God <<staff edit>> America!

[TheManeki]

On a related note, I don't remember hearing any furor over John Hagee's endorsement of John McCain, and in my opionion Hagee is just as hateful as Farrakhan. (Especially after Hagee admitted he got Bush to hold back during the first part of the Israel/Lebanon crisis a couple of summers ago, in the hopes that it would spark Armageddon.)

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

On a related note, I don't remember hearing any furor over John Hagee's endorsement of John McCain, and in my opionion Hagee is just as hateful as Farrakhan. (Especially after Hagee admitted he got Bush to hold back during the first part of the Israel/Lebanon crisis a couple of summers ago, in the hopes that it would spark Armageddon.)

I never much cared for Hagee, but I didn't realize he was that wacko. It seems some people did object to the endorsement.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20080229/cm_huffpost/089275

But that's only an endorsement. McCain doesn't go to Hagee's church, and Hagee is not nearly as well known outside his own flock as Farrakhan is.

There was a minor flap about Farrakhan endorsing Obama, but that died down quickly after Obama disavowed Farrakhan's views while still accepting the endorsement.

 

[Speculative]

On a related note, I don't remember hearing any furor over John Hagee's endorsement of John McCain, and in my opionion Hagee is just as hateful as Farrakhan. (Especially after Hagee admitted he got Bush to hold back during the first part of the Israel/Lebanon crisis a couple of summers ago, in the hopes that it would spark Armageddon.)

Well, that trumps anything Jeremiah Wright has said right there.

In McCain's defense, though, he likely accepted the endorsement to court the votes of the extreme right wing Christians who are saying they're not going to vote for him because he's too "liberal".

Although McCain is wrong on a lot of issues, I think he's smart enough not to take seriously anything said by the likes of Hagee.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Well, that trumps anything Jeremiah Wright has said right there.

In McCain's defense, though, he likely accepted the endorsement to court the votes of the extreme right wing Christians who are saying they're not going to vote for him because he's too "liberal".

Although McCain is wrong on a lot of issues, I think he's smart enough not to take seriously anything said by the likes of Hagee.

Indeed. One reason the RR activists don't like McCain is that he's been harshly critical of them in the past.

I have no problem with McCain accepting Hagee's endorsement while disavowing his views, just as I have no problem with Obama accepting Farrakhan's endorsement while disavowing his.

But I would have a problem with McCain being a member of Hagee's church.

 

[Markus6]

There was a minor flap about Farrakhan endorsing Obama, but that died down quickly after Obama disavowed Farrakhan's views while still accepting the endorsement.

He did not accept the endorsement he just realised he couldn't tell Farrakhan what to think. He "denounced and rejected" the endorsment.

 

[spinningtutu]

Ok, several points...

1) To Izdaari: I refuse to argue b/c in my experience with politically charged things, people rarely change via arguments/debates (usually it just gets people boiling). Personally, I've only ever changed my view after extensive personal research into an issue and the consequences of decisions. I'm sorry we disagree so much, but I still think you're cool.

2) Politics must be interwined in the pulpit and in Church. I don't believe in separation of church & state ~ which is why it is all that more necessary to get things right. My fundamental disagreement with the so-called "fundamentalists" of Christianity, or for that matter, Islam, reside not in their approach, only in their contents thereof.

3) Both McCain and Obama are relatively level headed and decent. Neither would agree with the things I say, nor would they agree with some of the 'radicals' who support them. However, both are smart enough to recognize that a vote is a vote. They both have to walk a fine line... and I think they both do.

 

[spinningtutu]

Oh, P.S. I'm cool with Barack being a member of Trinity... because the extreme statements Rev Wright has made were isolated, culled together from hundreds of sermons over more than 2 decades and strung together... In other words, as much as *I* like what he says in those clips, I don't think that was the norm experience.

Obama said Rev Wright usually just talked about having faith in Jesus.

Plus, that was that church he got saved at and the pastor who led him to Christ and married him and baptized his children.

Is there anywhere here who will admit going to a church that is less-than-perfect?

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Ok, several points...

1) To Izdaari: I refuse to argue b/c in my experience with politically charged things, people rarely change via arguments/debates (usually it just gets people boiling). Personally, I've only ever changed my view after extensive personal research into an issue and the consequences of decisions. I'm sorry we disagree so much, but I still think you're cool.

Agreed, and likewise.

2) Politics must be interwined in the pulpit and in Church. I don't believe in separation of church & state ~ which is why it is all that more necessary to get things right. My fundamental disagreement with the so-called "fundamentalists" of Christianity, or for that matter, Islam, reside not in their approach, only in their contents thereof.

I disagree with both their approach and their content. If I consistently hear much about politics from the pulpit, even if I agree with it, I'm looking for a different church.

3) Both McCain and Obama are relatively level headed and decent. Neither would agree with the things I say, nor would they agree with some of the 'radicals' who support them. However, both are smart enough to recognize that a vote is a vote. They both have to walk a fine line... and I think they both do.

On this we agree. Both are very able, decent and sensible men. Either would likely make a fine president. The choice between them is a matter of where we want the country to go. For myself, I like Obama's personality and leadership qualities much better, though I strongly prefer McCain's policies.

(Not that I like McCain's policies, I just think they're less bad. What I'd really want would be Ron Paul on domestic issues, and Duncan Hunter on foreign policy).

 

[JulySheMustFly]

Politics must be interwined in the pulpit and in Church. I don't believe in separation of church & state

I think this is where I step out and get coffee. I believe separation of church & state is imperative to religious freedom. I do not desire any government to tell me how to think and what is acceptable for my soul. I really don't think the teaching of the church during the sermon should address a specific political agenda. I think the people within the congregation have the responsibility to make changes in our world that exemplify the teachings of Christ and sometimes that means effecting the government.

I was interupted about 3 times trying to type this so I'm not certain my thoughts are made clear.

I'd be really interested in knowing if there is Biblical support for or against teaching politics during a congregational teaching time.

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Oh, P.S. I'm cool with Barack being a member of Trinity... because the extreme statements Rev Wright has made were isolated, culled together from hundreds of sermons over more than 2 decades and strung together... In other words, as much as *I* like what he says in those clips, I don't think that was the norm experience.

Obama said Rev Wright usually just talked about having faith in Jesus.

Plus, that was that church he got saved at and the pastor who led him to Christ and married him and baptized his children.

Is there anywhere here who will admit going to a church that is less-than-perfect?

Ok, that's fair. I hope Rev. Wright did usually talk about Christian themes, as a pastor should, instead of politics. And I don't necessarily think Obama should quit his church... but he did have some 'splainin' to do. We'll soon know if he did so to the satisfaction of the voters.

 

[Crazy Liz]

I think this is where I step out and get coffee. I believe separation of church & state is imperative to religious freedom. I do not desire any government to tell me how to think and what is acceptable for my soul. I really don't think the teaching of the church during the sermon should address a specific political agenda. I think the people within the congregation have the responsibility to make changes in our world that exemplify the teachings of Christ and sometimes that means effecting the government.

I was interupted about 3 times trying to type this so I'm not certain my thoughts are made clear.

I'd be really interested in knowing if there is Biblical support for or against teaching politics during a congregational teaching time.

I believe in separation of church and state on theological grounds, also. But I disagree with you about not talking about political morality from the pulpit.

It's wrong for Christians to force their religion on anybody, but it's not wrong for Christians to call everyone - Christians, non-Christians, and even the Principalities and Powers - to repentance.

John Howard Yoder wrote in the 60s about how this is appropriate. I recommend his book, Christian Witness to the State. It's not light reading, but presents a Christian political ethic that properly respects separation of church and state.

 

[JulySheMustFly]

Thanks for the book suggestions.
Forgive me for asking but what is the difference between political morality and morality without any adjectives?

 

[Crazy Liz]

Thanks for the book suggestions.
Forgive me for asking but what is the difference between political morality and morality without any adjectives?

By political morality, I mean how we act out our morality in the explicitly political sphere.

It also has to do with the morality (or lack thereof) of the "Principalities and Powers" of political systems.

 

[Gukkor]

Pat Robertson says Hurricane Katrina was God's judgment on New Orleans, and people on the left call him a hateful madman. This guy stops just short of being a black supremacist and holds modern-day whites as a whole responsible for the actions of SOME of our ancestors, and the left lauds him as a modern-day prophet.

I sense a disturbance in the Force of U.S. politics. Then again, what else is new? That said, I think it ludicrous to suggest that this guy's ranting has anything to do with Barack Obama's potential as a president.

 

[dies-l]

Pat Robertson says Hurricane Katrina was God's judgment on New Orleans, and people on the left call him a hateful madman. This guy stops just short of being a black supremacist and holds modern-day whites as a whole responsible for the actions of SOME of our ancestors, and the left lauds him as a modern-day prophet.

I am not aware of any statements that blame modern day whites for the actions of MANY IF NOT MOST of our ancestors. What I do hear him saying is that our society, which has worked very much to the benefit of modern day white people, is historically based on institutional racism. And, I would agree with him on that.

Basing my opinion mostly on the videos presented in the O.P., I would say that much of what the guy has said (at least that which the controversy is surrounding) is undeniably true. Unfortunately, I think he chose to express it in a way that is unnecessarily and harmfully divisive and inflammatory. Just because there is truth in a statement doesn't mean that the speaker is justified in making the statement. I would also agree with the person who said that the pulpit is entirely the wrong place to make these kinds of statements.

I struggle with this whole thing. Until a few days ago, I wholeheartedly was behind Barack Obama. From what I have seen about how he has handled this, I have lost a little bit of confidence in him. But, it does help me to keep in mind that, in the years that Barack has been attending Trinity, I doubt that the pastor has spoken such inflammatory statements on a regular basis. I agree that there is no comparison between this situation and the McCain/Hagee situation. On the other hand, I don't know that it is entirely fair to judge Obama based upon the most inflammatory statements made by his pastor. I am sure that all of us have associated ourselves with people whose expressed viewpoints would embarrass us if they were scrutinized this closely by the media.

 

[Gukkor]

I am not aware of any statements that blame modern day whites for the actions of MANY IF NOT MOST of our ancestors. What I do hear him saying is that our society, which has worked very much to the benefit of modern day white people, is historically based on institutional racism. And, I would agree with him on that.

Hm...I suppose that is one way of looking at it.

I am disinclined to dive too deeply into this discussion, lest I offend someone unintentionally. Being a centrist, I fall to the left on some issues and to the right on others. This would be one of the latter.

 

[catlover]

Pat Robertson says Hurricane Katrina was God's judgment on New Orleans, and people on the left call him a hateful madman. This guy stops just short of being a black supremacist and holds modern-day whites as a whole responsible for the actions of SOME of our ancestors, and the left lauds him as a modern-day prophet.

I sense a disturbance in the Force of U.S. politics. Then again, what else is new? That said, I think it ludicrous to suggest that this guy's ranting has anything to do with Barack Obama's potential as a president.

Modern day whites benefit from the system of institutional racism--so in essence this has nothing to do with our "ancestors" it has to do with a system of oppression in the U.S which is alive and well today...
would have the Katrina bumbling happened to a predominantly white community. HECK NO.

I hate to state it, these people have a RIGHT to be ticked...this is a racist hate filled society towards those who don't fit the mold of what the domnant culture wants....

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Modern day whites benefit from the system of institutional racism--so in essence this has nothing to do with our "ancestors" it has to do with a system of oppression in the U.S which is alive and well today...

It doesn't make sense to me that ANYBODY benefits from such institutional racism as remains. It's bad for everybody. But how much remains? IMO not enough to keep a man like Barack Obama from being elected President. If he loses, it'll be on the issues... or because he screws it up himself.

would have the Katrina bumbling happened to a predominantly white community. HECK NO.

Some blame incompetent federal officials. But if New Orleans had been predominantly white, would those officials have suddenly become more competent? Would Lousiana's incompetent governor, who has since been replaced, have been better? Would the Big Easy's corrupt and incompetent mayor, who was inexplicably re-elected, have been better? I don't think so. No matter what the race of the people in New Orleans, it would still have been all screwed up.

I hate to state it, these people have a RIGHT to be ticked...this is a racist hate filled society towards those who don't fit the mold of what the domnant culture wants....

What is it that the "dominant culture" wants, and is there anything wrong with it? Is there anything unreasonable about it? Anything racist or hate-filled about it? I don't think so... and Bill Cosby doesn't think so either. All that's required for minorities to get ahead in America is to stay out of trouble with the law, get educated, get married, and have a decent work ethic... the same as for white folks. There is still racism, but it isn't systemic, it's just individual dinosaurs that just don't get it.

 

[freespiritchurch]

I don't think so. If McCain were going to the church of one of those extremist pastors, and had been for 20 years, he wouldn't even still be a candidate. The political firestorm would've driven him out of the campaign in disgrace. Obama is being treated better than McCain would've been in similar circumstances.

You know when someone coughs, and hides a certain word? That's the word I'm thinking of right now.

Jeremiah Wright does not belong in the same category as Louis Farrakhan. I know--I've been there, I know one of its associate ministers, his wife who ministers at one of their daughter churches, and a staffer who attended the church where I was trained as a minister.

In the first place, I promise you that I got a friendlier reception as the only white guy in the building than he would as the only black guy in your church. Yes, I mean your church--your liberal, open-minded church with no black people in it (or, even worse, a couple of well-dressed black people who can assuage your guilt without challenging your assumptions). I won't insist that you call him a prophet, but he's not at all the way he has been portrayed in the media over the last week, and his church doesn't stand for the principles that it's been stereotyped to hold.

I think it's funny that the same people who were sending out "Obama is a Muslim" emails two months ago are now wailing about his pastor. It looks to me like they're cutting back on the outrageousness of their smears until they find one that's small enough to fly, but big enough to hurt.

Alan

 

[catlover]

It doesn't make sense to me that ANYBODY benefits from such institutional racism as remains. It's bad for everybody. But how much remains? IMO not enough to keep a man like Barack Obama from being elected President. If he loses, it'll be on the issues... or because he screws it up himself.

Some blame incompetent federal officials. But if New Orleans had been predominantly white, would those officials have suddenly become more competent? Would Lousiana's incompetent governor, who has since been replaced, have been better? Would the Big Easy's corrupt and incompetent mayor, who was inexplicably re-elected, have been better? I don't think so. No matter what the race of the people in New Orleans, it would still have been all screwed up.

What is it that the "dominant culture" wants, and is there anything wrong with it? I don't think so... and Bill Cosby doesn't think so.

it's about time we had a black candidate or woman candidate...it took until the year 2008 that is pretty sad.
The amount of time it took to have viable candidates NOT from the dominant culture white males shows how racist this society is.

If you want to excuse American citizens dehydrating to death and dying of heat exhaustion and absolve our federal leader of his responsibility fine. it stinks from the fishes head DOWN-the fact that we can more sucessfully blow up people rather than save them from a natural disaster says volumes.
AND RACE played a role in the inaction with those people, we still have cruel people who blame the victims of Katrina.

Would that have happened in Greenwich CT. Hell no. The reason? It's easy white rich people.

The dominant white male culture obvisouly wants everyone to measure themselves against that stick-the white European culture. Where women are devalued, and those who deviate from teh european culture are somehow "bad". As for Bill Cosby he has an opinion I have mine. This is a sick society which fools itself into believing it's "just". It's not.