Barack Obama's Controversial Pastor Puts Church (and possibly Barack) In Hot Water (1 Viewer)

[RebSaint]

Edit: I did click the link based on your suggestion and I'm not a history major, minor or anything so I don't know what else was going on at the time. Again though I doubt even at that given time that other countries weren't doing bad things as well. Although slavery is about as low as you can go.

Okay. Since Pasty didn't place the quote in context, I will. Pasty I think will weigh in on why he posted the sermon, and if my assessment of his intententions were incorrect, but I'll take a shot at it nonetheless.

The point goes back to DavidM's post: Frederick Douglass when he made that speech was considered a radical, as were most abolitionists. Abolitionism in 1841 was a minority position and very unpopular with most Americans (especially southerners, obviously) Regarding sensitive issues concerning race, there are many black activists whose rhetoric is off-putting and downright offensive. I'm not defending it. Now, many in 1841 probably thought Douglass's rhetoric to be just as off-putting.

We can easily dismiss Wright's comments as coming from some lunatic racist, or we can place them in a broader context of the plight of the black community, being not-so-far removed from racial autrocities, Jim Crow, segregation, etc. I'm not comparing the black plight to slavery in 1841, but as DavidM so aptly pointed out, these comments need to be placed in a larger context of the black struggle for equality and the problems which still plague the black community. I'm not defending his remarks, but from an historical, sociological, and human standpoint one can see where these comments might be over the top just to gain recognition and call attention to issues which need to be addressed.

I think Pasty's posting Douglass's sermon underscored DavidM's very thoughtful insights.

 

[Saintman2884]

Saint, if you take a good hard look at Europe of the 19th century, it shows a different picture altogether. The rising tide of Nationalism in places like Germany, the UK, and in Russia pretty much quashed out wanting for change. Germany is where the real problem place began to show. Is it any wonder that Germany did not become a democratic country until after WWII, Saint? They had a discerning view of democracy and it was discredited for the most part. Bismark and the Prussian Junkers made sure that German nationalism united Germany and in the results, led to WWI. And Jews got seen as problems and pariahs in Europe for the most part. We all know what led to that eventuality in the 1930's and 1940's with the Nazi's

 

[keepoursaints]

Okay. Since Pasty didn't place the quote in context, I will. Pasty I think will weigh in on why he posted the sermon, and if my assessment of his intententions were incorrect, but I'll take a shot at it nonetheless.

The point goes back to DavidM's post: Frederick Douglass when he made that speech was considered a radical, as were most abolitionists. Especially regarding sensitive issues concerning race, there are many black activists whose rhetoric is off-putting and downright offensive. I'm not defending it. Now, many in 1841 probably thought Douglass's rhetoric to be just as off-putting.

We can easily dismiss Wright's comments as coming from some lunatic racist, or we can place them in a broader context of the plight of the black community, being not-so-far removed from racial autrocities, Jim Crow, segregation, etc. I'm not comparing the black plight to slavery in 1841, but as DavidM so aptly pointed out, these comments need to be placed in a larger context of the black struggle for equality.

I think Pasty's posting Douglass's sermon underscored DavidM's very thoughtful insights.

Makes alot of sense to me. Good post and thanks for taking the time to "explain it."

 

[RebSaint]

Makes alot of sense to me. Good post and thanks for taking the time to "explain it."

No problem. Of course, Pasty could have had another objective, but I really think it bolstered in many ways what DavidM was trying to point out in several recent posts.

It certainly helps to understand that the sermon was delivered in 1841 by Frederick Douglass.

 

[Saintman2884]

REb, couldn't you say the same thing for Jews and Zionism in general? since we are on a historical perspective. Many Jews were attracted to radical and liberal causes because of centuries of pogroms, hatred, and persecution and in return in the 19th century got seen as leaches and treated with disdain? Zionism was formed because of these things and we got the Middle East problem right now as a result 150 years later.
Just a different take on it

 

[LSSpam]

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/03/obama_plans_maj.html

Tuesday, Barack Obama . . . plans a major address on race and religion -- an issue he is trying to get past because of recent publicity and questions surrounding incendiary remarks made by the former pastor of his Chicago church.

Everyone keep an eye on this. I'm sure it'll be all over the place when it comes, but when it does someone find the text for it and post it in a separate thread. This is one serious minefield but Obama has a genuine chance to knock one out of the park on this. I'm fascinated.

 

[keepoursaints]

No problem. Of course, Pasty could have had another objective, but I really think it bolstered in many ways what DavidM was trying to point out in several recent posts.

It certainly helps to understand that the sermon was delivered in 1841 by Frederick Douglass.

Yes it does and I should have clicked the link. Also, I hadn't read David's post but from what you said and what Pasty posted I think you're probably right that that's the point Pasty was trying to get across.

 

[RebSaint]

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/03/obama_plans_maj.html

Everyone keep an eye on this. I'm sure it'll be all over the place when it comes, but when it does someone find the text for it and post it in a separate thread. This is one serious minefield but Obama has a genuine chance to knock one out of the park on this. I'm fascinated.

So am I. It could make or break his campaign.

 

[V Chip]

2) Decrying? Really? It's not like I went out and defaced a national monument, though I'm not dismissing the very real possibility that overzealous Obama supporters might see it that way. As for as being a "proud" Clinton supporter, well... again I think you're reading more into than you should. Clinton is my pick of the candidates. I'm sure that's clear, but she's not my ideal candidate.

Yeah, decrying. Decry means to condemn openly and I kinda got the feeling that's exactly what you were doing.

It is not my intention to come across as rude, but I think you are seriously underestimating the way you're coming across on the boards if you think I have read more into your posts than you intend.

I'd proudly dance nude in the street to get that.

Well maybe your ideal candidate is waiting for you to take the first step?

So when joining in, shouldn't we assume that we would be free to express an opinion in the same manner as those coming from the opposing camp (meaning the ones that fall within the TOS)? I think so, and that's what you're seeing. Nothing more or less.

Ahh yer being DD for the Dems, so to speak, taking up positions that LOOK like you support Clinton but actually just playing devil's advocate.

 

[jpcdolphan]

He's not afraid to take a risk, you have to give that to him.

What's the thoughts of some people on the board about this? Do you think this is something he needs to do to try and put this to bed once and for all or do you think he is taking somewhat of an unneccesary gamble considering the sensitive nature of the subject and the closeness of it to the flap about his Wright connections really coming under the microscope?

 

[Maverick68]

I find it funny that many think that Obama can simply make a great speech and it is somehow supposed to make us forget that for 20 years he supported a racist pastor and CONTINUES to support a racist congregation (as evidenced by the screams of "amen" punctuating Wright's rabid spewings). It would show a willing ignorance on the part of his supporters to think that empty words spoken in an eloquent manner could hide the naked hypocricy by Obama. This man will never unite this country. He is part of the problem, not the solution.

 

[RebSaint]

He's not afraid to take a risk, you have to give that to him.

What's the thoughts of some people on the board about this? Do you think this is something he needs to do to try and put this to bed once and for all or do you think he is taking somewhat of an unneccesary gamble considering the sensitive nature of the subject and the closeness of it to the flap about his Wright connections really coming under the microscope?

It think it's far riskier to not address the issue than to take it head on. That way, he can reify his condemnation for Wright's statements, yet qualify his position that not everyone in the congregation has to agree with what a pastor, priest, etc. says on secular issues.

It's not an uncessary gamble considering the consequences for avoiding the issue altogether. Sure, it'll get more toungues wagging, but at least the American people will again, know Obama's position.

 

[DMaestro]

He's not afraid to take a risk, you have to give that to him.

What's the thoughts of some people on the board about this? Do you think this is something he needs to do to try and put this to bed once and for all or do you think he is taking somewhat of an unneccesary gamble considering the sensitive nature of the subject and the closeness of it to the flap about his Wright connections really coming under the microscope?

Smart move, IMO. Shows guts, gives the impression he might not have anything to hide after all. He can emphasize what his campaign has been proving: that guys like Wright, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton are holdovers from the Civil Rights Era, while he is a bridge to the future. Sends the tacit message that he represents change not only from Bush-Clintonian politics and American unilateralism, but from black rage. It'll be convincing since he's rarely come across as an angry guy. Plus his speeches tend to uplift and inspire, and that's something we very much need when it comes to the race discussion in this country. White people are shocked that Wright's brand of anger still lingers; black people are defensive. It's time for a sane voice, a little healing.

It could very well be his definitive "I Have a Dream" moment. I'm excited to hear what he has to say.

 

[RebSaint]

Smart move, IMO. Shows guts, gives the impression he might not have anything to hide after all. He can emphasize what his campaign has been proving: that guys like Wright, Jesse Jackson, and Al Sharpton are holdovers from the Civil Rights Era, while he is a bridge to the future. Sends the tacit message that he represents change not only from Bush-Clintonian politics and American unilateralism, but from black rage. It'll be convincing since he's rarely come across as an angry guy. Plus his speeches tend to uplift and inspire, and that's something we very much need when it comes to the race discussion in this country. White people are shocked that Wright's brand of anger still lingers; black people are defensive. It's time for a sane voice, a little healing.

It could very well be his definitive "I Have a Dream" moment. I'm excited to hear what he has to say.

Very well put--yeah, it would be logical for him to go in that direction; or even get back more to King's envision of healing, reconciliation, and cooperation rather than just militancy.

 

[SaintsFan11]

Religion and politics, Lieberman edition


An Orthodox Jewish reader, and veteran GOP political observer, emails:

The kerfuffle over Rev. Wright is fun to watch, as a GOPer of course.

But, the blowup also brings something else to mind. Joe Lieberman got a pass. Lieberman's nomination and Orthodoxy were portrayed as a breakthroughs. But did the media examine the OJ liturgy at the time? I doubt it.

Daily prayer begins with gratitude to the Deity for not being created a Gentile, a slave or a woman. Given the way history has played out, not the wisest of bendictions.

The weekday liturgy calls on God to obliterate the "sects", a prayer instituted in response to the foundation of the early Church.

And then, in a prayer recited on most Saturdays, God is called upon to avenge the death of the martyrs.

In other words, a very non-PC, grudge-filled liturgy.

In the spirit of Rev. Wright one might say.

Now, there's a difference between the liturgy and the sermon. The scrutiny of Romney's mormonism was more of the former, for instance. But it's a complicated subject, and an interesting point.

UPDATE: A person involved in the 2000 campaign reminds me: "Lieberman in 2000 was asked about those prayers, and he responded that he did not say them, but used a more positive/less misogynist version that has been adopted by the Conservative movement."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Religion_and_politics_Lieberman_edition.html


So while we can take Lieberman out of the equation since he says he did not say participate in that particular liturgy (although I'd like to hear what the Conservative movement's particular prayers were) are Orthodox Jews out of the running for the Presidency? Are they all racists? Or are their religious practices derived from a long tradition (not unlike the African-American tradition)? Certainly if what Rev. Wright said is hateful and racist then the Orthodox Jewish liturgy is as well.