Wes, as far as Obama being brainwashed, I don’t doubt that going to a church like he has for as long as he has, could, in effect, have altered his thoughts on the world around him. For the most part, I think he knows exactly what he is doing and why, so I don’t see him acting as a puppet, unaware of his own intentions.

With regard Obama’s church playing the persecution card, and the video being made public in order to do so, I honestly can’t say I know that’s what was done. I don’t think it’s completely impossible, but at the very least, what I do think is quite feasible is that when the church video was exposed to the public, it THEN became a matter of political expediency to use the persecution defense. I know of churches like these, and it’s quite possible that many of the parishioners actually believed they were being persecuted, because that’s what they were told by the “leadership”. But, it’s not religious persecution when you’ve done or said something un-Godly, it’s just natural consequences for wrong choices.

[wesmorgan1:
4) On the effrontery scale (and I’m paraphrasing here), what differences exist among “Katrina was God’s judgement on New Orleans’ sin” (John Hagee), “9/11 happened because of the abortionists and homosexuals” (Falwell/Robertson), and “9/11 happened because we used nukes on innocents” (Jeremiah Wright)?]

First of all, what difference I see here is that Rev. Wright is making a judgement on the Government of the United States Commander in Chief and US military in choosing to combat the enemy with nuclear force. On the other side, judgemental statements about abortion clinics, which are run privately, albeit they do unfortunately receive some government funding, and homosexuals who are making personal decisions, also on an individual level, and the individual sins of the New Orleans people all are not comparable to blaming the US military for 9/11, in my opinion. By the way, I would not say that Katrina happened due to New Orleans sin, or that 9/11 happened because of gays and abortionists. I think when something so atrocious like 9/11, or so tragic like Katrina occurs, some people make statements to try to make sense of how and why this could happen.

This is all I have time to comment on right now–thanks for reading.

1) I would argue that the suggestions that Obama has been “brainwashed” and that this whole thing was “put out there” so that Obama could play the persecution card (both notions can be found in the comments of this thread) go beyond what you describe as “valid to question.” The former assumes a fundamental weakness on Obama’s part–that he is merely a puppet–while the latter suggests a somewhat grand scheme covering years of planning and effort. We’re getting into tinfoil-hat territory with that stuff, don’t you think?

2) In an interview reported yesterday, Obama said that one reason he didn’t “denounce” Wright publicly/politically was that he (Wright) was so close to retirement. That’s a charitable choice toward Wright from a personal perspective, but it was certainly wrong-footed in the political sense.

3) Part of the problem, too, is that we all superimpose our church experience(s) onto everyone else’s. I’ve been in churches where white preachers made statements remarkably similar, if not virtually identical, to Wright’s, especially on the subjects of abortion and adultery. It is said that Obama’s case differs from McCain’s because Obama “sat in the pews for 20 years,” but McCain explicitly named Rod “America was founded, in part, to destroy Islam” Parsley a ’spiritual guide.’ Given that McCain’s denomination of record (the Episcopal Church) ordains gays and that his self-named ’spiritual guide’ sees a divinely-ordained American role as the destroyer of Islam (wonder what the Founders would say about that one?), how are we to distinguish between the two? More importantly, how does either preacher/spiritual-guide, or any candidate’s church experience, compare to yours or mine? Some view the church as “the preacher tells the people what to believe,” while others view it as “the preacher speaks for himself, and the congregation draws their own conclusions” and still others go even further; consider those denominations in which the church members simply speak in worship as they feel led, with no scheduled sermon or homily to be found.

4) On the effrontery scale (and I’m paraphrasing here), what differences exist among “Katrina was God’s judgement on New Orleans’ sin” (John Hagee), “9/11 happened because of the abortionists and homosexuals” (Falwell/Robertson), and “9/11 happened because we used nukes on innocents” (Jeremiah Wright)? Personally, none of these fit my theology, but this kind of hype is what preachers do. It’s part of the prophetic mold.

5) When you get right down to it, there’s an uncomfortable truth in Wright’s words for Americans of faith. Here’s a specific quote from Wright:

—begin quote—
“The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing ‘God Bless America.’ No, no, no, God damn America, that’s in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme.”
—end quote—

I’m not too sure about the government-selling-drugs angle–though the story persists, particularly in the black community–but many honest students of Scripture can reasonably argue that having a huge prison population (1 of 100 now, is it?) is not a godly approach to the problem, that killing innocents (which, for some, includes the unborn, right?) IS an affront to God, and that the Bible does contain numerous examples of God damning kings/nations for such behaviors. I consider Wright’s last point particularly astute in today’s nationalistic culture; the jingoistic “America first” and “love it or leave it” crowds, not to mention the invocation/assumption of God’s blessings upon controversial/questionable actions, ARE affronts to Him in my book. When nationalism supplants faith, we need to be reminded of the First Commandment, don’t you think?

In conclusion, I think that this entire debate (not only Wright, but Hagee and Parsley as well, not to mention Walls, Robertson and others) does a fine job of illustrating the wisdom of the Founders. Not only did they give us the 1st Amendment, but they also specifically prohibited a religious test for public office. Those were strong statements, in and of themselves, at the time of their writing; I would suggest that their wisdom is even more potent today, now that we seem to be taking it upon ourselves to implement de facto religious tests on our candidates.

A contributor over on Street Prophets said it well:

“If our God is a God of justice and mercy at all, it is clear that there are damnable aspects about America throughout her history. It is shocking to hear “God damn America!” But that’s nowhere near as shocking as the notion that God categorically blesses everything America does.”

As such, I welcome counter-arguments from those at the other end of the political spectrum. Talking as we do amongst our conservative selves is great for exchanging information and news, but in the end you want to broaden the audience; start bringing in the independents, and even engaging those left of center on “the battlefield of ideas” per se.

Talking with liberals can allow you to fine tune your arguments, make you check your own facts, etc. I’ve read some articles (not here) that question the value of universities given that they’ve become the bastion of liberal faculties that are the product of the 60’s. In my own experience such an environment was simply a whetting stone on which to sharpen my own conservative ideology. Okay, I think I have probably gotten far too meta with this, so I’ll stop here, and move on to my next comment.

1) We can find someone like this (not necessarily a pastor) in the life of just about every person. This is especially true of politicians, who both pick up endorsements all over the place and see their lives subjected to magnification by the media and their opponents.

This was not just an endorsement but someone labeled as a mentor by Obama. A friend, a teacher, and a pastor….

2) Attacking an opponent with guilt-by-association, instead of on policy points or positions, lessens the debate.

Depends on the association. Passing aquiantance is not the same as a business partner. Since the man has been going to the pastors church for 20 years and considers him his mentor I think its quite valid to question why he would chose to immerse himself in such hate.

3) Pastors have a long history of saying controversial things in the pulpit. A favorite theme seems to be “[some bad thing] happened because of [some sin committed over here].” We heard it after 9/11, we heard it after Katrina, and we’ll hear it again.

Ok, name the pastor that said this kind of thing to Hillary or John while they were in the pews. If they had been in the pews you better believe the MSM and the Obamamites would be all over it, as would most of us. Any person who befriends any kind of man who would say such things, says he considers him a mentor, and that there may be valid reasons to say such things needs to be vetted a bit more then the MSM did with Obama.

4) If one is to argue that ‘he didn’t denounce [whoever or whatever],” then we’re going to play this game for a LONG time - see point #1 - with no measurable gain whatsoever.

Sigh….its not only that he didn’t denounce him. He sat in the pews for 20 years and fawned over him as a pupil would do over his mentor. He wrote glowingly of him in his books, used his speeches to learn from, and named books after his sermons.

1) We can find someone like this (not necessarily a pastor) in the life of just about every person. This is especially true of politicians, who both pick up endorsements all over the place and see their lives subjected to magnification by the media and their opponents.
2) Attacking an opponent with guilt-by-association, instead of on policy points or positions, lessens the debate.
3) Pastors have a long history of saying controversial things in the pulpit. A favorite theme seems to be “[some bad thing] happened because of [some sin committed over here].” We heard it after 9/11, we heard it after Katrina, and we’ll hear it again.
4) If one is to argue that ‘he didn’t denounce [whoever or whatever],” then we’re going to play this game for a LONG time - see point #1 - with no measurable gain whatsoever.

It seems to me that, if the argument is that Obama is somehow a mirror of Wright–or a proponent of Wright’s views–then it’s up to those making the argument to show parallels between Obama’s positions and Wright’s. Just pointing a finger and arguing that “silence equals agreement” is about as lame as it gets.

I thought that Mike Huckabee’s comments were interesting; as a former pastor, he “gets it” in a way that most of us cannot. Here’s an excerpt:
—-begin quote—-
HUCKABEE: [Obama] made the point, and I think it’s a valid one, that you can’t hold the candidate responsible for everything that people around him may say or do. You just can’t. Whether it’s me, whether it’s Obama…anybody else. But he did distance himself from the very vitriolic statements.

Now, the second story. It’s interesting to me that there are some people on the left who are having to be very uncomfortable with what Louis Wright said, when they all were all over a Jerry Falwell, or anyone on the right who said things that they found very awkward and uncomfortable years ago. Many times those were statements lifted out of the context of a larger sermon. Sermons, after all, are rarely written word for word by pastors like Reverend Wright, who are delivering them extemporaneously, and caught up in the emotion of the moment. There are things that sometimes get said, that if you put them on paper and looked at them in print, you’d say “Well, I didn’t mean to say it quite like that.”

JOE SCARBOROUGH: But, but, you never came close to saying five days after September 11th, that America deserved what it got. Or that the American government invented AIDS…

HUCKABEE: Not defending his statements.

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Oh, I know you’re not. I know you’re not. I’m just wondering though, for a lot of people…Would you not guess that there are a lot of Independent voters in Arkansas that vote for Democrats sometimes, and vote for Republicans sometimes, that are sitting here wondering how Barack Obama’s spiritual mentor would call the United States the USKKK?

HUCKABEE: I mean, those were outrageous statements, and nobody can defend the content of them.

JOE SCARBOROUGH: But what’s the impact on voters in Arkansas? Swing voters.

HUCKABEE: I don’t think we know. If this were October, I think it would have a dramatic impact. But it’s not October. It’s March. And I don’t believe that by the time we get to October, this is gonna be the defining issue of the campaign, and the reason that people vote.

And one other thing I think we’ve gotta remember. As easy as it is for those of us who are white, to look back and say “That’s a terrible statement!”…I grew up in a very segregated south. And I think that you have to cut some slack — and I’m gonna be probably the only Conservative in America who’s gonna say something like this, but I’m just tellin’ you — we’ve gotta cut some slack to people who grew up being called names, being told “you have to sit in the balcony when you go to the movie. You have to go to the back door to go into the restaurant. And you can’t sit out there with everyone else. There’s a separate waiting room in the doctor’s office. Here’s where you sit on the bus…” And you know what? Sometimes people do have a chip on their shoulder and resentment. And you have to just say, I probably would too. I probably would too. In fact, I may have had more of a chip on my shoulder had it been me.

MIKA: I agree with that. I really do.

JOE SCARBOROUGH: It’s the Atticus Finch line about walking a mile in somebody else’s shoes. I remember when Ronald Reagan got shot in 1981. There were some black students in my school that started applauding and said they hoped that he died. And you just sat there and of course you were angry at first, and then you walked out and started scratching your head going “boy, there is some deep resentment there.”
—-end quote—

In the end, it’s interesting to see how each side plays the game, but I don’t think that either side “wins.” We just get sidetracked from real issues.

There simply is NO valid comparison between McCain and Hagee and Obama and Wright.

You know it. I know it and Philly Steve knows it.

Philly Steve is an enabler of hatemongers on the left as he always has a ready excuse ( “you guys do it too”). No matter how lame and transparent his attempt at moral equivalence is, it doesn’t pass the laugh test in this case.

Forgive me for wanting to stick to the topic and hold a presidential candidate accountable for his words and deeds.

“Senator McCain has actively sought, and enthusiastically accepted the endorsement of a man, Rev Hagee…” While it’s true that McCain did receive the endorsement of Rev. Hagee, and accepted it (which frankly I wish he wouldn’t have), your adding of “actively sought” and “enthusiastically” accepted falls squarely into the category of emphasis YOURS.

Now, Rev. Hagee has said things nasty things about the Roman Catholic Church, but I don’t think he’s said that a jumbo jet flying into the Vatican would be a well deserved case of “the chickens coming home to roost” per se. Secondly, there’s a small matter of magnitude here. Barrack sat for 20+ years in the pews of Mr. Wright’s church, has cited him as the inspiration behind one of his books, and had his marriage as well as the baptism of his two children conducted by the man. Conversely, McCain went to a rally at Hagee’s church for a rally and got endorsed; however, he wasn’t in the pews of his church every Sunday for years and years (small matter of New Mexico being in the way of getting from Arizona to San Antonio, Texas).

So, if I might make a metaphor more in keeping with something closer to liberal hearts: John McCain is guilty of having poured the used motor oil from his car after an oil change down the sewer drain. Barrack by comparison, was at the helm of the Exxon Valdez when it was ran onto the rocks in Prince William Sound.

A final word to everyone on why I actually appreciate having Philly Steve here. Primarily, it is useful to know how the other side thinks. As a secondary bonus, this is actually an excellent opportunity for us to educate Philly Steve and other liberal readers. So, let us be civil in our dialogue as much as possible, and avoid the mere exchanging of insults.

John McCain has been getting them for years.

Recall that John McCain, the “champion” against lobbyists is also the man who regularly rides in their planes and was a charter member of the Keating Five, who took favors int he Savings and Loan debacle. Does the mainstream media ever remind America of that? Or do they parrot the “independnet”, anto-lobbyist John McCain?

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-todd-huston/2008/03/15/media-biased-right-mccain-hagee-vs-obama-wright-stories

Speaking of the KKK….

Senator McCain has actively sought, and enthusiastically accepted the endorsement of a man, Rev Hagee, who has said things of Roman Catholics that are identical to the position of the KKK. But, of course, Senator mcCain gets the automatic Conservaive Free Pass on that one, doesn’t he?

In my humble opinion, I think Osama Obama is in a heck of a lot of poo poo.

However, the only coverage the MSM have given to this is a short per forma piece about how Obama has asked him to leave his staff, and how he lamely claims that he doesn’t share the opinions for Mr. Wright. The MSM just nods its head, and moves along; without the least attempt to ascertain the veracity of a man who would presume to become the President of the United States. The MSM usually has pathetic coverage of world events (unless it is something that can make U.S. foreign policy look bad), but immediately after the first hint of Obama’s potential black racism came to light, suddenly the protests and violence in Tibet are front page news!

Outside of news blogs like this one, there’s been no effort to conduct a deeper analysis, and dig for the truth. I’m disturbed that the wider American public is not being given the full story, that they won’t have all the important facts when going into the poll booth. But, as the saying goes: “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.” In this case being: “Barrack Obama stands for hope and unity.” The Left’s propaganda machine rolls on…

http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/Obama_hate_America_sermon/2008/03/16/80870.html

Obama Attended Hate America Sermon

Sunday, March 16, 2008 7:14 PM

By: Ronald Kessler

Obama claims he was completely unaware that the Reverend Wright’s trademark preaching style at the Trinity United Church of Christ targeted “white” America.

Clarification: The Obama campaign has told members of the press that Senator Obama was not in church on the day cited, July 22, because he had a speech he gave in Miami at 1:30 PM. Our writer, Jim Davis, says he attended several services at Senator Obama’s church during the month of July, including July 22. The church holds services three times every Sunday at 7:30 and 11 a.m. and 6 p.m. Central time. While both the early morning and evening service allowed Sen. Obama to attend the service and still give a speech in Miami, Mr. Davis stands by his story that during one of the services he attended during the month of July, Senator Obama was present and sat through the sermon given by Rev. Wright as described in the story. Mr. Davis said Secret Service were also present in the church during Senator Obama’s attendance. Mr. Davis’ story was first published on Newsmax on August 9, 2007. Shortly before publication, Mr. Davis contacted the press office of Sen. Obama several times for comment about the Senator’s attendance and Rev. Wright’s comments during his sermon. The Senator’s office declined to comment.

**************************
Contrary to Senator Barack Obama’s claim that he never heard his pastor Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. preach hatred of America, Obama was in the pews last July 22 when the minister blamed the “white arrogance” of America’s Caucasian majority for the world’s suffering, especially the oppression of blacks.

Bill Kristol’s column was documented as a lie. And he posted a “correction”.

Wrong, it was not documented as a lie. Obama says he wasn’t there, Ronald Kessler says he was. Kristol believes Obama….

Ambrinder says he couldn’t of been there because he was in Miami, Obama’s own schedule shows he WAS in Chicago that morning…..isn’t that a lie?

Do you even know the definition of a “lie?” And if you do, wouldn’t you want to label the person behind the “lie” correctly, ie…Jim Davis, instead of your retarded sweeping generalities about Kristol?

Do you ever get anything right?

I will answer that for ya, as proven by the multiple times Scott and company have taken you to shed……the answer is no.

I have stated multiple times that Conservatives do not care about what is true or a lie. And their willingness to use this story as “proof” indicates that one cannot trust the word of a Conservative, ever.

Amazingly childish….but par for the course.