain you've known exists no more!

PS: Speaking of pandering, we all know which of the three candidates refused the opportunity to engage in some real political season pandering when it came to the idiocy now known as the gas tax holiday.

 

[TR345]

Let me get one thing clear first before I continue, I am not for McCain. I respect McCain in some ways for his open personality. However, it is my belief that McCain is running to be the new "Bush". I don't think it really matters who McCain is anyways because he is running to be the next puppet of certain other powerful people who's practices are in my opinion dishonest, manipulative, abusive to our country, using the white house and the power of the government for personal and corporate benefit etc.

Obama is different because I don't trust his personality, but I at least he probably isn't working for the same people Bush was. That doesn't go to say that there are not others behind the scenes hoping to benefit from his election through means I don't agree with.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

If you know anything about how the US economy was basically built on the backs of black slaves, and the things that happened to them throughout history, its really not all that absurd. In THEORY, yes they should get something. Maybe not money, but edcuation, opportunity, I don't know. But I wouldn't start handing them out cash.

Its pretty convient for us, as white people, to say 'oh you don't get anything', meanwhile we got plenty from their slavery.

Well, perhaps other options might be considered, but we already have acted to help correct inequities in the system; for example through affirmative action, forced bussing, and a slew of civil rights laws.

Bill Cosby and his "give us cash" program were too much to believe. To me, asking for reparations for injustices that occurred at least 150 years ago is completely bogus. In the case of Japanese who were imprisoned in WWII, we were paying to the survivors or their immediate family. But saying that in effect I am liable for actions of people that lived 200 years ago is going too far.

 

[Evo]

Well, perhaps other options might be considered, but we already have acted to help correct inequities in the system; for example through affirmative action, forced bussing, and a slew of civil rights laws.

Bill Cosby and his "give us cash" program were too much to believe. To me, asking for reparations for injustices that occurred at least 150 years ago is completely bogus. In the case of Japanese who were imprisoned in WWII, we were paying to the survivors or their immediate family. But saying that in effect I am liable for actions of people that lived 200 years ago is going too far.

What have we done to repay the American Indians? We stole their lands, killed off many of them, then stuck the survivors on small reservations away from the rest of us "civilised" people.

All through history people have been enslaved and there was never any recompense. It's very likley that every white person here at anyone time in history had familiy members that were caught in battle and enslaved.

 

[drankin]

What have we done to repay the American Indians? We stole their lands, killed off many of them, then stuck the survivors on small reservations away from the rest of us "civilised" people.

All through history people have been enslaved and there was never any recompense. It's very likley that every white person here at anyone time in history had familiy members that were caught in battle and enslaved.

Sure, we came in and took America. That's how everything worked back then. If you were powerful, you conquered to advance your empire.

The Indian people are very much American now. And they get a lot of recompense. Many reservations have taken advantage of the special rights they have and are very wealthy.

The Alaskan natives, were given special corporations to run. http://www.ciri.com/" is a good example. I believe there were 13 originally, some didn't prosper but some did. My two kids are part of CIRI. They have free medical, dental, and secondary education (if they take advantage of it).

So, Evo, you could be guilty of my recent infraction. There was, in fact, recompense.

Here is some good general info on the Alaskan corporations that were formed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Native_Regional_Corporations"

 

[Cyrus]

Sure, we came in and took America. That's how everything worked back then. If you were powerful, you conquered to advance your empire.

The Indian people are very much American now. And they get a lot of recompense. Many reservations have taken advantage of the special rights they have and are very wealthy.

The Alaskan natives, were given special corporations to run. http://www.ciri.com/" is a good example. I believe there were 13 originally, some didn't prosper but some did. My two kids are part of CIRI. They have free medical, dental, and secondary education (if they take advantage of it).

So, Evo, you could be guilty of my recent infraction. There was, in fact, recompense.

Here is some good general info on the Alaskan corporations that were formed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Native_Regional_Corporations"

You're kidding, right? Native americans have one of the highest alcohol/suicide rates of any minority in the USA.

 

[Cyrus]

Well, perhaps other options might be considered, but we already have acted to help correct inequities in the system; for example through affirmative action, forced bussing, and a slew of civil rights laws.

Bill Cosby and his "give us cash" program were too much to believe. To me, asking for reparations for injustices that occurred at least 150 years ago is completely bogus. In the case of Japanese who were imprisoned in WWII, we were paying to the survivors or their immediate family. But saying that in effect I am liable for actions of people that lived 200 years ago is going too far.

Crazy as it sounds, the entire town used to get together and have a party when they were going to lynch somone. After they killed the guy, people took home body parts and put it in jars to show it off to people.

Owning up to what happened in the past 200 years ago going to far?

mmmmmmmmmmmm...I donno.

The things done were so bad that, you kinda do have to own up to them. How, I am not sure.

For startes, Katrina is one example where black people were yet again royally screwed.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm not opposed to owning up to historical facts, but in fact I didn't do anything. Nor did I profit from the slaves on Southern Plantations. My great-grandfather came here from Finland and homesteaded in South Dakota after he pretty much walked there from New York. That was after slavery was abolished. Now, I probably have a few distant family members who killed a few native Americans, but I doubt that my great-grandfather ever saw a black man [less while he was traveling from New York]. My family survived by doing their own manual labor. By chance it was discovered that the Black Hills had gold, but unfortunately none of that came my way.

But don't even get me started on Katrina. That was a disgrace beyond belief.

Also, I don't worry about the Native Americans because I am part Native American - in fact, from two different tribes.

On the other side, German immigrants who about the same time settled in Illinois.

 

[phyzmatix]

All through history people have been enslaved and there was never any recompense. It's very likley that every white person here at anyone time in history had familiy members that were caught in battle and enslaved.

Very true Evo.

If you pursue that line (compensation for past injustices) of reasoning, where does one stop then? Should the Brits, the French, etc start nailing the Italians for what the Roman empire did? Should Russia, China, India (in fact, pretty much all of Asia and a large part of Eastern Europe) start asking for compensation from the Mongolians?

*****ing and moaning about injustices or unfairness in the past (even on a personal level) serves no purpose other than keeping old feuds and hatred alive.

Man, I get so angry about this. That reverend should be grateful that his ancestors were taken to the US as slaves because he has access to all the opportunities and advantages associated with living in a developed country.

There are about 800 million Africans, many of who are facing death through ethnic cleansing, starvation, exposure and disease on a daily basis and pretty much all of who would love to trade places with him if he really feels that an injustice was done to him.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Would Obama have to pay himself?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Very true Evo.

If you pursue that line (compensation for past injustices) of reasoning, where does one stop then? Should the Brits, the French, etc start nailing the Italians for what the Roman empire did? Should Russia, China, India (in fact, pretty much all of Asia and a large part of Eastern Europe) start asking for compensation from the Mongolians?

*****ing and moaning about injustices or unfairness in the past (even on a personal level) serves no purpose other than keeping old feuds and hatred alive.

Man, I get so angry about this. That reverend should be grateful that his ancestors were taken to the US as slaves because he has access to all the opportunities and advantages associated with living in a developed country.

There are about 800 million Africans, many of who are facing death through ethnic cleansing, starvation, exposure and disease on a daily basis and pretty much all of who would love to trade places with him if he really feels that an injustice was done to him.

That is a bit of an ends justifies the means argument, but it is hard to dispute the fact that the decendents of many slaves had or have it better here than they would [have] in Africa.

I think it was Eddy Murphy who did a routine about his trip to Africa... or maybe it was Whoopie Goldberg. She talked about how she got all fired-up about being African; the clothes and customs, the music, the food, etc. And then she went to Africa and discovered that in fact, [paraphrasing I'm sure] she is American, not African.

 

[arildno]

Mr. Wright is monomaniacally obsessed with the oppression of blacks.
He is physically incapable of opening his mouth without spurting his hatred.

It is impossible that Mr. Obama haven't heard his views.

Furthermore, in contrast to Muslim countries where you'll get killed if you leave your religion, and hence, many remain attached to it formally, but cannot be charged with collaboration and sympathy, Mr. Obama has no such excuse.

He was perfectly free in joining this church, nobody pressured him unduly in remaining there, nobody censored him from criticizing the oipinions of Mr. Wright, and hence, Mr. Obama retains full personal responsibility for having CHOSEN to remain a member in this loathsome congregation.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Obama's involvement with this church came about because of their community outreach programs. It is also apparently one of the most prominent black churches in Chicago.

If there was any way to peg Obama as a black radical, you might have a point, but truthfully that is laughable. And I seriously doubt that anyone will be able to make that allegation stick. No closet Rev Wright could stand the scrutiny of a Presidential election campaign. And liberation theology is a historical fact of many black cultures in the US. The key is that Obama does not lay claim to these principles - the time for that sort of rhetoric has passed. This is not a new thing like religious based neo-conservatism and evangelical political activism, it is a relic from the past.

 

[TR345]

Reparations wouldn't be a bad idea if money could be traced back to profits made on the backs of slaves ie. Rich families that have inherited very large amounts of money from big time slave owners and corporations. I don't think it would be fair to take any money away from anyone who earned it legitimately. If slave money can be traced and records can prove it and minimum wage plus interest per slave, and if all can't be paid, then all inherited slave money and corporate profits could be liquidated. That is fair right, it would never happen though, we would have a new civil war before that happens.

 

[Art]

What makes the issue of black slavery different to the slavery practised on other race is IMO because many African-American's still have a strong sense of current injustices which fuels their anger over past injustices.

Unfortunately them living with a victim mentality perpetuates the problem as it is one of the factors preventing them from fully integrating into US society. It is this problem of being on the outside looking in that needs to be addressed as it seems deeply rooted on both sides of the debate. I have seen some right wing TV talkshow hosts tell their black guests' if they don't like it why don't they go back to Africa'. It is hard to think of a situation where a white guest whose ancestors moved to America a couple of hundred years ago would be told to 'go back' to wherever for criticising the US. It is that term 'go back' which shows how some Americans still do not consider African Americans (at least those who complain) as being as American as them.

On the other hand the idea of recompense is a non-starter for the reasons others such as Evo have already espoused in this thread.

I think people such as the Rev Wright are part of the problem rather than part of the solution and do the black community a huge disservice by telling them they are not responsible for their own shortcomings. Sure tell them how bad things used to be, history is important, but this should be tempered with a message of hope. That in the US today blacks can do as well as any other race and it is up to each individual to work hard to achieve their goal.

Whether Rev Wright is well intentioned albeit misguided and actually believes his own message is debatable. From what I have seen of his personal wealth I suspect he is cynically living his American dream off the backs of the blacks he claims to care so much about. If this is the case his exploitation is no better than the exploitation by the white slave owners he complains so much about.

 

[AhmedEzz]

Do you think Clinton still has a chance? maybe benefit from this bad media for Obama?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Do you think Clinton still has a chance? maybe benefit from this bad media for Obama?

No.

Text added to satisfy a curious criterion.

 

[Evo]

The Indian people are very much American now. And they get a lot of recompense. Many reservations have taken advantage of the special rights they have and are very wealthy.

I guess you haven't read much about the horrible poverty of American Indians?

Poorest of poor, American Indians

'Deplorable' conditions

According to statistics from the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, there are 1.43 million Indians living on or near reservations. Roughly 33 percent of them are children younger than 15, and 38 percent of Indian children aged 6 to 11 live in poverty, compared with 18 percent for U.S. children of all other races combined.

Only 63 percent of Indians are high school graduates. Twenty-nine percent are homeless, and 59 percent live in substandard housing.

Twenty percent of Indian households on reservations do not have full access to plumbing, and the majority -- 53.4 percent -- do not have telephones.

An estimated 50 percent of American Indians are unemployed, and at Pine Ridge the problem is even more chronic -- 73 percent of the people do not have jobs.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/07/07/clinton.tour/