The church in question does not represent a unified social/cultural position.
It's a community spanning generations. Wright does, indeed, represent the angry generation, who replaced the uncle Tom generation, who replaced slaves.

To undersant the church, we need to understand the basics of how the black community has evolved and is evolving still.

Obama is of the newest genration, who embrace ideas suitable to today's world.
They have the liuxury of not needing to be angry anymore in order to succeed and achieve progress for the community.

Let me ask you this: Should the descendants of slave owners be required to disown theri forbears because they, in today's world,, find slavery offensive?
Should we condemsn Lincoln because he didn't put an end to salvery forcefully enough or too forcefully.

That's the kind of, out of contxet, judgment you are making about Obama's membership in a church that has a long hsitory and a multi-genrational membership/ I watched a service in Obama's church on C-Span. There was a rather boring sermon, and it ended with everyone singing the 'black and while together' verse to We Shall Overcome. How radical or controversial is that?

All churches are evolving. The Episcopalians are fighting over the women as priests issue. Evangelicals are truning their attention to the environment. As far as I know, few are not throwing ou the protraits of past leaders with whom they have tcome o disagree. They just evolve with the times and define their own relationship to their church.

Why on earth are the requirements different for Obama?
What we need to know is what Obama believes, not what every black preacher of past generations has ever preached, in this church or in any church.

The church in question does not represent a unified social/cultural position.
It's a community spanning generations. Wright does, indeed, represent the angry generation, who replaced the uncle Tom generation, who replaced slaves.

To undersant the church, we need to understand the basics of how the black community has evolved and is evolving still.

Obama is of the newest genration, who embrace ideas suitable to today's world.
They have the liuxury of not needing to be angry anymore in order to succeed and achieve progress for the community.

Let me ask you this: Should the descendants of slave owners be required to disown theri forbears because they, in today's world,, find slavery offensive?
Should we condemsn Lincoln because he didn't put an end to salvery forcefully enough or too forcefully.

That's the kind of, out of contxet, judgment you are making about Obama's membership in a church that has a long hsitory and a multi-genrational membership/ I watched a service in Obama's church on C-Span. There was a rather boring sermon, and it ended with everyone singing the 'black and while together' verse to We Shall Overcome. How radical or controversial is that?

All churches are evolving. The Episcopalians are fighting over the women as priests issue. Evangelicals are truning their attention to the environment. As far as I know, few are not throwing ou the protraits of past leaders with whom they have tcome o disagree. They just evolve with the times and define their own relationship to their church.

Why on earth are the requirements different for Obama?
What we need to know is what Obama believes, not what every black preacher of past generations has ever preached, in this church or in any church.

I'm afraid your analysis does not apply in this instance (where it often does, e.g., in white, often secular, churches). This is not “trivia” about Obama, nor are the indicators “superficial.” Your comments indicate to me that you are not familiar with churches like the TUCC or pastors like Rev Wright. I am, they are prevalent where I lived for most of my life.

The TUCC espouses a “black values system” that is based on 70's far-left black nationalism. It is called Black Liberation Theology. It is a fusion of religion with politics, the former driving the latter. The two are inseparable and inter-twined. The mission is one of activist social change; the message is one of virulent racism, anti-white (and anti-middle class black), anti-Americanism, conspiracy theory, paranoia, and the politics of grievance and victimization. One only need become a bit familiar with a Rev Wright or devotees to see how much this drives their behavior, politics, and world view.

Obama is very closely associated with this value and belief system. While I believe him when he says that he doesn't agree with Wright's most extreme and noxious views, it is to be expected that the theology does influence his politics, and in fact, Obama acknowledges that. I doubt that you would be as dismissive of a candidate who is as active as Obama is in TUCC and has as close a religious and political association to Wright as Obama does, if that candidate were the same but with a Pat Robertson or a Jerry Falwell. And you would be right. I think if you take a close look at Obama's political philosophy and positions, you will find elements of his church's religious social activism to be drivers.

You rightly comment on the importance of a person's character. Knowing what I do about Wright and his ilk (like Farrakhan), I find it very difficult to reconcile Obama's character as presented, with Wright's. And again, this is not a passing or casual relationship. Nor one where politics is separate from religion. And Obama is not twiddling hours away in the pew. He is energetically active, he generously contributes financially, he seeks Wright's counsel before making important political decisions. And by the way, in his book he makes reference to some of Wright's incendiary sermons as having been influential to him.

What goes further to your character point is that Obama has attempted, dishonestly and disingenuously, to persuade voters that there is nothing controversial about his church or Rev Wright. One only need to back-track over his answers to questions in this vein, and especially look at the language used, to see this.

I honestly regret the above were not the case. I voted for Obama in the primary – shame on me for not doing my homework. I'll not repeat that mistake.

I'm afraid your analysis does not apply in this instance (where it often does, e.g., in white, often secular, churches). This is not “trivia” about Obama, nor are the indicators “superficial.” Your comments indicate to me that you are not familiar with churches like the TUCC or pastors like Rev Wright. I am, they are prevalent where I lived for most of my life.

The TUCC espouses a “black values system” that is based on 70's far-left black nationalism. It is called Black Liberation Theology. It is a fusion of religion with politics, the former driving the latter. The two are inseparable and inter-twined. The mission is one of activist social change; the message is one of virulent racism, anti-white (and anti-middle class black), anti-Americanism, conspiracy theory, paranoia, and the politics of grievance and victimization. One only need become a bit familiar with a Rev Wright or devotees to see how much this drives their behavior, politics, and world view.

Obama is very closely associated with this value and belief system. While I believe him when he says that he doesn't agree with Wright's most extreme and noxious views, it is to be expected that the theology does influence his politics, and in fact, Obama acknowledges that. I doubt that you would be as dismissive of a candidate who is as active as Obama is in TUCC and has as close a religious and political association to Wright as Obama does, if that candidate were the same but with a Pat Robertson or a Jerry Falwell. And you would be right. I think if you take a close look at Obama's political philosophy and positions, you will find elements of his church's religious social activism to be drivers.

You rightly comment on the importance of a person's character. Knowing what I do about Wright and his ilk (like Farrakhan), I find it very difficult to reconcile Obama's character as presented, with Wright's. And again, this is not a passing or casual relationship. Nor one where politics is separate from religion. And Obama is not twiddling hours away in the pew. He is energetically active, he generously contributes financially, he seeks Wright's counsel before making important political decisions. And by the way, in his book he makes reference to some of Wright's incendiary sermons as having been influential to him.

What goes further to your character point is that Obama has attempted, dishonestly and disingenuously, to persuade voters that there is nothing controversial about his church or Rev Wright. One only need to back-track over his answers to questions in this vein, and especially look at the language used, to see this.

I honestly regret the above were not the case. I voted for Obama in the primary – shame on me for not doing my homework. I'll not repeat that mistake.

While religion and other associations might be good to know, our obsession with the trivia of a candidate's life, obscures what we really need to know: what is this person's character and what are his qualifications. It's taking superficial indicators and raising them to the level of iffefutable evidence of this or that, and everyone filles in thir own blanks as to what the evidence acutally proves.

What does church attendance mean anyway? It means that someone sat in a church for X number of hours. Whether a person actually listened to the sermons or slept through them or took away a twisted message tfrom them all that might be actually important still remains unknown The trivial pursuit game distracts from what's ireally mportant and opens the door to endless apeculation, insinuation, and political arguments about nothing.of substance.

I

While religion and other associations might be good to know, our obsession with the trivia of a candidate's life, obscures what we really need to know: what is this person's character and what are his qualifications. It's taking superficial indicators and raising them to the level of iffefutable evidence of this or that, and everyone filles in thir own blanks as to what the evidence acutally proves.

What does church attendance mean anyway? It means that someone sat in a church for X number of hours. Whether a person actually listened to the sermons or slept through them or took away a twisted message tfrom them all that might be actually important still remains unknown The trivial pursuit game distracts from what's ireally mportant and opens the door to endless apeculation, insinuation, and political arguments about nothing.of substance.

I

Lots. Same goes with Obama. The ideologies you cling to, the people you actively choose to associate with, the advisors and mentors you choose, the organizations you are active in… These are also important reflections on who a person is and the kinds of choices he or she makes.

Whether it takes the form of a religious or something else is of little concern to me. A deal breaker? Not necessarily. But it's just another data point to consider… And in this case, it's not a particularly flattering one.

Lots. Same goes with Obama. The ideologies you cling to, the people you actively choose to associate with, the advisors and mentors you choose, the organizations you are active in… These are also important reflections on who a person is and the kinds of choices he or she makes.

Whether it takes the form of a religious or something else is of little concern to me. A deal breaker? Not necessarily. But it's just another data point to consider… And in this case, it's not a particularly flattering one.

Please, let's not resort to using those old political clubs again.. They are being worn out to the point of being useless, if not always as laughabel as many find them.

As Obama has stated, and I agree with him, Rev. Wright has been extreme in his statements. Like Dennis said, he has gone way over the top.

What being anti-American or anti-Christian precisely means, however, is not clear in the least. the number of definitions are myriad.
Too many use these kind of characterizations about anyone who disagrees with them either about politics or theology. This practice dimishes both the inherent value of patriotism and Christianity. When used as political tools, It cheapens both condepts.

Please, let's not resort to using those old political clubs again.. They are being worn out to the point of being useless, if not always as laughabel as many find them.

As Obama has stated, and I agree with him, Rev. Wright has been extreme in his statements. Like Dennis said, he has gone way over the top.

What being anti-American or anti-Christian precisely means, however, is not clear in the least. the number of definitions are myriad.
Too many use these kind of characterizations about anyone who disagrees with them either about politics or theology. This practice dimishes both the inherent value of patriotism and Christianity. When used as political tools, It cheapens both condepts.

The obsession with churches and religions really has to stop someitme. We're still recovering from the uproar about Mormonism. In the end, what did it have to do with Romney, the presidential candidate? Inspite of the extreme secrecy of the Mormons about their ceremonies and practices, we cama to accept Romney at this word, and no one was damaged as a result.

In Obama's case, his church is more open, so we know about Rev. Wright and we know what Obama's contrasting beliefs are, so there is much less guesswork involved. We're actually ahead of the game, when compared to other leaders.

This has got to stop, or we'll end up obsessing about every public figure's religion. .
What about the revered Rev. Billy Graham's influential relationship with many of our Presidents? He was a self-acknowledged anti-semite for most of his life.
How does that change the legacy of Pres. Bush?

Do we really need to re-examine the vaious religious beliefs of the Founding Fathers? They were far from inified in the area of religion but still managed to produce the Constitution. together.

This just has to stop if we are to retain a modicum of logic in the process of choosing Preidential candidates and, eventually, Presidents.

The obsession with churches and religions really has to stop someitme. We're still recovering from the uproar about Mormonism. In the end, what did it have to do with Romney, the presidential candidate? Inspite of the extreme secrecy of the Mormons about their ceremonies and practices, we cama to accept Romney at this word, and no one was damaged as a result.

In Obama's case, his church is more open, so we know about Rev. Wright and we know what Obama's contrasting beliefs are, so there is much less guesswork involved. We're actually ahead of the game, when compared to other leaders.

This has got to stop, or we'll end up obsessing about every public figure's religion. .
What about the revered Rev. Billy Graham's influential relationship with many of our Presidents? He was a self-acknowledged anti-semite for most of his life.
How does that change the legacy of Pres. Bush?

Do we really need to re-examine the vaious religious beliefs of the Founding Fathers? They were far from inified in the area of religion but still managed to produce the Constitution. together.

This just has to stop if we are to retain a modicum of logic in the process of choosing Preidential candidates and, eventually, Presidents.