Thanks Pete but Barak Obama's church does not offend me. Your defense of his church does offend me.

What offends me is the above statement.

The religious right….er “The American Taliban” is evil. They wanted to implement social change.

The religious left….er “TUCC” is good. They want to implement social change.

The true message? Hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Thanks Pete but Barak Obama's church does not offend me. Your defense of his church does offend me.

What offends me is the above statement.

The religious right….er “The American Taliban” is evil. They wanted to implement social change.

The religious left….er “TUCC” is good. They want to implement social change.

The true message? Hypocrisy knows no bounds.

You say, for example, that if a priest talked about the absolute need to remain chaste rather than acknowledging that many people fall short of that, that you think a prudent, wise parent would continue that discussion after Mass and say, “look son, abstinence is ideal for a number of reasons but you're human and we want to make sure that if you do have sex, that it doesn't have deadly consequences.”

OK, I'm cool with that. (It's a variation of how we discuss it with our kids.)

But Obama, to whatever degree he was aware of this part of Wright's teaching (I admit, we don't know if he was until now), didn't similarly see the harmful effect it could have if congregants were being swayed to believe the conspiracy theory (because of their trust in Rev. Wright?) Again, I realize in this specific case, I have no idea of how often Wright said these things- though I tend to believe it wasn't too infrequent, because of the way the congregation reacted to his statements as though this was a point that was already established and agreed upon.)

Do you get my point?

You say, for example, that if a priest talked about the absolute need to remain chaste rather than acknowledging that many people fall short of that, that you think a prudent, wise parent would continue that discussion after Mass and say, “look son, abstinence is ideal for a number of reasons but you're human and we want to make sure that if you do have sex, that it doesn't have deadly consequences.”

OK, I'm cool with that. (It's a variation of how we discuss it with our kids.)

But Obama, to whatever degree he was aware of this part of Wright's teaching (I admit, we don't know if he was until now), didn't similarly see the harmful effect it could have if congregants were being swayed to believe the conspiracy theory (because of their trust in Rev. Wright?) Again, I realize in this specific case, I have no idea of how often Wright said these things- though I tend to believe it wasn't too infrequent, because of the way the congregation reacted to his statements as though this was a point that was already established and agreed upon.)

Do you get my point?

OK — I compared the two. What's the problem? I think the statement from Barack Obama's church is a great, uplifting statement — focused precisely on the type of social action Jesus talked about, in terms of caring for, standing up for the “least of these.” In fact, the statement from Obama's church is more focused on the “least of these” (and hence more Christian?) than the “non black Christian church” statement you shared.

I don't mean to offend, but you are grabbing pieces of so-called “evidence” that do nothing to support your argument and everything to prove the point that Obama's church is on balance a great force for positive social change.

OK — I compared the two. What's the problem? I think the statement from Barack Obama's church is a great, uplifting statement — focused precisely on the type of social action Jesus talked about, in terms of caring for, standing up for the “least of these.” In fact, the statement from Obama's church is more focused on the “least of these” (and hence more Christian?) than the “non black Christian church” statement you shared.

I don't mean to offend, but you are grabbing pieces of so-called “evidence” that do nothing to support your argument and everything to prove the point that Obama's church is on balance a great force for positive social change.

Our Vision
Our vision is to build lives of all people in a multitude of social, political, and educational fulfilling settings. Church In Society (CIS) has Political and International Justice, and Social Justice committees that work on a variety of issues that affect Africans on the continent and in the Diaspora. Whether it is a march on City Hall protesting inadequate housing, conducting town hall meetings on Poverty and Welfare Reform, hosting forums for voters from the congregation and community, so they may ask questions to potential candidates' seeking political offices, CIS is committed to educating and empowering the community.

From another non black Christian church selected sorta at random from the internet:

Our Purpose

Heights Baptist Church exists to EXALT the Savior in worship, ENABLE believers in maturity, ministry, and missions, and EVANGELIZE non-believers to a personal relationship with Jesus.

I can understand why those who are farther left then their main stream counterparts are not offended by Barak Obama's church. Compare the two mission statements.

Our Vision
Our vision is to build lives of all people in a multitude of social, political, and educational fulfilling settings. Church In Society (CIS) has Political and International Justice, and Social Justice committees that work on a variety of issues that affect Africans on the continent and in the Diaspora. Whether it is a march on City Hall protesting inadequate housing, conducting town hall meetings on Poverty and Welfare Reform, hosting forums for voters from the congregation and community, so they may ask questions to potential candidates' seeking political offices, CIS is committed to educating and empowering the community.

From another non black Christian church selected sorta at random from the internet:

Our Purpose

Heights Baptist Church exists to EXALT the Savior in worship, ENABLE believers in maturity, ministry, and missions, and EVANGELIZE non-believers to a personal relationship with Jesus.

I can understand why those who are farther left then their main stream counterparts are not offended by Barak Obama's church. Compare the two mission statements.

Points taken and maybe I'm assigning far too much of the conglomerated Religious Right to the Catholic Church. That's not fair. Regardless, on balance, the naivete of the conglomerated Religious Right regarding human sexuality is no less dangerous in my mind than the conspiracy theories of Wright because the end result is the same: some congregants are more careless about sexuality and suffer as a result. The congregants who don't fall for the dangers of either school of thought are likely the more educated and independent-minded, and I know plenty of people in that category (public figures and not) who turn the other way when their pastors spread mis-informed, falliable, and equally destructive lessons about sexuality. Perhaps they shouldn't, but they do — and they are rarely if ever subjected to the type of dismissive scrutiny being applied to Obama.

Points taken and maybe I'm assigning far too much of the conglomerated Religious Right to the Catholic Church. That's not fair. Regardless, on balance, the naivete of the conglomerated Religious Right regarding human sexuality is no less dangerous in my mind than the conspiracy theories of Wright because the end result is the same: some congregants are more careless about sexuality and suffer as a result. The congregants who don't fall for the dangers of either school of thought are likely the more educated and independent-minded, and I know plenty of people in that category (public figures and not) who turn the other way when their pastors spread mis-informed, falliable, and equally destructive lessons about sexuality. Perhaps they shouldn't, but they do — and they are rarely if ever subjected to the type of dismissive scrutiny being applied to Obama.

Furthermore, I have never, never heard a Catholic priest preach an 'abstinence only' sermon, and certainly never heard anything about it in a political context (ie, advising parishioners that we should reject sex education which includes info on prevention of STD's.) So even if you're point about actual harm from abstinence only sex ed courses is true, this isn't something that the Church is pushing in terms of how the secular education of our kids is handled. The Church just does what it should, by sticking to discussions about the moral and spiritual issues related to sexuality.

Furthermore, I have never, never heard a Catholic priest preach an 'abstinence only' sermon, and certainly never heard anything about it in a political context (ie, advising parishioners that we should reject sex education which includes info on prevention of STD's.) So even if you're point about actual harm from abstinence only sex ed courses is true, this isn't something that the Church is pushing in terms of how the secular education of our kids is handled. The Church just does what it should, by sticking to discussions about the moral and spiritual issues related to sexuality.

I don't remember that part Slamfu, and I trust you don't personally believe most soldiers ever “learn to enjoy” such an awful thing. The soldiers I know would disagree, and where they have been (even unintentionally) responsible for such “collateral damage,” they are duly torn, sickened, and eternally guilt-ridden.

The inhumanity of war doesn't necessarily remove the humanity of the front-line participants.

I don't remember that part Slamfu, and I trust you don't personally believe most soldiers ever “learn to enjoy” such an awful thing. The soldiers I know would disagree, and where they have been (even unintentionally) responsible for such “collateral damage,” they are duly torn, sickened, and eternally guilt-ridden.

The inhumanity of war doesn't necessarily remove the humanity of the front-line participants.

Second, that very fact has been known and accepted for years by anyone involved in foreign affairs. The CIA/State Dept term for it is “Blowback”, and its nothing new. We taught the afghanis to fight, Osama was fighting with them. We backed Saddam in the 80's, we used radical muslims, central and south american rebels, anyone who was seen as an asset in forwarding the agenda of the day. So lets all quit acting like the idea of us having any connection to the overall situation today is a surprise to anyone. To think otherwise you'd are a naive fool or your head is so far in the sand you should just burn your voter registration card and shut up.

Third, that particular sermon was actually pretty good if you bother to listen to the entire thing. The overall message was about not getting caught up in a percieved struggle and losing our humanity. The part about soldiers eventually learning to enjoy killing babies was especially moving. I find that particularly applicable lately since we seem to have become totally desensitised to “collateral damage” as if we are not talking about civilians being blown to pieces.

Second, that very fact has been known and accepted for years by anyone involved in foreign affairs. The CIA/State Dept term for it is “Blowback”, and its nothing new. We taught the afghanis to fight, Osama was fighting with them. We backed Saddam in the 80's, we used radical muslims, central and south american rebels, anyone who was seen as an asset in forwarding the agenda of the day. So lets all quit acting like the idea of us having any connection to the overall situation today is a surprise to anyone. To think otherwise you'd are a naive fool or your head is so far in the sand you should just burn your voter registration card and shut up.

Third, that particular sermon was actually pretty good if you bother to listen to the entire thing. The overall message was about not getting caught up in a percieved struggle and losing our humanity. The part about soldiers eventually learning to enjoy killing babies was especially moving. I find that particularly applicable lately since we seem to have become totally desensitised to “collateral damage” as if we are not talking about civilians being blown to pieces.

Then and only then will he prove to me that he is not too black, not a Muslim and not a closet member of the black panthers.

Then and only then will he prove to me that he is not too black, not a Muslim and not a closet member of the black panthers.