Obama, his church, and Farrakhan

[RipCity]

Curious to see what people on these forums who support Obama have to say about this.

Recently things have come to light about Obama, his church and it's connections to Louis Farrakhan. For those that don't know, Farrakhan is a racist, of the worst sort. Obama's church, Chicago’s Trinity United Church Of Christ, which he has attended for the past 20 years gave their Lifetime Acheivment Award to Farrakhan. This award was given for a "commitment to truth, education, and leadership" Some of Farrakhans truths include: "Judaism is a gutter religion" "Hitler was a very great man" and my personal favorite: "White people are potential humans, they just haven't evolved yet"

More interesting still, is this church's mission statements and it's adherence to the "Black Value System" written by Maynford Byrd Recognition Committee. Some excerpts from this include:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Trinity United Church of Christ adopted the Black Value System written by the Manford Byrd Recognition Committee chaired by Vallmer Jordan in 1981. We believe in the following 12 precepts and covenantal statements. These Black Ethics must be taught and exemplified in homes, churches, nurseries and schools, wherever Blacks are gathered. They must reflect on the following concepts:

1. Commitment to God
2. Commitment to the Black Community
3. Commitment to the Black Family
4. Dedication to the Pursuit of Education
5. Dedication to the Pursuit of Excellence
6. Adherence to the Black Work Ethic
7. Commitment to Self-Discipline and Self-Respect
8. Disavowal of the Pursuit of "Middleclassness"
9. Pledge to make the fruits of all developing and acquired skills available to the Black Community
10. Pledge to Allocate Regularly, a Portion of Personal Resources for Strengthening and Supporting Black Institutions
11. Pledge allegiance to all Black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System
12. Personal commitment to embracement of the Black Value System.

The Pastor as well as the membership of Trinity United Church of Christ is committed to a 10-point Vision:

1. A congregation committed to ADORATION.
2. A congregation preaching SALVATION.
3. A congregation actively seeking RECONCILIATION.
4. A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA.
5. A congregation committed to BIBLICAL EDUCATION.
6. A congregation committed to CULTURAL EDUCATION.
7. A congregation committed to the HISTORICAL EDUCATION OF AFRICAN PEOPLE IN DIASPORA.
8. A congregation committed to LIBERATION.
9. A congregation committed to RESTORATION.
10. A congregation working towards ECONOMIC PARITY.</div>

I really don't understand this. Do you guys think that as a people we should allow someone to be our president who subscribes to these views? I was under the impression that our President should have a non-negotiable commitment to the United States of America, not Africa. Furthermore, I'd like to point out the amazingly huge double standard that is present here. For the sake of conversation, lets replace the word "Black" with the word "White." Now lets say McCain goes to a church who has this very same, albeit slightly altered mission statement. He would be painted as a massive racist and shunned from the political arena entirely. I am not a racist, I judge a man on what he does, not what he looks like. However it seems as if the only way you can be a racist is if you are white. African Americans, despite being victims of slavery and racial oppression for so long, do not seem to have a problem with this. Why is that?

 

[Thoth]

Some of those ethics (4, 6, & 8) seem contradictory, but, I haven't "evolved" so what do I know.

The 10 point vision sounds like something Mao or Hugo Chaves would come up with.

As for the all the "commitment" to Africa, I once read that a black man in the rural south or Detroit for example has more in common w/ me (a middle class college educated white devil from the Mtn West) than he does w/ some living in Ghana or Kenya.

p.s. Farrakhan is an idiot and its high time we ignore goofs like he and Limbaugh and hopefully they'll go away.

 

[Denny Crane]

Heh

I'm less upset by the things that Farakhan says than many, I suppose. He's not all that relevant.

I don't see that anyone should be considered guilty by association, so his "friends" are not all that relevant.

His publicly spoken statements and policy positions are enough to doom (or elect) him in their own right. And if you do scrutinize those things, there is plenty of distinction between him and McCain.

 

[huevonkiller]

When did Obama admit that he hated other communities? Whatever man. Also, helping out their own pathetic urban area that no one wants to be in is logical for these progressive tax believers.

McCain doesn't reject the support of a Catholic-hating evangelist.

 

[Chutney]

I'm with Denny. Instead of playing 'six degrees of separation' to find something wrong, evaluate the man by the content of his opinions and statements.

btw, the supposed connection with Farrakhan aside, what part of that church's mission statement is supposed to be offensive? You can talk all you want about replacing "white" with "black" within those guidelines, but that's just being naive. The two communities (that's a generalization in itself, given that there really isn't a "white community" like there is a black one) have incredibly different histories, customs, traditions, etc. Nowhere in that mission statement does it disparage another community: it only talks of strengthening its own.

 

[RipCity]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Mar 13 2008, 09:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'm with Denny. Instead of playing 'six degrees of separation' to find something wrong, evaluate the man by the content of his opinions and statements.

btw, the supposed connection with Farrakhan aside, what part of that church's mission statement is supposed to be offensive? You can talk all you want about replacing "white" with "black" within those guidelines, but that's just being naive. The two communities (that's a generalization in itself, given that there really isn't a "white community" like there is a black one) have incredibly different histories, customs, traditions, etc. Nowhere in that mission statement does it disparage another community: it only talks of strengthening its own.</div>


Six degrees of separation? There isn't even that much separation between Obama and his pastor. This pastor happens to be the same man who married Barack and Michelle Obama, baptized their kids, and supplied Barack with his books title. He has attended this church for 20 years. You don't go to church just to sit there to do your obligatory couple hours a week for God. If you sit in the same church for 20 years, it's a fairly valid assumption that the sermons have resonance with you, otherwise, why aren't you looking for another church? This pastor is also famous for having claimed that HIV/AIDS is a government conspiracy to kill off people of color. What problem do I have with the mission statement? Simply put, the double standard. I'm not naive, I just don't believe there should be different sets of rules dependent on the color of your skin. That is racism. I could not sit in that church for more than 10 minutes with the hate speech that is spewed there seemingly on a weekly basis. If you also take the time to watch videos of this man's sermons, you will notice no mention of political views, standards, or ways Barack is going to affect change in a positive way. The message is: Vote Obama because he's black. That is absolute ignorance.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>When did Obama admit that he hated other communities? Whatever man. Also, helping out their own pathetic urban area that no one wants to be in is logical for these progressive tax believers.

McCain doesn't reject the support of a Catholic-hating evangelist.</div>

I never said he did nor did I claim that he admitted he hated other communities. Whats clear is that his pastor does hate other communities. And I am offended that a Presidential Candidate would sit and listen to that for two decades, and I'm even more offended that no one seems to have a problem with it. I was under the impression that the tele-evangelist that supported McCain was primarily anti-muslim. I find that to be just as disgusting as Obama's situation right now, but it's not like he's been sitting there for 20 years. I would bet that the only time McCain attended that church was on the campaign trail. Even so, that situation is making me second guess voting for McCain as well. I'm not going ignore the problem because it suits my opinion and views.

 

[Denny Crane]

You are playing the 6 degrees game. 1 degree or 2 degrees is less than 6 or whatever.

I won't ascribe to Obama reasons he attends the church he does. Maybe he simply likes the people who attend, as they're his neighbors. Perhaps there's significance that he met his wife there. Perhaps he feels more welcome there than at other churches for whatever reasons.

As to the church's mission statement, good for them.

The first amendment guarantees people the right of free assembly. I suppose that stops when people assemble to overthrow the government, but that's not the case here. That people find strength in numbers is no big deal, as long as the association is voluntary.

GW Bush worked with Ted Kennedy to pass "no child left behind." Therefore Bush is a democrat. 1 degree of separation!

 

[AEM]

While the company one keeps is certainly not determinative, when you place a lot of the comments by his pastor mirror some notable ones uttered by his wife. (i.e. 'this is the first time I'm proud to be an American.') At a certain point, when a person has surrounded himself by those with a particular viewpoint, it does give rise to certain inferences. It's not just his pastor, but his wife - and I wouldn't consider a spouse to be any degree of separation ( unless they are in fact separated. Heheh)

 

[Denny Crane]

Oddly, I think Hillary and Bill Clinton are two very different people. He was a centrist and almost governed like a republican in many ways (NAFTA, GATT, ended welfare as we know it, etc.). She's been pretty radical left all along.

So I do think you separate the two.

If you think Obama's wife is a loon and that she'd have some odd kind of influence over policy decisions, then that would be a factor. if you think she's going to have as much influence as Hilalry did, which is now looking like not very much, then you factor that in.

 

[AEM]

I'm not even concerned about potential influence over policy decisions, but about what could well be a shared mindset.

I concede that Bill and Hillary paint a different picture, but then again, they're also not exactly a model spousal unit by any standard - even for a political couple.

But to reiterate, I'm not concerned about her influence - but that he might share the views of many who are very much a part of his life.

 

[Chutney]

Well the main problem I have with criticizing at this stage is that there's simply not enough information. I look at this as something to inquire about, rather than something to immediately criticize. I truly do not see anything wrong with that church's mission statement. And as terrible as that pastor sounds, we have no idea what he talks about during the services that Obama attends. He may very well speak about religion more than politics then. We don't know what Obama gets out of it or why attends it. There's just too much that is unknown to starting painting Obama as a racist or bigot. At this stage, all we've got is guilt by association and that's not fair at all.

 

[Thoth]

I agree that guilt by association is silly & think its the media trying to be sensational and trying to create a story rather than report news.

Farrakhan is a muslim or a some strange variety thereof. He is associating w/ a Christian pastor. Does this invalidate the whole culture/religious war that the Right is trotting out as their current wedge issue?

On a related note, I saw McCain being interviwed by Hannity last night. JMac was politely deferring SH's numerous attempts to make Barack guilty by association as listed above. It'll be interesting to see how John handles his endorsments by Pastors Hagee & Parsley who make Robertson & the late Jerry Falwell seem tame by comparison.

I think even Denny would appreciate all the fun Keith Olbermann was having w/ the 2nd pastors name.

 

[King John da FiF]

You're pathetic. Let it go, man.

 

[Denny Crane]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Mar 14 2008, 09:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'm not even concerned about potential influence over policy decisions, but about what could well be a shared mindset.

I concede that Bill and Hillary paint a different picture, but then again, they're also not exactly a model spousal unit by any standard - even for a political couple.

But to reiterate, I'm not concerned about her influence - but that he might share the views of many who are very much a part of his life.</div>

Why are they not a model spousal unit by political standards?

I'm seeing guys like Spitzer act like Clinton (extra marital stuff) and his wife stand beside him on the podium while he makes his resignation type speeches. McGreevy's wife did the same.

There may be more to these women still loving their husbands or loving the trappings of power that sticking with their man means to them than there is to "model spousal unit" behavior

 

[Thoth]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (King John da FiF @ Mar 14 2008, 12:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You're pathetic. Let it go, man.</div>

Who's pathetic?

 

[RipCity]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (blackadder @ Mar 14 2008, 03:20 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (King John da FiF @ Mar 14 2008, 12:08 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You're pathetic. Let it go, man.</div>

Who's pathetic?
</div>

I think he's referring to me. Way to show your intelligence and understanding of this situation with the quick one liner

Anyway, I am satisfied. He has finally denounced that douchebag. Day late and a dollar short, but hey I'll take it anyway I can get it.

Click

 

[Chutney]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Obama said Wright’s controversial statements have “pained and angered me,” but urged voters to “judge me not on the basis of what someone else said, but on the basis of who I am and what I believe in; on my values, judgment and experience to be President of the United States.”</div>

That says it all.

 

[huevonkiller]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Mar 14 2008, 06:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Obama said Wright?€™s controversial statements have ?€œpained and angered me,?€? but urged voters to ?€œjudge me not on the basis of what someone else said, but on the basis of who I am and what I believe in; on my values, judgment and experience to be President of the United States.?€?</div>

That says it all.
</div>

He distanced himself much more than McCain did too. I'm very happy about Obama's latest statements.

 

[RipCity]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Mar 14 2008, 06:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Obama said Wright’s controversial statements have “pained and angered me,” but urged voters to “judge me not on the basis of what someone else said, but on the basis of who I am and what I believe in; on my values, judgment and experience to be President of the United States.”</div>

That says it all.
</div>


Don't buy it hook line and sinker. Up until yesterday he said he wouldn't do any of this, now because he realized the political suicide he was about to commit, he changed his tune. He doesn't have the experience required. And if we were to judge him on his values and judgment, intelligent people would take into account the fact that he voted "Present" on 130+ issues to avoid aggrevating his base instead of doing his job as a United States Senator and voting for what he saw was the best course of action. I think that shows a lack of values at least, and maybe not a lack of judgement, but an unwillingness to tackle tough issues.

 

[Denny Crane]

Answering to these tools of personal destruction politics is not what Obama has been about. If he appears to be just as slimey as all the rest of the politicians, he's not got much to run on but his good looks and charm. On substance, he's a real lightweight compared to most of the candidates on either side so far, except Edwards.

 

[huevonkiller]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (RipCity @ Mar 15 2008, 10:59 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Don't buy it hook line and sinker. Up until yesterday he said he wouldn't do any of this, now because he realized the political suicide he was about to commit, he changed his tune. He doesn't have the experience required. And if we were to judge him on his values and judgment, intelligent people would take into account the fact that he voted "Present" on 130+ issues to avoid aggrevating his base instead of doing his job as a United States Senator and voting for what he saw was the best course of action. I think that shows a lack of values at least, and maybe not a lack of judgement, but an unwillingness to tackle tough issues.</div>

Well that's misleading. I wouldn't generalize like that.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Mr. Obama?€™s aides and some allies dispute the characterization that a present vote is tantamount to ducking an issue. They said Mr. Obama cast 4,000 votes in the Illinois Senate and used the present vote to protest bills that he believed had been drafted unconstitutionally or as part of a broader legislative strategy.

?€œNo politically motivated attacks in the 11th hour of a closely contested campaign can erase a record of leadership and courage,?€? said Bill Burton, Mr. Obama?€™s spokesman.

An examination of Illinois records shows at least 36 times when Mr. Obama was either the only state senator to vote present or was part of a group of six or fewer to vote that way.

In more than 50 votes, he seemed to be acting in concert with other Democrats as part of a strategy.

For a juvenile-justice bill, lobbyists and fellow lawmakers say, a political calculus could have been behind Mr. Obama?€™s present vote. On other measures like the anti-abortion bills, which Republicans proposed, Mr. Obama voted present to help more vulnerable Democrats under pressure to cast ?€œno?€? votes.

In other cases, Mr. Obama?€™s present votes stood out among widespread support as he tried to use them to register legal and other objections to parts of the bills.</div>

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/polit...S4h9aQDn/9nB6Sw

 

[Denny Crane]

LOL at quoting the Democratic Party mouthpiece NYT.

And Obama's spokesman.

What's he going to say? Something bad about him?

LOL some more.

 

[huevonkiller]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Mar 15 2008, 02:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>LOL at quoting the Democratic Party mouthpiece NYT.

And Obama's spokesman.

What's he going to say? Something bad about him?

LOL some more.</div>

And? I was too lazy to find another newspaper that would wind up saying exactly the same thing.

It's generalizing either way, LOL yourself out of here.

 

[RipCity]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Mar 15 2008, 06:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Denny Crane @ Mar 15 2008, 02:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>LOL at quoting the Democratic Party mouthpiece NYT.

And Obama's spokesman.

What's he going to say? Something bad about him?

LOL some more.</div>

And? I was too lazy to find another newspaper that would wind up saying exactly the same thing.

It's generalizing either way, LOL yourself out of here.

</div>

I was going to just stop replying to this thread, but in light of this response I will. I'm not generalizing anything. The issues that he voted present on are things that are vote-changing issues, abortion, gun control, things like that. Things that regardless of how you vote, will alienate certain groups of people. In order for anyone to pass judgment on something like abortion, your values, or lack thereof, come into play. So when I say that he's showing a lack of values, I'm not generalizing. If his personal values told him that he was against abortion, his vote would reflect that. The fact that he can vote present on an issue as important as partial birth abortion shows that his values going one way or the other, are not strong enough to overcome the political consequences of that vote.

I don't know, maybe your not a political person, and are not following this election as closely as some of us. But it is accepted fact that the New York Times is absolutely liberally biased. Denny is not making that up. If you were posting a link from the NYT on a political forum as a means of proving a point, even Democrats would laugh at you.

Back to the church and the racial issues with the pastor. Obama says that his sermons are "inflammatory and appaling" You may buy that, but anyone with half a brain does not. These are not cherry-picked sermons from Jeremiah Wright. This is the norm at this church, and for the millionth time one THAT HE HAS ATTENDED FOR 20 YEARS. Inflammatory now that the rest of the nation has taken notice, but apparently they weren't inflammatory when he sat in those pews for the past two decades. Obama denouncing this man has nothing to do with what he feels personally, it's the fact that he would be done in the election if he did not issue a statement saying that very thing. Obama himself has referred to Wright as "an uncle figure" and a "spiritual guide" So we're expected to believe that he knows where Wright stands on issues enough to call him a spiritual guide, but not well enough to know him as the racist bastard he is. If thats the case, I don't really want someone making decisions for this country who could call that man his spiritual guide, despite the fact that he spews hate at seemingly every sermon, and makes absolutely ridiculous statements like how HIV is a government conspiracy.

 

[huevonkiller]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (RipCity @ Mar 15 2008, 07:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I was going to just stop replying to this thread, but in light of this response I will. I'm not generalizing anything. The issues that he voted present on are things that are vote-changing issues, abortion, gun control, things like that. Things that regardless of how you vote, will alienate certain groups of people. In order for anyone to pass judgment on something like abortion, your values, or lack thereof, come into play. So when I say that he's showing a lack of values, I'm not generalizing. If his personal values told him that he was against abortion, his vote would reflect that. The fact that he can vote present on an issue as important as partial birth abortion shows that his values going one way or the other, are not strong enough to overcome the political consequences of that vote.

I don't know, maybe your not a political person, and are not following this election as closely as some of us. But it is accepted fact that the New York Times is absolutely liberally biased. Denny is not making that up. If you were posting a link from the NYT on a political forum as a means of proving a point, even Democrats would laugh at you.

Back to the church and the racial issues with the pastor. Obama says that his sermons are "inflammatory and appaling" You may buy that, but anyone with half a brain does not. These are not cherry-picked sermons from Jeremiah Wright. This is the norm at this church, and for the millionth time one THAT HE HAS ATTENDED FOR 20 YEARS. Inflammatory now that the rest of the nation has taken notice, but apparently they weren't inflammatory when he sat in those pews for the past two decades. Obama denouncing this man has nothing to do with what he feels personally, it's the fact that he would be done in the election if he did not issue a statement saying that very thing. Obama himself has referred to Wright as "an uncle figure" and a "spiritual guide" So we're expected to believe that he knows where Wright stands on issues enough to call him a spiritual guide, but not well enough to know him as the racist bastard he is. If thats the case, I don't really want someone making decisions for this country who could call that man his spiritual guide, despite the fact that he spews hate at seemingly every sermon, and makes absolutely ridiculous statements like how HIV is a government conspiracy.</div>

NYT times is biased, but Obama has said already that he votes present when he follows Democratic leader orders (50+ times this happened), or when he likes the bill and wants something changed.

McCain has dealt with his own wack spiritual guides that he doesn't even reject. Obama already stated his position on those Wright views as well. I hate fear mongering, what is he a terrorist? If he had any extreme views like that he'd get impeached immediately.

 

[Denny Crane]

There's a pretty big distinction between McCain's pandering to the religious right to win an election and a much tighter affiliation with this pastor for 20 years.

McCain in 2000 insulted and infuriated various big-name preachers and lost. This time, he's made a calculated move to hold his nose and try to win their follower's votes. Frankly, I find this to be a negative against him - that he doesn't have conviction in his beliefs to be consistent about it.

That much is fair.

But again, I don't see where you can assign some sort of guilt to Obama because of things people he knows say, other than this pastor is loosely affiliated with the campaign in some quasi-official capacity (board of spiritual/religious advisors), and he probably shouldn't be.

I would quote the NYT when some liberal nutzoid needs to be shown that even the NYT says something is true

I still wouldn't put much stock in Obama's spokesperson saying anything but the varnished, sugar coated, "truth" - no matter where he was quoted.

 

[Denny Crane]

As far as abortion and those kinds of beliefs...

I know of very few actual conservatives in the Reagan/Goldwater mold. The true conservatives. The conservative movement arose, in part due to Goldwater's ascent and defeat via one of the worst dirty tricks in political history, and in part due to the strong Libertarian bent in these guys.

Goldwater favored legal abortion, FWIW, and Reagan seemingly opposed it. Aside from his anti-abortion rhetoric, Reagan did appoint Sandra Day O'Connor as first woman to the Supreme Court and she was the swing vote on keeping abortion legal all along.

Point being that stance on abortion has nothing to do with being conservative. Republican, ok. Neo-conservative, ok.