The implications of Obama's View of Rev Wright's Sermons

[Michael]

Another talk show host, not Dennis, accused Obama of lying in his
attempt to distance himself from Rev. Wright. To me the bigger problem
with Obama is not that he might have lied (which I do not believe he
did). Rather, he seems to have taken normal political evasiveness to
such an extent as to be pathologically divisive (A secondary problem
is that the media covers up his evasiveness. To wit, the calumny
heaped upon Mssrs Gibson and Stephanopolous (sic?) is the exception
proving the rule). Take, for example, Obama's assertion that...

"Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American
domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make
remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church?
Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views?
Absolutely."

-- Barack Obama

Let's take this apart: I agree that, by all lights, Wright is a
"fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy". But so was
David Duke, William Ayers and Bernadette Dorn. Obama describes Wright
in this way as to ameliorate the obvious conclusion that Wright is
demonstrably unpatriotic. In other words, Obama would have us think
'fierce critic' instead of the more accurate adjective -- unpatriotic.
The problem is that patriots do not call for God to damn their
country. One simply does not pray for God to damn those s/he loves.

Second, does anyone with a modicum of intellectual integrity believe
that the U.S. government attempted to rid the U.S. of Blacks by
injecting them with the AIDS virus? The point, of course, is not the
truth of this assertion. The lesson is that Obama describes Wright's
assertion as controversial? Why couldn't Obama describe this
repugnancy for what it really is -- An attempt by a man, under the
color of religious authority and racial credibility, to incite his
congregation to a racist animus of the very worst kind. Obama would
like us to believe that statements of this kind are nothing more than
fierce criticism.

Third, if these statements (and others that have now come to light as
of yestereday) are not diagnostic of a bigoted, unpatriotic demagogue,
I challenge anyone to tell me exactly what sort of statements are.
Asked differently, what would a man of the cloth, say, Pope Benedict
XVI or Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, have to say in order to convict either
of them of bigoted, unpatriotic, demagoguery?

Finally, one of the principle functions of a member of the rostered
clergy is to provide moral and ethical guidance for his congregation.
This is true for Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.In other words, one
function of the pastoral role is to represent, teach, and exemplify
God's ethical demands. That Obama tolerates Rev. Wright's
representation of these demands suggests that (1) Obama's profession
of faith is deeply confused, or (2) not particularly deep, or (3) a
faith of convenience --or some combination of these three.

Cheers,

Michael

[dellasc...@yahoo.com]

Very well said. I'm afraid that the only explanation for Obama's
longtime attachment to Wright and his church is one that a few people,
including his supporters, have mentioned from time to time--political
expedience. Apparently, Wright is some kind of important mover and
shaker in Chicago, and Obama's alignment with him, contrary to the
heart-warming story related in The Audacity of Hope, is just political
expedience. So, instead of being this great beacon of change, hope
and unity, he's the most cynical of pols.

The whole thing, along with Ayers and the rest of it, also makes me
concerned about the kind of people he would surround himself with in
his administration. People were worried about Karl Rove being Bush's
brain--think who might be Obama's brain.

[James Eisenhut]

I was at the starbucks at crossroads sun and didnt find anybody.           Did anyone else go?               James Eisenhut

---

Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

[dian...@aol.com]

James,
Yes, about 15 of us met at 2 p.m.below the stage at the Crossroads Mall.  Then they began signing onstage so a few stayed behind
with Prager sign and the rest of us moved away from the noise over to where the "library" was.  The ones who had stayed
behind waited awhile, then joined us.  If you were at Starbuck's, you were just a little ways away.  Sorry we missed you.
Diane Ruff

---

Plan your next roadtrip with MapQuest.com: America's #1 Mapping Site.

[Daniel Crandall]

James,

I'm sorry you missed the group. We met briefly by the stage at the mall, and then moved down toward the Public Library Annex so we weren't competing with the entertainment.

There was a pretty strong turnout; bigger than anything we had over a 3rd Place Books. I think the table set up could be improved on, in that the way they were set up the conversation was limited to your neighbors. I still had a good time and hope, as time goes by, that we can work out some of these kinks.

This isn't to say that the conversation was limited in any way. I was able to get clarity on the differences and agreements I have with Michael vis a vis Expelled. There were discussion of Obama and McCain, whether or not religion is needed to inform morality, whether or not the public tends liberal or conservative, how does one move the public one way or the other, etc.

It was wide ranging and interesting. If the group meet-ups get much bigger, we might have to reserve a space somewheres and focus the discussion a bit more.

Take care,
Daniel

[James Eisenhut]

Thank you for responding Daniel.          James  E --- On Tue, 4/29/08, Daniel Crandall <dpcra...@gmail.com> wrote:

[James Eisenhut]

How about an in person meeting this sunday--may 25. 4pm at the Crossroads Starbucks. See you sunday James Eisenhut