Originally posted by LLoyd45

You say he stayed because it was the fashionable church for African-Americans. Well, I don't know about you or Obama, but I go to church to hear the word of God, not be fashionable. Vanity is a sin. What does that say for Obama's character if he uses a church as a stepping stone for his political ambitions?

I didn't say that is in fact the reason he chose that church - I have no idea - but it IS possible. People go to church for any of a number of reasons, only the heart knows. I know plenty of so-called 'Christians' who go to church every Sunday and forget their ethics and moral foundations every other day of the week, particulary on Friday and Saturday nights.

However, for young families, attending a church that many of your peers go to is an important part of feeling like a member of a community and not just an anonymous person in a pew praying alone. I don't think it's vain, I think it's practical and smart - when you are trying to build the foundation for a spiritual family, you need lots of support.

Originally posted by Hal9000
Your right, and I shouldn't be saying that about someone that I haven't listened to more of. I have only heard the sound bites, but what I saw that CNN was showing was his impersonations and singing and dancing. Even if he has some credibility and some may even agree with what he says, the media is making him look ridiculous, and it will cost Obama the election.

The media isn't making him look ridiculous, he's making himself look ridiculous. They couldn't tape his antics, if he didn't put a show on for them.

Yes he is an adult, but could have also been manipulated to do this. Did you see the connection in kosmicjack's post?

He's not retarded, he's a very educated man. I doubt he could be manipulated that easily by a woman that he knows is a Clinton supporter.

Obama supporters will see this as a connection to the Clinton campaign and will cry fowl. Everything bad that has come out has been blamed on her or someone in the campaign.

I don't even like Clinton, but it's unfair to blame her for other people's stupidity. Hillary makes enough stupid mistakes of her own.

Originally posted by kosmicjack

I didn't say that is in fact the reason he chose that church - I have no idea - but it IS possible. People go to church for any of a number of reasons, only the heart knows. I know plenty of so-called 'Christians' who go to church every Sunday and forget their ethics and moral foundations every other day of the week, particulary on Friday and Saturday nights.

So-called Christians is right. A real Christian practices the same set of morals and values seven days a week, not just on prayer meeting nights and Sundays.

However, for young families, attending a church that many of your peers go to is an important part of feeling like a member of a community and not just an anonymous person in a pew praying alone. I don't think it's vain, I think it's practical and smart - when you are trying to build the foundation for a spiritual family, you need lots of support.

how does one build a spiritual foundation on morally shaky ground? It's the equivalent of trying to build a home atop a pool of quicksand.

Originally posted by kosmicjack

We'll just have to agree to disagree, I don't see how wanting to attend a church with people like yourself (in his case young, upwardly mobile African American families) or in the same situation as yourself is morally shaky.

There is nothing wrong with attending a church with people like yourself. My problem was with Obama attending a church that has such a negative message. Wright's message is not one of peace and unity, it's about division and hate which has clearly been shown.

Additionally, people change and Obama has stated that Wright's sermons were not typically like this.

People do change, sometimes for the better sometimes for the worse.

I applaud Obama for finally taking a stand on the issue. It's his only hope of ever getting the Democratic nomination, so I tend to view his present denunciation of Wright with a slightly jaundiced eye. We'll have to see if he sticks to his guns on the issue now.

[edit on 4/29/08 by LLoyd45]

Originally posted by Hal9000
So then why do you think he was on a media tour so to speak over the weekend? Do you think he's speaking out because he doesn't agree with Obama's politics? It's alright to disagree, but then you should give an alternate reason. I haven't seen that in any of your posts.

I think Reverend Wright believes what he says to be true, and feels that Barak privately agrees with him. Then again, why shouldn't he? Barack had previously described Reverend Wright as his mentor, inspiration, and spritual advisor.

In all fairness though, With Barak's recent comments, I'd just say Reverend Wright is grandiose and delusional.






[edit on 4/29/08 by LLoyd45]

This 'Guilty by Association' BS is going too far.

Why are people caring more about Obama's former pastor than about the issues between the candidates?

Wright is all the media has been talking about all day every day, so they obviously are wise to the notion that people care about stuff that doesn't matter, and vice-versa.

PEOPLE, look at the issues and the character of the candidates, NOT speculating how someone views another's opinions!

Originally posted by bigbert81
PEOPLE, look at the issues and the character of the candidates, NOT speculating how someone views another's opinions!

Do you not see a correlation betwen a person and the company they keep? An old Japanese proverb says: "If you have questions about a person's character, look to his friends."

If Hillary spent 20 years under the mentorship of David Dukes, do you think that would be a non-issue as well?

[edit on 4/29/08 by LLoyd45]

Originally posted by bigbert81
Why are people caring more about Obama's former pastor than about the issues between the candidates?

The reason this sticks is because Obama doesn't have a track record. He's a rookie Senator from Illinois that hasn't signed onto or pushed through any legislation of any sort. 9/11, the war in Iraq, all were before his time. Since we know zilch about him everyone is looking around to see what he's all about. Change and Hope sound nice, but is he the man to deliver them? You have to look at his past actions to determine this. Since there's nothing in the Senate it defaults to his pre-Senate life.

After reading the recent statement by Sharpton that Obama is "grandstanding in front of white people," I'm beginning to wonder if there isn't an attempt to sabotage his campaign. Sharpton and Wright (and others) would instantly lose the "glass ceiling" argument were Obama to win the general election. It's hard to stump against "the Man" when the man is personified by Obama. And if he loses it's "proof" the country "isn't ready for a black president." "cui bono?" Is it possible that these men who made their wealth in such a battle see their raison d'être threatened by a successful Obama campaign?




I'm still trying to figure this out....

As I posted in the other thread, radicals like Wright and Sharpton, faced with a campaign by Hillary's minions and the far right to paint Obama as a "black radical", are taking a closer look at his record and his words.

And they're finding that he really is the moderate pragmatic consensus-builder he presents himself as, not a fiery perpetually-outraged radical like themselves.

So they're turning on him, as self-defined "radicals" always do when faced with someone they don't consider radical enough for them.

Especially if, as _Del_ points out, his potential for success threatens their careers.

[edit on 5/1/08 by xmotex]

Originally posted by xmotex
As I posted in the other thread, radicals like Wright and Sharpton, faced with a campaign by Hillary's minions and the far right to paint Obama as a "black radical", are taking a closer look at his words.

And they're finding that he is really trying to protray himself as the moderate pragmatic consensus-builder, not a fiery perpetually-outraged radical like themselves.

So they're turning on him, as self-defined "radicals" always do when faced with someone they don't consider radical enough for them , because he sold out

Especially if, as _Del_ points out, his potential for success threatens their careers.

[edit on 5/1/08 by xmotex]

Edited above (in bold) to more closely match my own view. Either could of course be correct. I'm not saying only my theory is possibly true...

[edit on 1-5-2008 by _Del_]

I'm familiar with it. And Obama is too. He attended the church for 20 years. I would think it's more likely that he's hiding his true colours ("selling out") than that he suddenly learned his pastor is a quack. He's acting the part of the moderate.

I suspect he was in Wright's congregation because, in local Chicago circles, the man's views weren't particularly controversial. IE, he was trying to appear further left than he actually is, on order to pander to his political base in Chicago, and being in Wright's (large, influential) church was a political asset.

If you look at his voting record, he was a moderate by Chicago political standards in the Statehouse, and his voting record (if we want to focus on actions and not rhetoric) became even more so in the Senate.