[olePigeon]

I have friends who are a**holes. One of my brothers is pretty racist. However, I'm not going to disown them even if I disagree with a lot of what they say.

Incidentally, I went to church for nearly 20 years and I am no longer a Christian. I'm still really good friends with a lot of people who still attend church, especially our priest who baptized me. One of my best friends just graduated seminary school and is becoming a pastor/priest. However, even after literally growing up and having their religious doctrine thrown at me and being told that it's the "only" way live my life, I still took a step back after 20 years and decided that it's completely incompatible with my observations of the world and how it works.

In short, Obama's priest's views on the world do not necessarily reflect Obama's views. He shouldn't have to give up his friends because they have stupid ideas. I remember people telling him he should change his name before running for the Presidency. I'm glad he didn't.

Friends are fun to have a beer with or whatever even if you don't agree with them.

[OAW]

Mark my word. The only people still having a fit over the so-called Rev. Wright issue are those who were never going to vote for Obama anyway. The whole episode is ridiculous. The Pat Robertsons, Jerry Falwells, and other right-wing preachers of the world can preach hellfire and damnation is coming to the USA for all kinds of perceived transgressions against God ... but somehow that's not considered "anti-American". White preachers railing against the US for being "too secular" or "too tolerant of homosexuality" is cool ... but a black preacher railing against the US be being "too racist" and the fricking sky is falling. Give me a break!

OAW

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by zerostar 

He needs to publicly denounce the pastors views on the issues, but even now would be too late.

He did. It's in the first article linked in the OP:
"I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have [been] the subject of this controversy," Obama said

This is really the main reason I don't think this is an issue. If this story came up and Obama didn't comment, I'd agree there's something to worry about.

[TheWOAT]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Mark my word. The only people still having a fit over the so-called Rev. Wright issue are those who were never going to vote for Obama anyway. The whole episode is ridiculous. The Pat Robertsons, Jerry Falwells, and other right-wing preachers of the world can preach hellfire and damnation is coming to the USA for all kinds of perceived transgressions against God ... but somehow that's not considered "anti-American". White preachers railing against the US for being "too secular" or "too tolerant of homosexuality" is cool ... but a black preacher railing against the US be being "too racist" and the fricking sky is falling. Give me a break!

OAW

[Chongo]

I believe Pat Robertson et al were all called on the carpet for their comments. as fas as

but a black preacher railing against the US be being "too racist" and the fricking sky is falling.

there have those preachers since the '60s (Malik Shabazz", Louis Farrakhan) and no one but LBJ and J Edgar Hoover cared. It has become an issue only because this particular preacher is the pastor, mentor, etc of the lead candidate for the Dem. party nomination.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

I believe Pat Robertson et al were all called on the carpet for their comments. as fas as there have those preachers since the '60s (Malik Shabazz", Louis Farrakhan) and no one but LBJ and J Edgar Hoover cared. It has become an issue only because this particular preacher is the pastor, mentor, etc of the lead candidate for the Dem. party nomination.

Called on the carpet? Perhaps. Republican candidates vilified in the press because said preachers supported them? I think not. Republican candidates called "anti-American" or "unpatriotic" because of their association with said preachers? Hell no.

Republican presidential candidates can go to right-wing religious colleges that still to this fricking day ban interracial dating among their student body ... and you don't see an iota's worth of the hysteria that's been generated over Rev. Wright's association with Obama. Republican presidential candidates can receive endorsements from all sorts of Confederate flag waving organizations ... but never does this "enemy flag" get used to question their patriotism or call them "anti-American". For that matter, Democratic presidential candidates don't seem to have to deal with such nonsense either. That white ones that is.

The historical record speaks for itself.

OAW

[sek929]

Don't forget Mcain called Falwell an 'agent of intolerance' during his last campaign and now seems to have revoked that feeling.

Hating gays is ok, but an angry black man speaking his mind, that's un-american!

[Chongo]

[quote=OAW;3627895]Called on the carpet? Perhaps. Republican candidates vilified in the press because said preachers supported them? I think not. Republican candidates called "anti-American" or "unpatriotic" because of their association with said preachers? Hell no.

Republican presidential candidates can go to right-wing religious colleges that still to this fricking day ban interracial dating among their student body ... and you don't see an iota's worth of the hysteria that's been generated over Rev. Wright's association with Obama. Republican presidential candidates can receive endorsements from all sorts of Confederate flag waving organizations ... but never does this "enemy flag" get used to question their patriotism or call them "anti-American". For that matter, Democratic presidential candidates don't seem to have to deal with such nonsense either. That white ones that is.

The historical record speaks for itself.

The press was all over Bush for giving a speech at Bob Jones University, which by the way, is more anti Catholic, than racist or anti-homosexual.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

And that really says it all. A "worthwhile point" to you is apparently a childish insult that contributes nothing of substance to the discussion, along with a gratuitous rolleyes.

You mentioned several hundred thousand meandering independents waiting on media coverage to make a decision. I mentioned "dyed in the wool left" (maybe 10% of the voting block?) that would vote for Obama regardless of information that'd make the otherwise sane think twice. It was an observation, not unlike yours. You espoused your opinion, I espoused mine in response. You didn't like it. I'm sorry.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Mark my word. The only people still having a fit over the so-called Rev. Wright issue are those who were never going to vote for Obama anyway.

... and maybe a few others who might have a problem with the notion that the US government created HIV to eradicate black people. Thought I'd throw that in amongst the other "ridiculous" notions.

The whole episode is ridiculous.

No it's not.

The Pat Robertsons, Jerry Falwells, and other right-wing preachers of the world can preach hellfire and damnation is coming to the USA for all kinds of perceived transgressions against God ... but somehow that's not considered "anti-American".

It may be. Let a Republican candidate for US President formally announce one of them as their spiritual advisor today and watch the fireworks.

White preachers railing against the US for being "too secular"

This does not surprise me in the least. There are a great many preachers and pastors who believe people are being told that "Separation of Church and State" means "Suppression of Church in State".

or "too tolerant of homosexuality" is cool ...

I for one do not think it is cool, but their opposition to gay marriage happens to be the majority stance in this country. Perhaps this is why they've been given a pass on that one.

but a black preacher railing against the US be being "too racist" and the fricking sky is falling. Give me a break!

You mean the US of KKK-A? Exploiting his non-profit status by supporting a poltical candidate, publically, unabashadly? What exactly is it that Obama has denounced and disavowed if not the ridiculous rantings of a blowhard seeking to exacerbate racial tension for a buck?

[OAW]

This piece on CNN pretty much sums up the foolishness of all this brouhaha ...

Commentary: Listen to the candidates, not their associates - CNN.com

Clinton pressed Obama during a debate this year to repudiate and denounce Farrakhan's unsolicited praise of him at an event the Nation of Islam leader organized for his group in Chicago.

The moderator, NBC's Tim Russert, brought up comments made by Farrakhan 24 years ago in his question to Obama.

Fine, so what do we make of then-President Bill Clinton publicly endorsing the 1995 Million Man March? Who called for that march? Louis Farrakhan. Who was the lead organizer? Louis Farrakhan. Who was the keynote speaker? Louis Farrakhan.

After he was out of the White House, President Clinton also endorsed the Million Man March. Who called for that march? Louis Farrakhan. Who was the lead organizer? Louis Farrakhan. Who was the keynote speaker? Louis Farrakhan.

Did Sen. Clinton privately or publicly rebuke her husband for supporting a man whom she has determined to be hateful and divisive?

Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, who is national co-chair of Sen. Clinton's presidential campaign, once stood on stage with Farrakhan in 1997 -- at an event the Times said was "called to promote racial reconciliation after several recent high-profile crimes" -- and praised him for his commitment to ending violence in the black community. Rendell was the mayor of Philadelphia at the time.

According to the April 15, 1997, story in The New York Times, Farrakhan praised Rendell before 3,000 people at the anti-violence rally for ''his courage and strength to rise above emotion and differences that might be between us or our communities.''

According to the Times, Rendell, who is Jewish, commended the Nation of Islam for its emphasis on family values and self-sufficiency.

Must Clinton repudiate and denounce Rendell's past comments and association with Farrakhan?

Former Republican Rep. Jack Kemp is a huge supporter of Sen. John McCain, and he also has a Farrakhan story.

In 1996, when Kemp was the vice presidential running mate of Kansas Sen. Bob Dole, he told reporters that he wanted to meet with Farrakhan and praised his organization's focus on economic empowerment, family values and its pull-yourselves-up-by-the-bootstrap message -- right in line with the GOP talking points. Kemp said he wanted to speak at the Million Man March.

Boy, was he torn apart by Jewish critics, and many in his own party.

Kemp summarily criticized Farrakhan's comments about Jews and whites, but he didn't take his words back. By the way, Hannity pressed every African-American supporter about Farrakhan, but he never got in Kemp's face about his comments. I wonder why?

Must McCain repudiate and denounce Kemp's past comments and association with Farrakhan?

OAW

[OAW]

Another good read ...

BAW: Commentary: Conservative Pundits Equate the Black Church’s Chastising of America to Treason – and They’re Wrong

Some have painted Obama as a fellow traveler of sorts for continuing to attend Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. It was, after all, a church in which the pastor wasn’t speaking in tongues about how good America had been to black folks; a pastor who, among other things, suggested that black people ought to be singing “God damn America,” instead of “God Bless America.”

Last week, in a brilliant, Lincolnesque speech, Obama responded. But even as he is struggling to move on, white conservative pundits seem to be trying to make Wright and the black church the latest target of their neo-McCarthyism -- the kind that likens any chastisement of the American system as being tantamount to treason.

To them, such chastisement amounts to “hate speech.” Some have been railing on about black churches and what can be done.

Their ignorance and insensitivity regarding black people is maddening.

First of all, Wright and many other black preachers aren’t preaching hate. They aren’t telling black people to scorn white people, but to remember that a country in which they were denied full participation in for most of its 231 years still has a lot to answer for when it comes to racial justice and fairness. And the vehicle that Wright and many other black preachers use to deliver their messages is something that is known as prophetic language.

Prophetic language, by its very nature, is designed to deliver truths in a gut-wrenching and provocative way. It isn’t supposed to be wimpy or polite.

Wright, for example, once talked about how rapes and disappearances of black women go virtually uncovered, while disappearances of pretty white women stay in the news for months and years.

Of Natalee Holloway, the blond teenager who disappeared in Aruba in 2005, he said: "One 18-year-old white girl from Alabama gets drunk on a graduation trip to Aruba, goes off and 'gives it up' while in a foreign country, and that stays in the news for months!"

Wright’s words were harsh. Yet it’s a fact that white women who disappear get more coverage than black ones. Holloway’s friends and other witnesses have also said that she was drinking the entire time she was in Aruba, and had been doing Jell-O shots and other shots the night she left Carlos and Charlie’s -- a nightclub -- with two strangers.

He didn’t say that black people should hate Natalee Holloway. His message was that something is terribly wrong when the news media places more value on the disappearance of a blond white girl who acted irresponsibly than it does to any black woman who turns up missing.

And it is.

Yet some white pundits are arrogant enough to think black people aren’t supposed to hear truths about their own existence and their own history if those truths upset white people.

OAW

[vmarks]

OAW, BlackWebAmerica can try and do damage control with articles all they please. It doesn't change some basic observations.

Rev. Wright is an unrepentant racist. It would not be stretching the truth to say that Rev. Wright is a Black supremacist.

Rev. Wright knows that he offends the Jewish community, and has said he thinks his offensiveness may hurt Mr. Obama's campaign. Rev. Wright has been named by Obama as his spiritual advisor.

These things are inexcusable, and Mr. Obama's speech tried to excuse them.

The speech and Obama’s subsequent interviews neither explained his disastrous association with Wright, nor dared open up a true discussion of race — which by needs would have to include, in addition to white racism, taboo subjects ranging from disproportionate illegitimacy and drug usage to higher-than-average criminality to disturbing values espoused in rap music and unaddressed anti-Semitism.

We did not get Mr. Obama saying "There is nothing to be offered for Rev. Wright except my deepest apologies for not speaking out against his venom far earlier. We in the African-American community know better than anyone the deleterious effects of racist speech, and so it is time for Rev. Wright and myself to part company, since we have profoundly different views of both present- and future-day America."

.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Rev. Wright knows that he offends the Jewish community, and has said he thinks his offensiveness may hurt Mr. Obama's campaign. Rev. Wright has been named by Obama as his spiritual advisor.

Spirituality ≠ Politics. If Obama said any of these things, that would be one thing. If you were attacking Obama's spiritual advisor on issues of spirituality, that would be one thing. But you're attacking his spiritual advisor over things that aren't spiritual, things which Obama has explicitly condemned. You might as well attack McCain over the political statements of his family medical advisor, or attack Clinton over the political statements of her life-long hairstyle advisor.

We did not get Mr. Obama saying "There is nothing to be offered for Rev. Wright except my deepest apologies for not speaking out against his venom far earlier."

But we did get that, right in the OP's article:
"I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the statements that have [been] the subject of this controversy"
How can there be any more complete rejection than "vehemently disagree and strongly condemn?"

[el chupacabra]

I've had friends in the past who were racist.
And when I found out they were racist I stopped associating with them.
Because I don't believe in it, and my circles have a lot multicultural friends who aren't compatible with that.

So I have to wonder why Obama has been friends with this guy for so long. And why he admired him for so long. Obviously Obama knows it is wrong thats why he changed churches...when it was convenient.

who cares???
I happen to know a lot of people who have changed their mind about supporting Obama after seeing the crap that came out of wright's mouth.

[Chuckit]

I've had friends in the past who were meat-eaters.
And when I found out they were meat-eaters I stopped associating with them.
Because I don't believe in it, and I've had many pets who wouldn't appreciate being eaten.

Does it sound reasonable when I take something you believe in that I find abhorrent and use it to write you off completely as a person? Personally, I think it's more fruitful to stay and try to change their minds than to storm out screaming "I'm not talking to you" like a bad-tempered teenager.

Anyway, I think this is where Obama's comparison to his grandmother is very useful. I'm not going to disown my grandmother just because she was prejudiced against one race. Most of the people we love are flawed in some significant way. As far as I can tell, this guy is kind of a father figure to Obama. Ideological consistency be damned, you can't just write your family off that easily.

[Big Mac]

This thread comes down to a clear demarcation in thought. There are some who can accept Wright's conduct and Obama's tacit 20 year approval thereof as permissible, while the other side finds Wright to be a hateful demagogue and cannot tolerate Obama's association with him. As we've learned from five pages of this debate, the respective camps are worlds apart in their points of view. It is my personal opinion that the failure of Obama to unequivocally reject Wright shows him to be unfit for office.