Obama Explains His Break From Trinity Church
Obama, at a press conference right now, is explaining his decision to leave Trinity church right on the cusp of the general election.
The gist: He's leaving because he knows that he has to distance himself from the church at this juncture, given the political imperatives before him, and also because his presence in the church is resulting in too much media scrutiny to the church itself.
Obama noted that members of the church are being harassed, noting that anonymous members of the church are getting calls from news organizations.
Obama also revealed that he and Michelle have been discussing the possibility of leaving since Wright's disastrous press conference at the National Press Club a few weeks ago -- suggesting that they've known for some time now know that going into a general election without ditching Wright and his church is untenable.
Late Update: Here's the video:
America's chickenhawks demand their roosting rights.
And as long as the corporate media is going to keep carrying their water, I guess Obama is making the right decision.
It's sad, though.
~
May 31, 2008 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
OBAMA PROVES HIS DUPLICITY
Obama is the created, sustained,supported and maintained by the same Corporate Media that slavishly supported The NeoCons theory of 911, unquestionably coverd-up all alternative theories and blamed the illusive Bin Ladin for a Crime he denied. 6 years after the implosion of the WTC ,torure of many kinds, violation of all international laws, the US courts has not convicted one person for the crime and the US public has not heard one true confession. The media still covering-up the facts that arabs or muslims , or Bin Ladins of any kind did not attack us and therefore we went and killed thousands in Afghanistan and illegally attacked and occupied Iraq and are driving the nation to bankruptcy under the fake cover of the War on Terror!
Obama is the front for the Corporations who want a New Logo to improve the US image outside and fool the people inside.
He just was a part-time lecturer teaching couple of courses and the Media declared him as Professor of Law!
He stole the "Audocity of Hope" from Wright , he called him a mentor and an uncle yet he denounced and rejected him and his Church!
His Christianity is fake as there is no proof that he was ever Baptized after the age of 24 when he arrived in the US mainland.
The source of Down payment for his 1.5 million Houise house, is as hidden of Bush's National Gaurd Records. The financing and the fake papers that a man who only had a 2 thousands dollars to buy a used Honda to move to Chicago he submitted to qualify for such a high mortgage has not been found.
Even he has not found a marriage certificate for his mother and the man he carries his name.
He used Trinity United Church to fabricate his fake belief in Christianity and now dispose of them like a toilet paper. He denounced Wright and his media excecutionaire, overnight politically murdered, silenced, suffocated Wright. No Media has investigated how did Wright suddenly was sent to oblivion; but it shows the power of Obama's Corporate handlers.
Two Cheers for Democracy,one for the corporate media which has been pushing Obama with the same vigore as they pushed the War in Iraq.The other for the big multinationals and Israili Lobby that would like to change the Logo and fool the world that actually a real Change is happening in America.
Obama was never Black to start with and never believed in the Black Church but stole their rhetoric s and sermons to make speaches. As he said clearly " nothing in my upbringing ot past would make me to relate or believe in those ideas"' because he always believed that he is white, and he did not share a history with Black Americans,. All he wanted is their blind backing to get elected and deprive Clinton out of victory.
The Corporate Backers of Obama have done a great job, but they shoud not blind us to the fact that Obama is a fake and they know it and shame on a nation to put another nonothing fake man in charge of its affairs.
June 1, 2008 12:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Would you like some more tinfoil for your hat?
June 1, 2008 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did someone say hat? I'm so on it.
June 1, 2008 3:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
You realize, INSURGENTONE, that now we know you've discovered our secret scheme to RULE THE WORLD, we're going to have to take care of you. Can't figure out how you figured us out, you don't seem that smart but that's water over the bridge now. We just can't have you out there blabbering the backstory and the plot line to everybody else, can we?
June 1, 2008 1:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, my "Sarcasm Off" tag didn't stay with the previous post...
June 1, 2008 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I stopped reading after "OBAMA PROVES HIS DUPLICITY
Obama is the created, sustained,supported and maintained by the same Corporate Media that slavishly supported The NeoCons theory of 911"
June 1, 2008 5:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, we're back to Obama being a Muslim?
You guys are really going to have to settle on one story or another.
June 1, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh fiddle. I can sympathize with the Obamas. It is difficult to leave a church where you have friends, and even where the pastor has been your friend. In some denominations, this sort of thing just happens. The sort of comments made by these ministers are hate tirades. However, I only wish that the newsies had been as diligent during the horrible racism in the South taught from the pulpit by a bunch of folks who had left the Democratic Party during the Johnson Civil Rights Legislation, and were then card carrying Republicans. I was a Southern Baptist from Alaska, and was appalled once when we took a trip to the South and visited several Southern Baptist churches. The vitriol sounded exactly the same but directed toward Blacks at that time. One thing, there does seem to be possible redemption because eventually the churches got it right and now for the most part, abhor racism. I remember well when Dr. Criswell, pastor of First Baptist Church, Dallas apologized for his history of mandatory separation of the races. Even Strom Thurman changed enough to hire Mr. Williams as a staff member. Of course, you can find a few hold-outs and if you happen to visit those congregations, watch out because their racism theme will nauseate you. Just as the racism and hate of these two ministers did. I do not see anyone insisting that members of those churches, yes even politicians, leave their home church.
June 2, 2008 2:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pastor Pfleger and Samantha Powers were right
May 31, 2008 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think Obama and Clinton's race have anything to do with her, um, tenacity. She would have been just as, um, aggressive if Obama had been white.
I still agree with Samantha Power, though.
May 31, 2008 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Power creature got what she deserved.
Your admiration of "Pastor" Pfleger simply shows you for the racist scum you are.
I've said it before: Obamabots are filth. Nasty, racist, filth. Even your Dear Leader is running away from the racism that molded him. At least He is smart enough to realize it doesn't work. Not that I think for a minute He's not a racist, mind you - He spent over 20 years shouting amen to Wright's racism. He's just smart enough to figure out sane people don't really think that way.
Nasty, stinking, racist filth. All of you.
June 1, 2008 10:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good decision, though difficult, I'm sure.
Chicago's UCC has done some really awesome things for their area. Wright himself did some really awesome things for his country.
Obama is doing a really awesome thing for the members of his church -- giving them their right to continue on without press invasion and comments from small-minded Americans.
Can he get an Amen?
May 31, 2008 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
AMEN!
May 31, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amen!
June 1, 2008 1:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, really. These people's privacy has been invaded enough. Not Obama's fault -- his privacy has most certainly been invaded. (Yes, I believe that a presidential candidate has privacy.)
June 1, 2008 2:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's pretty funny.
June 1, 2008 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
He took it for the team, what a guy.
June 2, 2008 1:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
On this pivotal day in the life of the party, two of the last three TPM-EC posts have been about Sen. Obama's church.
Therein lies the reason he's resigning.
Sargent and Kleefeld should be ashamed.
May 31, 2008 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Skewed view!
Today there were many posts about the Rules Committee mtg.
Obama leaving his church and giving a press conference is also news and TPM shouldn't pass up on reporting it, no?
May 31, 2008 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
My point is that it should not be an issue. Not for TPM or anyone. Aren't we guaranteed freedom of religion or did I just dream that?
Barack Obama is not his preacher. Why should he be politically accountable for words that come out of another man's mouth? Especially someone who has actually done a great deal of good, like Jeremiah Wright? And he ABSOLUTELY should not be held accountable for a VISITING preacher. That's unAmerican, it's against a founding principle of this country and it's just whack!
This should not be an issue. Period.
May 31, 2008 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you in general, and if this approach could be applied retroactively, I'd be on board. But since the issue is out there, I'm glad to see Obama's response getting equal coverage.
May 31, 2008 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love you man, but just to play Devil's advocate, if a candidate were a member of John Hagee's church, or the Order, or Fred Phillips bunch of inbreeds, or Meyer Kahane's temple, I'd consider it highly relevant to the candidate's fitness the office and fair game for the press. Its not about not about imposing a religious test for office. Its about whether there is something about the candidate's church's doctrines, and the degree of agreement expected of the congregants, that would affect their performance as president.
Obama's church and his pastor have been treated shabbily and outrageously and in a fashion that is all the more repulsive because so much of the coverage has been deliberately aimed at tickling the fears of stupid white people over the presumed alien otherness of black people. I think I've made my outrage pretty clear in my blog postings. And, in particularly, ABC's smear job on Wright, as pushed by Hillary's campaign for months, is shameful beyond words. To pull a few minutes out of context from hours and hours of tape and present those few minutes as typical of him rather than explicitly saying they were not, is simply outrageous. Though, sadly, not really shocking in the Drudgified, tabloidized modern freakshow coverage we call news in the post-media consolidation world. And its all the more repulsive because Tapper and Gibson and Stephie and all their pals are utterly incapable of seeing that they did anything wrong. To them, it was just good hard hitting journalism. That's what they think journalism is.
But to make a blanket assertion that First Amdendment values bar inquiry into the religious views of a candidate per se just because our guy has been treated shabbily in this particular instance smacks a little too much of the Hillaroid tendency to conflate whatever is good for their candidate at a given moment into some all-embracing moral imperative.
I'm just suggesting that we consider not painting ourselves into corners we can't get out of without putting on our Big Black Boots of Hypocricy and stomping through the paint.
May 31, 2008 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
First off, you know that you're one of my fave posters here, too. That said, there is respectful disagreement here.
This is a very tough issue for me. And, yes, you're probably right that my immediate reaction was very much connected to my candidate.
We're guaranteed freedom of religion. That's true with you, me, Barack Obama and the guy down the street. Constantinople, who I've also argued with in this thread, said that a candidate's political views are often informed by their religious views. That seems to be what you're saying here, too, and I do not discount that. BUT, it is the political views, not the religious roots of those views, which we should be concerned about. You mentioned hypocrisy. You actually capitalized the "h". You know what's hypocritical? To proclaim that we're a country that allows freedom of religion and then disparage the religion of a political candidate.
I'm not sure that I entirely understand what you're getting at here. But if the implication is that we (I) can't squawk about the Obama situation because if an opponent is associated with Hagee or some other fucked up preacher, well, it's wasted breath, then I maintain that I'm smart enough to discern a candidate's personal feelings and/or political tendencies without any vetting of his or her religious life. It's gonna shine through. And I will agree or disagree with that candidate based on the personal or political but NOT the religious.
Pat Buchanan was/is obviously someone whose religious views are important to his political views. But I don't disagree with Pat Buchanan because I think he goes to the wrong church. I disagree with Pat Buchanan because of his political views and I don't give a rosy red rat's ass how he arrived at those views.
Like I said, it's tough and there's a fine mental line. But that's how I feel.
June 1, 2008 1:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now that can get an amen. Amen.
I can't help but feel like this is all very weak of him. Smart move isn't always the good move.
June 1, 2008 3:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
that was @ TCFKA NCSteve
June 1, 2008 3:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
One post, sure.
June 1, 2008 2:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't realize Sargent and Kleefeld were responsible for Obama's decision to release this news today.
Thanks for clearing that up.
May 31, 2008 9:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't realize you were a die-hard Clinton supporter until today.
Thanks for clearing that up.
May 31, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm the one, maybe the only one in the country, pushing Brad Henry as Obama's running mate.
The post to which I responded was silly - as if TPM-EC wouldn't cover this story.
May 31, 2008 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
My sincere apologies. Really. I'm sorry.
Thank you for setting me straight.
May 31, 2008 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
See? I know how to apologize.
If I had voted for our invasion of Iraq back in the day, I would apologize for it. I would take ownership of my poor, uneducated decision, and I would say, "Gee. I was so wrong. I am sincerely sorry and I'll do all I can to un-do my mistake".
I'd probably win a lot of votes, too, if I decided to run for President of the United States, having had apologized and promised to do all I can do to un-do my mistake.
But....I'm not running for President.
May 31, 2008 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not too late to start running for 2012 or 2016.
Anyway, no need to apologize.
I'm just looking for some credit for coming-up with the true dream team: Obama|Henry '08.
If everything works out, I should be White House Chief of Staff by the tail-end of Henry's second term.
May 31, 2008 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You puzzle me. I can't figure you out yet.
I like that.
Intrigue, politics, they're just so amazing, aren't they?
It's why I like "House" so much.
May 31, 2008 10:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
so it's not because this church is full of hate speech and toxic preachers.
It's not because these preachers trash this country and Hillary Clinton.
He don't have a problem with that. In fact, he's just accomodating them so they can continue with their trash talk with cameras off.
And protecting his ass, lest more of his friends get on camera with what they really think.
He's doing it because he's a politician.
And because White House is more important to him now than that church ever was.
May 31, 2008 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
"And because White House is more important to him now than that church ever was."
Is there anything wrong with that? It's not like the man renounced god and said he will begin worshiping the devil. He left a specific church, and I assume will be joining another, less "interesting" church soon. It shouldn't even matter to you what religion he is, it's a personal matter.
May 31, 2008 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe one in DC, closer to his new home?
May 31, 2008 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's doing it because he's a good man.
And I thought you were leaving. You said so just over an hour ago. I asked you to give me your hat before you left.
Remember?
May 31, 2008 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
"And because White House is more important to him now than that church ever was."
Oh, isn't THAT rich?
Hillary is trying to scorch the earth because the White House is more important to her than the land it sits on, the country it represents, and you have the fucking gall to jump in here to this thread about Obama's religion and cheapen it?
While wearing Abraham Lincoln's HAT?!
Give me that God-damned hat, already.
May 31, 2008 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
"filled with hate speech?" How did you reach that conclusion by extrapolating from the 53 seconds of You-Tube video from his church that you watched?
May 31, 2008 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't he also helping his church by leaving it? How much time and energy have they had to expend dealing with very unfortunate comments of their former pastor and a guest?
I get the feeling that you've never been an active member of a church.
May 31, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh--give it a rest. That hate speech line hasn't worked for the last two months. Find some other lose association to trash Obama for.
May 31, 2008 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
And he left the church because of what? Love speech?
June 1, 2008 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
So what's your plan for when Obama clinches, there, Lalo? You going to hang around here and keep pissing and moaning about how awful Obama and his supporters are, get onboard for the Obama win, or become a McCain shill?
I understand their are like bonus points or Visa rewards or something if you shill for McCain, but you can't beat the fat paycheck all of us paid Obama operatives get every week. Why, I'm typing this from my beachfront villa overlooking the Pacific with what I've made.
May 31, 2008 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shit. You got the beachfront property? Obama paid me to move to Vermont.
Darn.
May 31, 2008 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
You hit the nail right on the head.
Obama is a user. He used Wright and his church to further his political career. When he was done with them and they became a hinderance, he coldly cut them off. Obama has never been a Christian. No Christian could ever say that other Christians turned to God out of "bitterness." He's a phony.
June 1, 2008 3:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
And you aren't really a monkey.
June 1, 2008 3:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nah if that were the reason, he would have ditched the guy months ago. It is not easy to leave a church where your kids were baptized, where you became a believer. I remember the conflict I had after our trip south. All that racial hate in churches I had always admired. But our church in Alaska never had that problem. I stayed and helped with the racial reconciliation in Southern Baptist life. I really do understand what Obama is going through.
June 2, 2008 3:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's a little difficult for me to keep these churches straight. Is this the church that, as far as we know, isn't a Muslim one? Or is this the church with the really scary preacher, the one who demonizes hard-working, middle-class, pant-wetting folks? Or is it the church that's not a church because it teaches that religion is the opiate of the masses.
It's so hard for me to remember which meme we're using against Obama these days.
June 1, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Faith is a personal thing. This man and his family should be allowed to worship God privately and peacefully. It is not fair to anyone to have to go through this kind of torment from people who themselves, probably have no personal relationship with God.
I'm waiting to see which candidate will show leadership on this, and who will try to politicize.
May 31, 2008 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jeremiah Wright's church? Wow, I was under the impression Wright resigned months ago. How about some updated facts, Greg?
May 31, 2008 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lay off Greg.
This is Rev. Wright's church even though he is retired.
Go to their website and see for yourself.
May 31, 2008 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. Its his church alright.
"Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. became Pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC) on March 1, 1972.
Since 1972, under Dr. Wright’s leadership, the membership of Trinity United Church of Christ grew from 87 members; and currently exceeds 6,000!"
May 31, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Johnny, it's God's church.
May 31, 2008 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah! And he is his son. And he can do no wrong. And everything he touches turns to gold. And you have a picture of him above your bed and talk to him everynight. And no, you're not a true beliver.
May 31, 2008 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
You so silly.
Now give me the hat.
May 31, 2008 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Repeat after me....He is a false prophet and God is a superstition.
May 31, 2008 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
My feelings about religion notwithstanding, I feel that every living person on this planet has a right to their own religious beliefs.
Every person sees God differently. Their perspective is as unique as their fingerprint. As unique as a flake of snow.
Government should not, cannot by law, interfere with that.
May 31, 2008 9:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nobody's doing that anything close to that. Only one thing happened today:
Your prophet blinked.
May 31, 2008 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's not my prophet. He's just my future President.
(blink)
(blink)
May 31, 2008 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pity. For us all.
May 31, 2008 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pity for you, eh?
May 31, 2008 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
He's The Dear Leader of your sick little cult. And he ran like a little girl.
Coward.
Chump-ass, empty-suited coward.
June 1, 2008 10:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not even a whole suit. Empty pants. No cojones.
June 1, 2008 11:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can always tell when an argument gets weak on its merits. People inevitably resort to name calling and hyperbole. Not to worry about Democrats. We are doing just fine and we will no doubt control the House, the Senate and the White House after the malfeasance and warmongering of the Republicans. In your place, I can see how you can only get nasty since your pick obviously is not winning. Sorry but that is what elections are all about. The winner gets the most votes.
June 2, 2008 3:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seasn Hannity phoned Fox and told the nation he is not satisfied with what Obama said.
That kind of closes the subject.
Let's move on to recounting the delegates and figuring out who will tell Hillary to stfu after Tuesday.
May 31, 2008 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is there anyone out their on Hannity's CO-OP board in NYC that can cause some problems for him these next 6 months? Is their any small infraction you can threaten to evict him for? ANYTHING to get him off track?...
May 31, 2008 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
You really don't get it, do you?
June 1, 2008 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You write:
No. What he said was that neither he nor any other candidate can risk the assumption -- however false -- that every single word that is uttered from the pulpit of the church of which they are a member should be imputed to them.
Please get this clear.
May 31, 2008 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I worry that this will undercut the main point he made in the big speech, and I also worry that this leaves him open to some really nasty GOP ads about his loyalty, i.e "If he can't stand by his church how will he stand by YOU?!?!?!"
Still if this allows him to move forward without this as an issue, than I am more than satisfied.
May 31, 2008 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suspect you're right, probably with photos of Ahmadinejad fading in and out.
May 31, 2008 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's so good to see you tonight, Lanny!
May 31, 2008 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right.
All we have to do is hold hands and sing I'd like to give the world a Coke.
May 31, 2008 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
It will be tough for the GOP to blame him for not standing by his church after they've been condemning that church for months. They'd be blaming him for not persisting in a relationship they've vilified him for persisting in. That won't work for the GOP any better than it works for the trolls on this site.
Anyway, Obama could just say something like, "When it comes to religion, my loyalty is to God." I'd like to see how the Republicans attack that position.
May 31, 2008 9:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spot on!
And it's a shame, too, that candidates for the highest office of a country that holds freedom of religion among its highest ideals would have to worry about where and how they worship and every word that comes out of the mouth of their preacher, priest, rabbi, etc. Not to mention that it makes it appear to certain folk abroad that, yes, we're committed to freedom of religion --- as long as its vanilla and CERTAINLY not anything RADICAL like Islam.
THAT was the point that I was trying to make above.
And I apologize to Greg and Eric for singling them out from all the media who have made this a big deal, but this is an issue that really pisses me off.
May 31, 2008 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look, Aubie, it's not only news, it's news that Obama wanted to get out there.
Aside from being his pastor, Wright was an admitted major influence on his life, actually inspiring the title of his book.
So when Wright said, "God damn America" and suggested the govt caused AIDS, the question of Wright's influence became, as Obama acknowledged, a legitimate issue.
To their credit, most people rejected the "guilt by association" attempt. In part that was because of Obama's masterful speech on race and religion.
But there's a limit to how much energy you can expend on damage control.
The Pfleger incident was arguably worse than anything Wright has said.
In Obama's home church, this guest preacher chose to make an overtly political speech, mocking his Democratic rival in a racially offensive way.
The third time you have to distance your own views from those associated with your church, you cut your losses.
Sure, Obama's doing it for political reasons -- but those are sound political reasons.
It's what you expect from a leader.
And it's in no way a freedom-of-religion issue.
You cut your ties with a church that has become an embarrassment exactly the way you cut your ties with a lobbying firm that gets indicted.
"I will agree or disagree with that candidate based on the personal or political but NOT the religious," you say.
In the case of Obama and his church, that's an impossible line for you or me to draw.
Thankfully, Obama has now drawn a clear line.
June 1, 2008 3:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Principled as always. Abandon the church because they hurt your political goals. Trinity should lose thier status as a religious organization. They are a political organization that is certainly not based on chritian principles or the bible.
May 31, 2008 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, give it a rest you bitter thing.
May 31, 2008 8:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
put on a shirt PLEASE your avatar makes me nauseated. BLEEEEECH
May 31, 2008 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's the best you can do? That's your closing argument??
Bleeccchhh.
May 31, 2008 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
My stomach is just so full now from drinking all of your milkshake.
May 31, 2008 9:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
ok, you DO know that 'drinking your milkshake' is about STEALING don't you? I mean it is describes a CRIME, meaning THEFT. Are you saying it is cool to be a thief?
May 31, 2008 11:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Staring at your reply almost made me as crazy as you are.
May 31, 2008 11:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
And who made you the final say on what is and isn't a religious organization?
May 31, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
From the IRS website:
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all IRC section
501(c)(3) organizations, including churches and religious
organizations, are absolutely prohibited from directly or
indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political
campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate
for elective public office. Contributions to political cam-
paign funds or public statements of position (verbal or
written) made by or on behalf of the organization in favor
of or in opposition to any candidate for public office
clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign
activity. Violation of this prohibition may result in denial
or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of
certain excise tax. under IRC section 501(c)(3), religious leaders cannot make partisan comments in official organization publica
tions or at official church functions. To avoid potential
attribution of their comments outside of church func-
tions and publications, religious leaders who speak or
write in their individual capacity are encouraged to clear-
ly indicate that their comments are personal and not
intended to represent the views of the organization.
May 31, 2008 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
The church would remain classified as a religious organization, it would simply lose it's tax exempt status.
Whether or not you agree with the views of Trinity UCC, it is offensive to argue that they are not a religious organization. I personally don't agree with most of their message (especially the whole Jesus as savior thing), but I respect their right to worship however they please. If you want to take away their tax exempt status, by all means, go ahead and write a letter the IRS. But you can't call into question the validity of Trinity UCC as a religious institution.
May 31, 2008 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
You want to call them a "religious" organization but what are the religious principles they are founded on? The conduct of their ministers and their ministry applauding such displays that go against every teaching I've read in the new testament. To me calling it a christian church is a stretch. They worship at the altar of Obama and apologize to him for having offended his political goals. Have they acknowledged that such teachings from the pulpit go against the teachings of christ? Have they apologized to senator clinton for the substance of their remarks? Is that the type of "church" you'd want to raise your children in. Any decent person would have ran away a ong time ago based on principle not political expediency. Shout out to Oprah who showed how someone acts on true principle rather than just trying to stem the political hemmoraghing.
May 31, 2008 11:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand where you are coming from, and it certainly is not a church I'd want to raise my children in, but 2 things:
1)If I wanted to worship a tortilla chip that vaguely resembled the face of Bono, and had a friend administer chocolate-covered raisins as communion to me every week, as long as I felt it was a spiritual experience, it would be a religion. The "religious principles" you refer to don't have to be based in a classical Judeo-Christian (or Eastern) system.
2)The Bible can be interpreted many ways, and every Christian religion picks and chooses what passages to present as their principal ideals to some extent. Just because Trinity UCC promotes the more "vengeful, judging god" passages of the Bible, it doesn't make them any less Christian than John Doe who prefers the "flowers and rainbows" passages.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is that you have no right (nor do I or anyone else) to judge someone's religion.
May 31, 2008 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
"You want to call them a "religious" organization but what are the religious principles they are founded on?"
The UCC has been around for ages. Don't bother asking a commenter on a political blog about it, look it up the right way, God dammit.
"The conduct of their ministers and their ministry applauding such displays that go against every teaching I've read in the new testament."
Did you read the part about turning the other cheek? Did you read the part wherein Jesus says that we can all pray, quietly and at home, and still be considered praying?
"To me calling it a christian church is a stretch. They worship at the altar of Obama and apologize to him for having offended his political goals."
The UCC existed long before Obama, and they don't pray to Obama. They pray to God.
I won't even bother addressing the rest of your post.
I'll just ask for another Amen from the smart people.
The hard-working, hard-fighting smart people.
May 31, 2008 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, it was a Catholic priest, so I'm afraid you'll have to take it up with the pope.
May 31, 2008 11:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well let's call the Pope, then.
Give me his Hotline number, I'll give him hell.
This is all so silly it makes my head spin more than Linda Blair's in Exorcist.
OOps. Sorry. None of you will get that reference, you all being so young and all.
June 1, 2008 12:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
It must really suck to be you, dijamo.
Your candidate has lost, so now you've resorted to belittling churches.
In the morning, I'm sure you'll get up, put on your Sunday best, and go worship at the altar of The Pantsuit.
Baal says, "Hi!"
May 31, 2008 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I belittle any church that continues to espouse hatred and division and mockery which is directly contrary to the very teachings they claim to believe. I don't worship at a church as a non-practicing catholic. I live my life according to my own morals which is based on the teachings of Christ and find the hypocrisy of those who claim to be christians while violating the principles of christianity appalling. Goes for Trinity - goes for Pat Robertson - goes for the big mega millions prosperity churches which goes against the very teachings of Christ.
May 31, 2008 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, that's better.
I withdraw my BLEEECCHH.
For now.
May 31, 2008 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well the guy was from the church you are a non-practicing member of, so now you'll have to renounce it.
May 31, 2008 11:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am a non-practicing catholic because I have renounced the policies of the Catholic church. Why should I be an active member of a Church that I disagree with on so many levels? I don't renounce the bible though or the basic principles of catholicism and christianity. That said, at least the Catholic church laid the smack down on the priest and said he needs to leave his political beliefs off the pulpit. As a minister your responsibility is to teach the word of god and not advocate for your candidate of choice or participate in un-christianlike mocking from the pulpit. TUCC sees nothing wrong with using the pulpit to advocate for or criticize a particular candidate.
June 1, 2008 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
"I don't renounce the bible though or the basic principles of catholicism and christianity. That said, at least the Catholic church laid the smack down on the priest and said he needs to leave his political beliefs off the pulpit. As a minister your responsibility is to teach the word of god and not advocate for your candidate of choice or participate in un-christianlike mocking from the pulpit. TUCC sees nothing wrong with using the pulpit to advocate for or criticize a particular candidate."
I don't renounce the Bible either, nor the basic principles of your Catholicism and the basic principles of Christiantity either. The only people laying "the smack down" are people who are uptight and need to get out of their little self-made boxes now and then. Like you.
Politics and religion don't mix. That's why I'm into politics.
June 1, 2008 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Girl, you are just plain silly.
May 31, 2008 9:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
He joined because they helped his political goals.
Why shouldn't he leave for the same reason?
At least he's consistent.
May 31, 2008 9:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you know why he joined his church how, exactly?
May 31, 2008 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Occam's Razor
May 31, 2008 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
plus cynicism equals a good bet
May 31, 2008 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
The principle of Occam's Razor calls for simplicity based on observation to reduce assumptions. Seems to me that Aubie84 is asking you to describe your observations rather than merely assert your assumption.
May 31, 2008 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Am I to believe he joined because it was the only church in Chicago that performed charitable works?
For that matter, in his second autobiography, The Audacity of Hope, he wrote that minister recommended he join a church to further his community organizing efforts. Obama himself has said many times that he sees politics as an extension of community organizing.
May 31, 2008 11:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
And so his religion must follow?
May 31, 2008 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, because he sees the church as a means to advance the cause of social justice and well-being. That is his faith. But ultimately the cause is more important than the church.
June 1, 2008 12:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well said.
June 1, 2008 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Occam's Razor?
If we're talking about the simplest explanation, your explanation only gets more complex the more times he tried to maintain the association. He only left after it became apparent that the Conservative media was waiting with baited breath for fresh meat at the church doors, prepared to continue it's press beatdown of his church as long as he was the candidate from that church.
If we were following Occam's razor, he would have left the church before his campaign. The only reason he would have left the church only after getting so much grief for his association, was that he wanted to remain with them.
The reason to leave is this: His message would be at the mercy of every cross word a preacher or guest preacher said. Obama believes in his message, believes in keeping it clean. While Hillary Clinton is willing to get dirty in every way to win, Obama has wanted his message to remain central and true.
May 31, 2008 11:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
IZen Koans don't usually satisfy Occam's Razor.
June 1, 2008 1:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton and Obama are politicians. Polticians sometimes have to dissociate themselves from past acquaintances and get into bed with strange fellows in order to get elected. I'm sure you and your candidate know this. The difference between my candidate and your candidate is that my candidate is a principled politician while your's has proven at the end of this nomination process to be toxic. Thanks for reminding me of this.
May 31, 2008 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny you should mention "strange bedfellows".
I, for one, cannot even try to imagine Obama selling out the Lincoln bedroom for profit. Can you? I mean, every time I try to picture it, the picture fades to black. And I have a very strong and colorful imagination. But -- (closes eyes tightly and tries to imagine Obama selling the Lincoln bedroom stay for profit) -- Nope. Nada. Just ain't comin'.
May 31, 2008 9:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's why my candidate is Barack.
Of course some politicians get into bed with strange fellows after they get elected and for free.
May 31, 2008 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah...What a stretch....Obama making a profit on something to do with his "sacred office"....Hmmm.
Let me think.
Oh yeah. That was just another "mistake".
Guess you just gotta dream big...in big time politics.
May 31, 2008 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
your link isn't working
May 31, 2008 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Try this
May 31, 2008 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
The best you can do is quote a Chicago Sun Times article about Rezko dated 2006????
Dude, give me your hat. You're like Lalo. You don't deserve to wear a hat.
I have a hat collection THIS big. I can't wait to put yours on my shelf.
I promise to dust it off, periodically, over the next 8 years of our Obama presidency.
May 31, 2008 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
The 3 images I will take away from today are:
* David Bonior looking the committee in the eye and thrice reminding them that Clinton told New Hampshire Public Radio that the Michigan primary would not count. You go, Dave.
* The Clinton supporters being ejected for not respecting RBC members' First Amendment rights to speak (at their own committee meeting, for heaven's sake).
* LisB commanding the return of undeserved hats. Well done, LisB!
May 31, 2008 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Take away a man's hat and all you're left with is this.
Don't say I didn't warn you.
May 31, 2008 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I actually loved Men Without Hats, back in the day.
And then I met up with the Grunge movement.
I've been hell on wheels ever since.
June 1, 2008 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lamer.
May 31, 2008 10:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Principled politician"? Are you sh*ttin me?
I've heard some drivel in my long life but that is rich.
May 31, 2008 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, I am actually beginning to wonder if Wright was spun out from the NOI to start a second front. Would explain a lot. Same politics, different robes. Same message, different text.
June 1, 2008 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's too bad, but the fact that these people couldn't stay uncontroversial for just a few months was really ridiculous. Pfleger was a complete idiot. Why would he say that and not think he'd become a Youtube celeberty?
The problem isn't that Obama had to leave the church he loved, the problem is that the church couldn't handle it and ended up pulling dumb stunts.
May 31, 2008 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
With Barak Obama's departure from the church, we can prayerfully say: ENOUGH ALREADY, and get back to a discussion of, and finding solutions for, REAL issues that concern and affect REAL people.
May 31, 2008 9:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
.... the man wasn't there for Pfleger's sermon (full disclosure I laughed at the end of the clip I saw) and he certainly can't be responsible for everything that emanates from a supporter of his. The only thing he has done I disagreed with was jettisoning Power the way he did. A true intellectual who brought great cache to the campaign. Of course Obama's church is going to be an issue in the fall. I imagine faux preachers in MN dressed in black face mimicking Wright and screaming God Damn America over and over. If they wore bandaids to mock Kerry imagine the bile Obama will face. I'll weep whatever tears I have left at the vileness of my fellow Americans.......
May 31, 2008 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's the right decision. Tough but right.
May 31, 2008 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Coward.
May 31, 2008 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
you're an opportunistic hack
May 31, 2008 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I look at you and don't see much to like.
May 31, 2008 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I look at you and see my 20-year old nephew Johnny, who is currently in Iraq, puffed up and bloated and wearing a hat that is now mine.
May 31, 2008 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
WTF? Were you born stupid or are you just tryin' to pick up 'bot boys? I mean, you people say some stupid things but this one - wow....
June 1, 2008 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. That's a pretty amazing statement. My guess is she doesn't even know what she said.
June 1, 2008 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'll admit that my comment was harsh. But, as stated above, Barack Obama's religious life should not matter.
Nor should any candidate's.
That it does has much to do with why this country's in the mess it is.
May 31, 2008 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
^^^ That was meant for Constantinople.^^^
May 31, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama himself disagrees
May 31, 2008 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I think not. From the same Op-Ed piece (emphasis mine):
Now, you tell me. Was Jeremiah Wright and Trinigy discussed in any positive sense? Would Barack's church had been an issue if it had not been for folks trying to "justify partisan ends"?
Discourse about religion is fine. Political use of religion is altogether different.
May 31, 2008 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Should be Trinity and "Barack's church have been."
Oops.
May 31, 2008 10:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
If his religious views inform his political decisions, then his religious life matters.
May 31, 2008 11:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's just Istanbullshit, Constantinople.
His political views matter. It does not matter how they were formed. Either you agree or disagree.
I nailed your ass on this one with a source YOU cited.
Game.
Set.
Match.
June 1, 2008 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Remarkably feeble argument.
It matters because it's about as much guidance as voters can get about how Obama might address future unforeseen issues. For example, if a politician starts citing Ayn Rand, I head for the exit.
Either you have a highly developed sense of irony, or you've been reading too long from Dreams of My Jonestown.
Re-read the article - the entire article, including,
and later
Still waiting for Senator Universal Reason to explain his opposition to gay marriage.
June 1, 2008 2:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is nothing in your post that runs counter to what I've contended. He's saying exactly what I've said. It's not the religious views --- or the church attended --- that matters. It's the POLITICAL VIEWS, and (these are my words now) it doesn't matter if they came in a psychotropic vision, an epiphany or from the Bible.
June 1, 2008 2:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
And I read the entire article (although I'm not sure you did before you cited it) and, oh, by the way. Has Obama cited Ayn Rand? Or Hitler? Or Osama bin Laden?
Hell, yeah, I'd head for the exits, too, but for POLITICAL reasons that may (or may not) have been RESULTANT of religious views.
It's the politics, dude. Not the roots. Is that so hard to understand?
June 1, 2008 2:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know I'm replying to my reply to my reply, but I'm stunned that you --- a guy of obvious intelligence --- can't seem to get my point (and look upthread and I've been consistent on this).
Let's take, as a case in point, John McCain. And, instead of the church he attended, let's look at his military career. It's pretty obvious to me that McCain is a warmonger and, in my mind, at least (though IT DOES NOT MATTER), that probably has roots in his time in the military and the fact that his family has deep military roots. But, you know what? I honor the service of McCain and his ancestors, but I disagree with his views on the war. It has NOTHING to do with his service, though I'm sure it has EVERYTHING to do with his service. His service is beside the point to me. It's his warmongering that is the bother.
June 1, 2008 2:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
You can't separate the roots from the trunk without cutting the tree down.
You're trying to separate Obama into two parts, politics and religion, yet Obama himself doesn't. He merely argues that it's not sufficient to rely on religious doctrine when making public policy.
So if, hypothetically, a politician says that his favorite political philosopher is Jesus Christ, then I'm curious about how that affects his decision making.
June 1, 2008 2:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Aren't these late night/early morning arguments fun? :)
But when a tree blossoms, you're interested in the blossoms themselves. You don't check out the roots. I don't anyway.
And I think the argument that it's not sufficient to rely on religious doctrines when making public policy indicates positively that there are two parts, that religion and public policy are not intertwined. That --- and the fact that all we should pay attention to is the policy --- is all that I have argued.
If a politician says during a campaign that his favorite political philospher is Jesus Christ or Karl Marx, then, absolutely, it's fair game. That did not happen in this case. The Wright stuff was put on display by anti-Obama folk and there were insinuations that surely Obama must agree with Wright's views. That is not true. I disagree with my pastor often. I disagree with some of the tenets of my church, but I attend that particular church because its tenets are closest, as far as I know, to my personal beliefs. But, at the end of the day, I would NOT want to be held accountable for the words of my pastor and I don't think attendance at any church necessarily requires such.
Again, regardless of roots, the political views are all a voter should be concerned about. I realize that ther are some who disagree (as exhibited by the reaction to the whole Wright thing), but that's MY view. And I think that to do otherwise is counter to this country's principle declaration that we are free to worship however we want, IF we want.
June 1, 2008 3:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think we'll have to agree to disagree.
I don't just want to know what a politician believes in, but why the politician believes it and how the politician arrived at that decision.
If a politician's words matter, surely the politician's thought process matters.
June 1, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
C'pol, you've run into the Obama chainsaw.
Religion should have more of a place in
politics but only say good things about (my) religion.
It's great to have my wife out there stumping
for me, showing what a great guy I am (even
my best adviser as of March 2007), but dont
say anything negative about her.
Props are to be admired, not challenged or
condemned. Until Obama does it himself.
Got it? O'tay, carry on.
June 2, 2008 2:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Religious affiliation shouldn't be a test for the presidency. But the church one attends certainly is an issue. Imagine a devout Hagee follower running for the office.
Please leave some margarita for me.
May 31, 2008 9:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
If a member of Hagee's flock ran, they would be forced to denounce and reject the demon of handwriting analysis.
May 31, 2008 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
But if a devout Hagee follower were running for office, don't you think it would be evident the guy/girl were a kook even if we didn''t know he/she were a Hagee follower?
June 1, 2008 3:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, by the Hagee like things they would say. With credit to Obama, I don't hear him saying Wright-like things (AIDS as conspiracy against blacks, etc), suggesting that Obama doesn't really believe everything Wright professes. Thank god. And not to take anything away from Obama's spirituality, it also supports Constantine's contention that Obama's entrance into and departure from Trinity Church might be in part good political maneuvering. If Obama didn't make shrewd or good political moves he wouldn't be the success we are supporting today.
June 1, 2008 4:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't mean to sound too cynical. But you have to consider that Obama has a good grasp of the role of religion and religious institutions play in society. He might have a thinking leader's detachment in such matters as indicated by the subject of this thread. It's a good quality in a leader.
June 1, 2008 4:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure I can agree with that. After all, the policies a candidate espouses on the campaign trail are only a reflection of his thoughts about the past (which includes 10 minutes ago), not his response to the unexpected (because, after all, if he has a response planned.. it ain't unexpected).
Certainly, none of the policies GWB espoused on the campaign trail would have pointed to Iraq. He opposed military interventions and nation-building, remember?
Instead, I think that to truly judge a man, we must judge him, as Dr. King said, on the content of his character... and to do that, we must look at the whole of the man, in context with itself, and not exclude some part because it's 'off-limits'.
Presidential candidates have the same right to freedom of religion as anyone else... but we have the right... and the obligation... to look at all of their choices and decisions with a critical eye.
June 1, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
after all this sign in stuff , where was the message, anyway???
May 31, 2008 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think 20 years is about time.
In other news, Sen. Byrd has decided to leave the KKK (sarcasm)
What a bunch of nitwits - aplauding a politically convenient decision and overlooking 20 years of racialism.
May 31, 2008 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Walking away from his old church was the only logical choice....if he is serious about becoming the nominee and the President. Anyway, this decision is easy compared to the tough stand it will take to gut the defense budget and save the country before we bleed out.
Although I support the guy and hope he becomes President, the ability to MAKE decisions, tough ones, undoubtedly unpopular ones... will make or break his Presidency and maybe our country. Standing up to the military, the corporations, the know-nothings and the dead-enders will take guts. I wonder if he has the courage and the wisdom to enter the history books not as the First Black President but as the President Who Saved The Country.
May 31, 2008 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
"This was one I didn't see coming," Obama said Saturday when he was asked if he had anticipated the firestorm that would erupt over his relationship with Wright."
Huh? Wah? He "didn't see this coming"?
Great. Just the guy we need in the WH.
May 31, 2008 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
He and Axelrod were practising how to answer 3 am calls.
May 31, 2008 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Hillary, stop calling me here at the White House."
June 1, 2008 12:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if Hillary saw her war vote coming back to bite her in her substantial ass.
May 31, 2008 9:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
That makes me feel sooooo much better.
Dumb and Dumber.
May 31, 2008 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder if McCain saw his war vote coming back to bite his flip-flopping ass.
May 31, 2008 9:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Zero sum game, eh Dittlowclown?
Don't bother denying it. I can smell you pricks a mile away.
May 31, 2008 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love you, Lamont.
June 1, 2008 1:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
Er, there's a possibility that I might buy that if it was qualified with "previous to February 10". Water over the damn, I guess, as he's doing the right thing now, but the statement does bother me, it's sort of an "I'm aggrieved naive" excuse, and doesn't fit with the image he's sold in the past of really understanding the American electorate. Hope he doesn't use the same routine in the future with similar snafus, which are bound to happen. He's much better when he plays it straight, and he's quite capable of it, mho.
May 31, 2008 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dang there was supposed to be a link with that "Feb. 10"--
my code didn't work, it's here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/us/politics/06obama.html
It's on Wright being disinvited from Obama's Feb. 10 announcement ceremony.
May 31, 2008 11:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama did the right thing. Resigning from Trinity will make it harder for McCain to directly attack him on that association, and many thoughtful Americans will understand his reasoning.
This is nevertheless a sad indicator of where we are in our politics, social life, and media ethics. Obama was forced to break a commitment to a group because our society/politics/media insisted on tarring him with the actions and views of others in that group. But group commitments (marriages and families, churches, neighborhoods, clubs, parties, etc.) necessarily involve a willingness to put up with others who do not always act or speak as we might wish. In America today, the trend seems to be to say that no one should commit to any group or relationship unless it makes him or her happy all of the time, and unless he/she agrees with all other participants all of the time. The guilt-by-association-gotchaism that has emerged in this political cycle reinforces social brittleness in a toxic way. We are saying, in effect, that we only want politicians who tailor their commitments to political expediency or always agree 100% with fellow group members. That cannot be a good thing. We will all become more Clintonesque, even as we Democrats say partial good-bye to the Clintons as the dominant party insiders.
Still, as a practical matter in this pivotal election, it is wise that Obama made this move. And he gave relatively honest, mixed reasons for it -- stressing both that he did not want all happenings in Trinity attributed to him, and that he did not want the harmful media excesses for the church that his candidacy brought upon them. Many Americans, especially many Independents, will appreciate that he did this, and they will identify with religion as personal choice rather than community commitment.
African Americans tend to see religion as community more than mere personal choice, and Barack was forced to give up some of his hard-won African Americanness to run for president... This is a (somewhat sad) gift from him to the national community of all of us, because it allows him to reach out more fully to all Americans.
Theda Skocpol, Cambridge, MA
May 31, 2008 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, now, rejecting the AA church that “saved” you twenty years ago is “doing the right thing”? Or is it a Clintonesque "gift" to the people from a magnanimous benefactor? Maybe it is just a clumsy political maneuver by an ambitious politician who has played the gotcha game very well himself but played this very badly. Maybe.
May 31, 2008 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Beautiful, beautiful comment.
May 31, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, Theda -- that is a wonderful, thoughtful post.
May 31, 2008 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, instead of playing the race card then spewed he wanted to move on from talking about race, he should of quit his radicals.
Then he lied he did not see this train wreck coming.
And you folks think that is good judgement?
OMG, that is horrible judgement and a pathetic liar.
May 31, 2008 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, professor - you said this beautifully and you said fully every thing I think and feel about it too.
May 31, 2008 11:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Theda, you should make this a new blog post. A new talking point. Because it shines in its own right, but really needs a spotlight.
June 1, 2008 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think we need a bigger bus. It may be too late for Obama to distance himself from these associations. Pfleger was with his campaign until a couple of weeks ago, just as Wright had been. Both were friends, mentors and spiritual advisers to Obama for over twenty years. He carefully chose TUCC as a political base. And let's not forget that the initial Wright videos were not indicative of a radical church but a racist nation that suddenly needed a lecture on race. I know many here cannot even see how Wright's and Pfleger's comments are racially offensive to many others but they are nonetheless. Obama is running on his bio and so his associations are even more salient than usual in a political race (and they are usually very relevant). The media is happy to play along with Obama's spin (for now anyway). I don't think this will hold through November though.
May 31, 2008 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
You might want to look into a shorter bus.
I recommend watching Obama's Philadelphia speech one (more?) time. He holds any racial divisiveness coming from Trinity just as responsible as that coming from elsewhere. He also explicitly recognizes how offensive Wright's comments were to many Americans. And then just the other day he recognized how offensive Pfleger's comment were. That's the reality of Obama's actions and positions "many here" are commenting on, not the willfully ignorant caricature you're trying to draw.
June 1, 2008 1:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
BDH,
The only caricature I see is that this is about religion and loyalty and racism towards the black church instead of pure politics. Remember that Obama said he had never even heard this kind of stuff in his twenty years with the church before the videos came out. Now it's not just a few put-of-context statements from Wright over twenty years but Wright speeches and sermons from Pfleger and comments from Moss, the new pastor. The “many here” I referred to were the many posters at TPM, not this thread, who reacted to the Wright and Pfleger comments as if they were orthodox and completely justified. The ministers were only speaking truth to power and should not have been offensive to most Americans.
Obama specifically rejected Wright’s “controversial comments” in the Phila. Speech and rejected divisiveness in general terms. He then equated Wright’s views with Ferraro’s and the old school boomers (i.e. the Clintons) as opposed to his new post-racial POV. The Speech was, in fact , an apologia and political reaction to the Wright videos. The Speech was put together to deflect and excuse the Wright issue and was only a political convenience (witness the fact that this crucial conversation on race was completely dropped when it looked like the Speech was serving its purpose). He could not have rejected the church at that time without losing some AA support. Now, that is just politics (from the post-political candidate) but let’s not pretend it’s anything else.
A candidate for POTUS has to be an open book, and for bad or worse, everything is fair game these days. I’ll say it again, Obama is running on who he is, and his own version of his story is not enough. The philosophy of his pastors/mentors/advisors and his church is germane to voters who can’t exactly figure out this guy who plays everything ambiguously and close to the vest. His whole past, Wright and Trinity especially, is a political problem that he has not put to rest, and it may be too late for him to do so.
June 1, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Folks:
You have some Trolls, who claimed all along that they were backers of Senator Clinton, now complaining about Senator Obama switching where he goes to say his prayers. Think of the Irony in all of that. Hillary said that she would not have stayed in the church, but now some of her Arse Trolls are complaining because Senator Obama just did what Hillary said she would have done.
May 31, 2008 9:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
A little late for growing a conscience...don't ya think?
May 31, 2008 10:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Has Cindy ever renounced the Church of Xanax?
May 31, 2008 10:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Look over there, Lamont. Its Haley's Comet.
Nice try with the miss direction but this is Barrack's day in the sun.
Soak it in.
May 31, 2008 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously though, can you blame Cindy for the tranks?
John wouldn't even defend her daughter when BushCo slurred her. You would have to pop pills to feign love for such a crooked old crank.
May 31, 2008 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Clinton was right all along? That is ironic.
May 31, 2008 10:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton was on the right all along, yes.
May 31, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
"On the right"...That's funny.
Amy Goodman and guests think Clinton and Obama are pretty much the same...Centrist hacks.
May 31, 2008 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
No one, anywhere, on this thread yet, has commented about Hillary's faith. Hillary's church. Hillary's Family Fellowship.
Why am I not surprised?
May 31, 2008 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
you gotta kidding
June 1, 2008 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amy Goodman's opinion plus twenty-five cents will get you a ride on the big pony outside Safeway.
May 31, 2008 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
On the bright side, the liemongers who have been screeching about Barack's 20-year stint at this church are now going to find it mighty hard to push the lie that he is a Muslim.
That won't stop them from trying, of course.
May 31, 2008 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Undercover Muslim.
The fact that he left TUCC just proves it.
May 31, 2008 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The gist"? Really freaking amazing that you don't report what Obama actually said but instead post, as fact, your interpretation of what he said. Amazing.
May 31, 2008 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does anyone know where (or if) Hillary goes to church? Does any one care?
Why not?
May 31, 2008 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
She's white. Being white is uncontroversial. Attending a white church, with mostly white people in it, is just what normal people do. Next question, please.
May 31, 2008 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
You got the white part right. But I don't know about white not being controversial.
May 31, 2008 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually the 'church' (or fellowship, if you will) that Clinton attends makes Trinity UCC look quite normal and familiar. Obama isn't one to have used that as a weapon against her - I'm sure the Republicans would have, however. It would have been enlightening but just as well for the party and it's chances in Nov. that we will be skipping all that.
May 31, 2008 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
you gotta be kidding
May 31, 2008 11:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's it, 'bot. Keep right on talking. Every filthy, racist thing you say is just one step closer to revealing the truth about your Dear Leader.
Racist filth. All of you.
June 1, 2008 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
No one cares because wherever she goes to church, they don't work for her campaign,spreading racially divisive and mocking messages about Obama and the USA.
May 31, 2008 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why outsource when you can do the work yourself?
June 1, 2008 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sad.
Hey, Mission Accomplished, national media.You gutless scummy cowards have harassed and villified this poor church for no good reason.
You, the same weasels who couldn't muster the courage to ask tough questions as Bush was sending Americans to die in Iraq based on lies.
For shame, bottom feeders.
May 31, 2008 10:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I knew it - Obama was always a closet Muslim and he is slowly coming out.
(ps that was snark btw)
May 31, 2008 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
He spewed he never saw it coming. He lied and played the race card.
Horrible judgement Obama and no way you will be President.
No freaking way.
May 31, 2008 10:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
As always, thoughtful and well-put. Thank you.
May 31, 2008 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
...that was for Theda up-thread - but also coincidentally applies to Observer. The fount of wisdom springs eternal.
May 31, 2008 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, darn, I thought it was for gotalife.
June 1, 2008 12:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know what I like about Obama - he didn't result to BS in his explanation for why he left the church. Now folks can make whatever judgement they want. Ultimately, this will just reinforce whatever people think of Obama.
May 31, 2008 10:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
True.
I know this was the best thing he could do for Trinity and for himself and for us - let's face it - because he knows how badly we need him to win. But it was wrong from the outset - there's no place for this kind of thing in America. Not in my America. You don't go after some candidate's church - you don't smear that church and try to make it look like some kind of Taliban.
This has been a shameful episode in our history, in my opinion. The first African American presidential candidate has had to: jump through multiple primary hoops; adjust to changing goal posts; renounce his membership in his church - what next?
Damn.
May 31, 2008 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
The last gasps of Hillary Trolldom!
Or should that be "Trolldum?"
Hallelujah!
Hallelujah!
May 31, 2008 10:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Trolldung, Trolldung!
June 1, 2008 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
The issue for me remains what it has always been: Why did Obama find a home in this Church and with spiritual leaders such as Wright and Phleger? What did these bombastic, anti-Semitic people offer him that comforted him? Did it not make him question these associations when they praised to the rafters Farrakhan? Why did it take 20 years and a presidential campaign to drive him away from them?
In short, who is Obama?
I feel I know Clinton - her strengths and weaknesses. Same for McCain. I'm having trouble taking a measure of Obama and this makes me uneasy. Therefore, I don't know who I'll vote for and this from a Democrat that usually votes a straight ticket.
May 31, 2008 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah I believe this.
whatever - spare us the stream of consciousness of deep thoughts on why you aren't going to vote for the Democratic nominee - I don't think we care.
May 31, 2008 11:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like you have quite a dilemma on your hands, Puddles.
Perhaps a four-year stint in the armed services would help you sort it all out.
May 31, 2008 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Pfleger is not a spiritual leader of Trinity UCC, but is a priest of the Catholic Church.
The truth of the matter is that hundreds or thousands of people found a home with TUCC, and hundreds or thousands of people no doubt found a home in the Catholic Church that Pfleger's belongs to. (I have no idea which parish he belongs to. It's not really relevant.)
As an atheist, I wish that religion played less of a role in all of our politicians' lives. As an American, I wish that we'd stay out of each others' religious lives. As an Obama supporter, I can't help but recognize that no one can actually say what church Clinton or McCain go to. (The Fellowship doesn't count. It's an organization moreso than a church.) I don't just mean that no one can tell me off the top of their head—one could easily justify that by saying their churches haven't been in the news. I mean, no one can do a deep Google search and come up with that answer. Their churches have been ruled off limits for some reason.
June 1, 2008 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Does this mean we don't have to have that national conversation on race Obama called for in Philadelphia? I hope so. Mr. Obama has now distanced himself not only from Jeremiah Wright but from his whole church. His grandmother may be next.
Obama needs to find a new pastor pronto. I hope he vets the guy better than Pelosi, Reid and Dean are vetting their nominee.
May 31, 2008 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
That press conference was a train wreck.
He lied so many times, the corporate media is not letting go of this outrage.
Worst judgement in the world.
May 31, 2008 10:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
You guys are out in force tonight.
Have a bad day or something?
May 31, 2008 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
They are crawling all over the place like the threadlice they are.
May 31, 2008 11:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who let the Trolls Out?
Who?
Who?
Who?
Who?
Who let the Trolls Out?
It's ALL O-VER!
Boom! Boom! Boom! Boom! Boom!
It's ALL O-VER!
Boom! Boom! Boom! Boom! Boom!
It's ALL O-VER!
Boom! Boom! Boom! Boom! Boom!
It's ALL O-VER!
Boom! Boom! Boom! Boom! Boom!
It's ALL O-VER!
Boom! Boom! Boom! Boom! Boom!
It's ALL O-VER!
Boom! Boom! Boom! Boom! Boom!
May 31, 2008 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!
May 31, 2008 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
He did nothing but lie in that press conference.
Another complete meltdown.
Stay in Clinton, all his lies will bring him down.
May 31, 2008 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
squawk!...he's a liar!...squawk squawk squawk!...Hillary won the popular vote!...squawk squawk squawk!...he's a BlackPower Christian Muslim Terrorist Communist!...squawk squawk squawk!
May 31, 2008 11:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't see it coming?
BS, he is lying or has terrible judgement.
Probably both.
Drink some more kool aid you gullible fools.
May 31, 2008 11:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can just smell the desperation...
May 31, 2008 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's the flop sweat coming off of them.
May 31, 2008 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reality check, Greg:
Since when was May 31 "right on the cusp of the general election"?!?
May 31, 2008 11:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
The primary season ends on Tuesday.
May 31, 2008 11:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Word!
And good night!
May 31, 2008 11:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
hillary supporters will wake up tomorrow and realize that we live in a post-feminist world. They can either catch up with the rest of us, or be seen as folks from appalachia. it's up to them to stay in the past or start "turning the page" towards the future...
June 1, 2008 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Always explaining. Never getting it right the first time.
Empty rhetoric and a lack of leadership. The hallmarks of Obama.
June 1, 2008 12:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, why is your candidate in a cult called "The Fellowship" and has a pastor who uses Hitler as a positive example?
http://deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/03/857959.aspx
http://thecurrent.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/03/clinton-fellowship.php
June 1, 2008 12:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
From your link: "They go to small weekly Senate prayer groups that Coe attends. Participants tell NBC News that so have senators John McCain, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, which those campaigns confirm."
June 1, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Clinton had Wright over once. The difference is that Clinton is a regular member of a notoriously crazy cult.
June 1, 2008 4:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe she just goes to the prayer meetings like Obama and McCain and has prayed with Coe in the past. Barbara Ehrenreich's "story" in HuffPo was one of the worst pieces of schlock propaganda that I've read in some time. Ann Coulter could not have written a better hit piece fabricated from rumor and innuendo.
June 1, 2008 6:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
OBAMA PROVES HIS DUPLICITY
Obama is the created, sustained,supported and maintained by the same Corporate Media that slavishly supported The NeoCons theory of 911, unquestionably coverd-up all alternative theories and blamed the illusive Bin La din for a Crime he denied. 6 years after the implosion of the WTC ,torture of many kinds, violation of all international laws, the US courts has not convicted one person for the crime and the US public has not heard one true confession. The media still covering-up the facts that Arabs or Muslims , or Bin La Din of any kind did not attack us and therefore we went and killed thousands in Afghanistan and illegally attacked and occupied Iraq and are driving the nation to bankruptcy under the fake cover of the War on Terror!
Obama is the front for the Corporations who want a New Logo to improve the US image outside and fool the people inside.
He just was a part-time lecturer teaching couple of courses and the Media declared him as Professor of Law!
He stole the "Audacity of Hope" from Wright , he called him a mentor and an uncle yet he denounced and rejected him and his Church!
His Christianity is fake as there is no proof that he was ever Baptized after the age of 24 when he arrived in the US mainland.
The source of Down payment for his 1.5 million House house, is as hidden of Bush's National Guard Records. The financing and the fake papers that a man who only had a 2 thousands dollars to buy a used Honda to move to Chicago he submitted to qualify for such a high mortgage has not been found.
Even he has not found a marriage certificate for his mother and the man he carries his name.
He used Trinity United Church to fabricate his fake belief in Christianity and now dispose of them like a toilet paper. He denounced Wright and his media executioner, overnight politically murdered, silenced, suffocated Wright. No Media has investigated how did Wright suddenly was sent to oblivion; but it shows the power of Obama's Corporate handlers.
Two Cheers for Democracy,one for the corporate media which has been pushing Obama with the same vigour as they pushed the War in Iraq.The other for the big multinationals and Israeli Lobby that would like to change the Logo and fool the world that actually a real Change is happening in America.
Obama was never Black to start with and never believed in the Black Church but stole their rhetoric s and sermons to make speeches. As he said clearly " nothing in my upbringing or past would make me to relate or believe in those ideas"' because he always believed that he is white, and he did not share a history with Black Americans,. All he wanted is their blind backing to get elected and deprive Clinton out of victory.
The Corporate Backers of Obama have done a great job, but they should not blind us to the fact that Obama is a fake and they know it and shame on a nation to put another know nothing fake man in charge of its affairs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!
June 1, 2008 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
This comment of yours was so poorly written I couldn't read it.
My red editing pen is leaking red ink everywhere.
How's your pen holding up?
June 1, 2008 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks. I will give the gift of flickr. Great idea!
June 1, 2008 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I loves me some flickr. Obama is on flickr, as you probably know.
June 1, 2008 1:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
First off, you know that you're one of my fave posters here, too. That said, there is respectful disagreement here.
This is a very tough issue for me. And, yes, you're probably right that my immediate reaction was very much connected to my candidate.
We're guaranteed freedom of religion. That's true with you, me, Barack Obama and the guy down the street. Constantinople, who I've also argued with in this thread, said that a candidate's political views are often informed by their religious views. That seems to be what you're saying here, too, and I do not discount that. BUT, it is the political views, not the religious roots of those views, which we should be concerned about. You mentioned hypocrisy. You actually capitalized the "h". You know what's hypocritical? To proclaim that we're a country that allows freedom of religion and then disparage the religion of a political candidate.
I'm not sure that I entirely understand what you're getting at here. But if the implication is that we (I) can't squawk about the Obama situation because if an opponent is associated with Hagee or some other fucked up preacher, well, it's wasted breath, then I maintain that I'm smart enough to discern a candidate's personal feelings and/or political tendencies without any vetting of his or her religious life. It's gonna shine through. And I will agree or disagree with that candidate based on the personal or political but NOT the religious.
Pat Buchanan was/is obviously someone whose religious views are important to his political views. But I don't disagree with Pat Buchanan because I think he goes to the wrong church. I disagree with Pat Buchanan because of his political views and I don't give a rosy red rat's ass how he arrived at those views.
Like I said, it's tough and there's a fine mental line. But that's how I feel.
June 1, 2008 1:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Big big BIG mistake by Obama. Selling out your friends and church family to fuel your own ambition is not something to be admired.
He got it right when he made his speech about race and not being able to disown Pastor Wright. This action essentially nullifies that speech.
I do not like this kind of duplicity in Obama. I am a contributor to his campaign and I can forgive it, but it does give me pause. I can only guess how this is playing with the middle-of-the-fence people.
Stand by your principles and you will be the next President, Mr. Obama. This was not your finest hour, sir.
June 1, 2008 2:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is someone who consistently says one thing and does another. Do you need to be reminded how just last weekend he said the RFK thing was over while he was stirring up the press and distributing Olbermann's diatribe?
Get used to it. Because that's just the way he is and you'll be seeing a lot more of it.
June 1, 2008 3:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tuzla, dude.
June 1, 2008 3:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, little monkey man....is that a HAT you're wearing on your little shrunken head?
Just askin'.
June 1, 2008 4:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jesus, as a fallen Catholic I'm glad I don't have to explain about Father O'Feely. Of course as an apparent white man I wouldn't have to. Not like that Muslim space alien from the Hawaiian Madrassa who talks white but gives me cognitive dissonance. All that anger in the Black church, what's that about?...
Its a shame he has to leave a community where so much of his family's history resides; but hey it ain't beanbag. What surprises me after reading this mildly entertaining circle jerk is that some people don't seem to understand that Obama's been the nominee since he ran the table after Super Tuesday in Feb. I have no problem with HRC, though she pisses me off when she hands the other side ammo. During the lost cause she's been fighting she has earned my admiration with her her brains and balls of steel. But after weeks of being dead and being afforded the space to do so on her own terms, its about time she lay down. November looms. Its time to get serious.
June 1, 2008 2:46 AM | Reply |