Hillary’s Pastor and Rev. Wright

Perhaps I have not made myself clear at this site.

I thought the farther left then their mainstream counterparts were opposed to the "American Taliban." er I mean the Religious right. You know that group that wants to institute social change in our society according to their views of what is right or wrong.

They were screamed off the national stage by a severely indignant movement that sought to minimize religion and its influence in politics in America. The constitutuion demands seperation of church and state and on and on it went until no longer could the Religious right appear in public without contempt and scorn and ridicule.

Now that the dust has settled. The GOP heard your screams and nominated a Moderate, some say liberal centrist whose ties to the Religious right are more for show then they are anything else and what does the left go and do???????


Our Charge
To identify and to address political justice and social justice issues which have particularly adverse effects on the lives and rights of persons of African descent in the United States and throughout the Diaspora. CIS has a political justice and a social justice committee which are committed to educating and empowering the individual and the community to improve our world by standing up to injustice.

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.
Now along comes Barak Obama with his social agenda rooted in religion and suddenly its okay? Suddenly the farther left then their mainstream counterparts are defending Religion, Christianity and a Chruch??

Which is it going to be? Religion go home....which has been the message of the farther left of their mainstream counterparts.

Or is it going to be Religion is okay as long as we get to pick and choose who and what and why and when and where the message is delivered?

I do not condemn God or religion or this church. I condemn the hypocrites who defend this while spending the last 5 years on a campaign to drive religion from our politics and now their new champion is waist deep in a church that is so actively involved in politics that they should have their charitable status reviewed.

Whocares,
I think it's not that people don't understand where you stand on this, it's that they aren't in agreement with it for varying reasons. For some, I think it will take time before they absorb this to come to the realization that there really is a religious left in this country, and while they may agree with the political aims of that group much more than they do with the religious right, they still aren't being consistent unless they call for separation of church in those instances just as in the case of conservatively aligned churches.

As a starting point, though, I think your last paragraph is a good one: when you look at Wright using the church pulpit to specifically endorse Obama and criticize his opponent Clinton by name, this is so clearly a violation of a church's nonprofit status that I hope no one here would defend it.

"... when you look at Wright using the church pulpit to specifically endorse Obama and criticize his opponent Clinton by name, this is so clearly a violation of a church's nonprofit status that I hope no one here would defend it."

CStanley -- we find yet again something to agree on!

Hillary has just been pwned by her own pastor, which is... awesome.

Whocares,
Nothing I've read about Obama, his policy ideas, or his vision for the country give me any indication that he is looking to end the separation of church and state. For contrast, read this quote by Mike Huckabee, "I believe it's a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards."

CStanley,
Aside from the political advocacy, all of these mega-churches should be taxed like the big businesses they are.

Whocares wrote:

I condemn the hypocrites who defend this while spending the last 5 years on a campaign to drive religion from our politics and now their new champion is waist deep in a church that is so actively involved in politics that they should have their charitable status reviewed.

I confess I find this confusing. As I follow the logic, it goes like this:

1. Hypocrites who have tried to drive religion from politics deserve to be condemned.

2. Said hypocrites now have a political reason to like religion.

3. The religion favored by said hypocrites should now be driven from politics though financial disincentives.

Did I get that right?

No George you did not get it right.

Hypocrites who have tried to drive the Religious Right from politics deserve to be branded hypocrites if they then turn around and endorse the Religious left.

Because their argument went like this. Keep politics at home or in the church. Seperation of church and state. Religion has no place in politics. Thomas Jefferson was a deist. We dont like what they preach. We are atheists. Pick your reason...they were all prevalent the last 5 years.

Point 2 is correct. Because the religion of the Church in question is the baggage that their champion has brought to the dance.

Point 3 is wrong. I am not opposed to religion and politics. It has been those who have for the last 5 years attempted to banish from America by discredit the religious right who has a social and political agenda that is not dissimilar to the rev. Wrights and the TUCC.

The point I make is simple. If you on the left. In the democratic party endorse this church who is knee deep in politics with a political and social agenda then you are hypocrites.

You also are reopening the door for the religious right to make a strong and powerful comeback into the political arena and you will not have a leg to stand upon any longer.

The die is cast. Politics is an acceptable format for religion in America to be involved.

This is the hypocrisy.

GeorgeSorwell said: "I confess I find this confusing."

Whocares actually makes perfect sense, and it is the topsy-turvy nature of this election year that is the confusing thing.

Usually, it is the GOP who is condemned continually, ad nauseum, by the liberal MSM and bloggers for their candidate being too religious or close to religious wackos.

Now the GOP have nominated a maverick who has been attacked by Rush Limbaugh, who has criticized the Religious Right on record, and even been booed by his own caucus in one infamous meeting for his departing from the Republican playbook.

Now it is the Democrats whose leading candidate has a twenty year association with a religious wacko...and now, in the New Revised Media and Blogger Handbook 2008: THAT IS A GOOD THING! We need more religion in politics.

Wha...huh...did I miss the memo?

George: I'd phrase the syllogism differently:
1. People who have tried to drive religion from politics have claimed that it wasn't about supressing religious freedom, but protecting the boundaries between religion and politics.
2. Now there is a prominent religious leader who is clearly mixing leftist politics with his preaching.
3. The same people who claimed they were acting on the principle of separation of church and state when they expressed concern over the right wing churches having influence in politics, are not necessarily all condemning the influence of left wing churches which has been exposed through our view into TUCC (which we're told is not a radical church, but is like many other churches.)
Thus they've exposed their own hypocrisy, because they aren't really concerned about the separation of church and state, just the separation of conservative churches and state.

Of course you could then come back with:
1. People who defended right wing political activism said that there was no problem with any of the involvement of conservative church leaders in politics.
2. Now there is a prominent left wing preacher who is clearly mixing religion and politics.
3. The same people who defended the right wing churches' involvement are now saying that there's a problem with the left wing activism.
Thus they show their hypocrisy because they aren't really concerned with the general principle of freedom of religious expression, but rather they wanted their particular religious expression to have a voice in government even while they attempt to surpress a different type of religious expression that doesn't mesh with their political views.

You could point out any number of people who could be accused of they hypocrisy in the second example, and I could point to people guilty of the first type. We could go round and round, but instead, I'd say there're hypocrites on both sides and then there are people who really do attempt to avoid the double standard and apply a principle across the board.

Marlowecan,
I missed the memo where Rev. Wright is an asset to Barack Obama, or where the "Left" is calling for more religion in politics.

And your loving biography of John McCain may have been true in 2000, before he praised and sought the support of Hagee, Falwell, Rod Parsley, etc. What a maverick!

Marlowecan--

I also missed the memo that said the Democrats' association with a religious wacko is a good thing. Considering what I've read and heard in the media--considering, that is, the way the media has used Jeremiah Wright as a blunt implement against Obama--I find it hard to believe such a memo exists.

I also can't help but notice the eagerness with which John McCain has embraced his own set of religious wackos: John Hagee and Rod Parsley come to mind.

The charge of hypocrisy makes me laugh.

Anyone who claims the mantle of religion in order to bash his political opponents is going to end up carrying some additional baggage.

It's possible that Church X is wrong on a given belief and as a result the leaders of Church X lack moral authority. It's inevitable (given the constraints of human nature) that the leader of Church Y will be exposed as a, yes, sinner, in spite of years spent preaching virtue from the pulpit. It's likely that Church Z will prove to have more interest in its own institutional prerogatives than in its moral teachings.

You could say what goes around comes around. Or you could just read some Matthew.

For all concerned, CStanley's summary above is a fair summary of what I think "Whocares" was trying to argue, although I'm unclear on what any of this has to do with the original debate, i.e., has Obama appropriately handled/responded to the most egregious of Rev. Wright's comments featured on YouTube?

As I see, that debate -- while it involves elements of religion and politics, church and state -- was not centered on Church and State, rather on the meaning/import of the Wright-Obama relationship; on the questions of:
- Did Obama go far enough?
- Should he have disowned Wright, the person, rather than simply rejecting Wright's meanest statements?
- Should he have spoken up, publicly and privately, sooner?

To now introduce arguments about church and state is not irrelevant to the larger discussion, but it's certainly not central to the three questions listed above -- at last, not as I see it.

I'm a mix of right and left, more right on some issues, more left on others. I do think there should be a hard line separation between church and state, whether we're talking about religious left or religious right. But that has very little to do with the place of religion in a larger, non-political social context, or the influence of religion on individuals, be they elected officials or not.

The next step in the evolution of the debate becomes the knee deep in politics that the Good and faithful Rev. Wrights Chruch is involved in.

That is why I cut and pasted their mission statement. That is the next logical step.

Barak Obama comes from a church that is very, very heavily involved in political works using the ministry of the church.

This is the exact same thing that the religious right has been Crucified for doing. Yet now those very same people who crucified the Relgious Right for injecting religion into politics is endorsing a candidate who has quite obviously embraced the same thing, goes to a church for 20 years that practices that which they have railed against for years.

Spin it all you want. You either reject this sort of activity and reject Obama or you accept it with Obama and once again say loud and clear that the Religious Right is relevant and allowed full bore in politics.

You cannot have it both ways and be anything short of a hypocrite.

Pete, the thing is that to me, the answers to those questions you posed do involve separation of church and state, because it's an intensely politicalized religion that Wright preaches. IOW, the separation issue is ONE reason why Obama should have spoken up or distanced himself sooner from this church/preacher. Aside from that, there's also the offensiveness of some of the man's political views. Those are two different, but related, reasons that some of us feel the denouncement was necessary (and not just after being called on it, but sometime during the last 20 years when at least some of this must have become evident to Obama.)

It IS possible to attend a Church and NOT agree with everything the Church demands of you. Many Catholics don't follow every Papal Order that is issued from Rome. I hardly think it's fair to ASSUME that Obama agrees with every stated goal of that church simply because he attends services there.

Either way, if Obama wins the presidency and starts to attempt to integrate faith-based initiatives into public policy, I'll be just as pissed off as when Bush does it. But I don't hold the fact that Bush is a born-again Christian against him, just like I don't hold Obama's choice of faith against him.

CS I personally don't mind it when a church is politicized vis a vis them making religious proclamations about political events (like when the Pope said to refuse communion to pro-choice politicians) but I do mind it immensely when the churches try to use their views to change the laws through religious views.

That might seem weird and not make sense, but it does to me. Like if someone is against gay marriage because they think it will hurt society from a developmental standpoint and argue on those grounds, and a church supports them then I'm OK with it. If someone argues that they are against it just because their church is against it then I'm not.

Or if the church tried to get us to expand welfare because Jesus commanded us to help the poor I wouldn't support that. But if someone supported welfare from an economics perspective and the church supported it and said how it tied in then I wouldn't mind it.

Of course, in either case I think the churches are hurting themselves when they become so overtly political. And what Wright did was plainly against tax law and I would love Obama to come out and state that he thinks the overt campaigning was inappropriate and they should lose their status.

I'm pretty close to you on those views, mikkel- though interestingly, I'm more critical of the Catholic Church on that point about giving communion to pro-choice politicians than you are. It's a fine line, but I think they set a precedent with that which could be really problematic, even though I understand the reasons for it.

And on the welfare policies, I think there's a fine line too, because at some point it does become an endorsement for a particular political party or ideology. Instead, I think the churches should stick to the purer message of social justice, and let the members come to their own political decisions about how best to achieve that (which also factors into my criticism of the Church on prochoice politicians, because I think it's possible to be politically prochoice and believe that one should work to change hearts and minds against abortion instead of working directly to change the laws.)

Well CS you're more critical because you're Catholic. If my organization had those policies I would think it's ridiculous, but as an outsider I am more agnostic.

Well, part of the reason I wouldn't go as far as "ridiculous" though, is that excommunication isn't a form of punishment- it's just a public acknowledgment that the individual in question isn't acting in a way that's consistent with the beliefs of the Church, to a degree that's significant enough that they don't meet the basic criteria to be a member of the Church- and that there's reason to believe that the person knows of the inconsistency but chooses a path that's in conflict with what we believe to be true. It's generally not something that's enforced (especially publicly- it could be something that a pastor would counsel a parishioner about, say in case of divorce and remarriage) but when there is a scandal involved because of the potential appearance that the person is publicly advocating something in contradiction to our beliefs, it's more likely that the bishops or pope will feel that something needs to be publicly stated.

This comment is not addressed to anyone here. If the shoe fits wear it but I had no one in mind when I posted it.

The farther left of their mainstream counterparts have embarked upon an intense and antagonistic mission to expunge the Religious Right from politics in this country and some would argue that if they could find the means expel them from the country as well. They do not care if the RR believes all kinds of hokey pokey nonsense as long as they are incapable of influencing politicians and voters into making social choices.

Fine.

Yet and this continues to be my point that posters above seem to try and deflect off into hypothetical what ifs. Those same people are perfectly fine with Barak Obama and his heavily involved in politics church. They are accepting of the good reverend Wright who is preaching Social agenda and marching on town hall in an effort to get their version of social injustices rectified by using the pulpit to inflict upon the citizens of Chicago their version of what is right and true.

Those who purport to support Barak Obama have been the ones who have bullied the RR into hiding in America. They are guilty of Bullying everyone on the internet. They are guilty of demanding that Hillary withdraw when their are obvious ways in which she can still win the nomination and now at the height of their Invincible bullying they are endorsing the very thing that they have reviled.

The Bully is being called out. Lets see how he responds to this.

The Religious Right is not hiding. The Religious Right is supporting John McCain.

John Hagee.

Rod Parsley.

Jerry Falwell.

I hope all that HTML works!