March 20, 200818 yr So, you think that all Catholics agreed with the Church's cover ups of the clergical abuse scandals because we haven't left our Church? There's more to a church than the pastor. Probably not. However this abuse was, just that, covered not delivered as a liturgy regularly.
March 20, 200818 yr No...you didn't. You have yet to tell me if those were the only videos sold. What you have done is tell me what I already know...which one's would get sensationalist publicity. Yes, I have watched them. Apparently, unlike you, I can watch them and not become upset. I wonder why? Because you are choosing to ignore the significance?
March 20, 200818 yr I am not upset at all. If you recall, I had many upset with me at my strong criticism of John McCain. I do not believe that there is an honest candidate in the race, but I think that a double standard is being applied to Obama's association with an array of racist characters, including Rev. Wright. Obama was among the first people who criticized Don Imus (who I detest). Obama said that a man who made the statements that Imus made would no longer be working for him. Why did he not apply the same lofty standard to his own pastor? I was wondering the same thing.
March 20, 200818 yr I actually liked what the Pastor had to say So you believe that dropping the bombs in WWII somehow excuses or that we deserved what happened to on 9/11? What about that the government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color? Are these some of the things he said that you liked?
March 20, 200818 yr You don't have to be a very serious theologian to quote Matthew 26:52. Just thought I'd throw that out there, it being Holy Week.
March 20, 200818 yr Just 8% Have Favorable Opinion of Pastor Jeremiah Wright Seventy-three percent (73%) of voters say that Wright’s comments are racially divisive. That opinion is held by 77% of White voters and 58% of African-American voters. In addressing the issue, Obama warned against injecting race into the campaign . Most voters, 56%, said Wright’s comments made them less likely to vote for Obam a. That figure includes 44% of Democrats. Just 11% of voters say they are more likely to vote for Obama because of Wright’s comments. I would assume Monday, before Obama's speech? Good public polling, to get the opinions out there before the other side has their say...
March 20, 200818 yr Monday, March 17, 2008Yup. "More likely, less likely" is also one of the stupidest questions in polling, because people reading the results take it as "Will vote for, won't vote for" but that's not the question. It's right up there with disconnect between "your opinion of Congress" and "Your opinion of your own Congressperson."
March 20, 200818 yr Obama took a slight bump down but came back up after the speech. Rasmussen tracking Obama Clinton March 19: 47 42 March 18: 45 44 -- Obama's speech March 17: 46 44 March 16: 47 44 March 15: 46 45 March 14: 50 42 March 13: 48 41 -- Wright hits news March 12: 47 42 March 11: 48 41 -- Mississippi March 10: 46 44 March 9: 45 47 March 8: 45 46 --Wyoming March 7: 43 49 March 6: 43 48 March 5: 43 48 March 4: 44 46 -- OH, TX, VT, RI (LINK)
March 20, 200818 yr Twenty years makes no difference here. If you want to get into a discussion about the significance of time, in 2000 Bob Jones University had a legacy of racist policies that stretched back all the way to its founding in 1927--it didn't even admit black students until 1971! It was well known at the time that Bob Jones banned interracial dating when Bush campaigned there. He still made a conscious decision to campaign there--does that willfull association make him a racist? Obama chose to continue attending this church after he would have had to hear some objectionable viewpoints. Does that mean he's a racist? Look, I don't think Bush's visit to Bob Jones should have disqualified him in 2000 (indeed, I voted for him in the general election after voting for McCain in the Michigan primary). I also don't think Obama's church attendance should disqualify him now. This issue of whether Obama was in the pews during these sermons is a red herring--we need less of "colonel mustard did it in the conservatory with the lead pipe" and more discussions of the real issues facing this country. Not only do I agree with this, I'd like to bump it to the new page for others to see it.:thumb:
March 20, 200818 yr Obama took a slight bump down but came back up after the speech. Rasmussen tracking Obama Clinton March 19: 47 42 March 18: 45 44 -- Obama's speech March 17: 46 44 March 16: 47 44 March 15: 46 45 March 14: 50 42 March 13: 48 41 -- Wright hits news March 12: 47 42 March 11: 48 41 -- Mississippi March 10: 46 44 March 9: 45 47 March 8: 45 46 --Wyoming March 7: 43 49 March 6: 43 48 March 5: 43 48 March 4: 44 46 -- OH, TX, VT, RI (LINK) That 50 looks like a margin of error outlier anyway. I think the only people that this derails his candidacy for are the people that wouldn't vote for any Democrat, anyway. At least, that's the way it seems in this thread.
March 20, 200818 yr That 50 looks like a margin of error outlier anyway. I think the only people that this derails his candidacy for are the people that wouldn't vote for any Democrat, anyway. At least, that's the way it seems in this thread. :thumb: Most of the people pitching a fit over this whole thing were not voting for him anyway and it just reinforces their decision. In the general election Obama (or Clinton) will wipe the floor with McCain in debates and I think neither candidate is going to let themselves be swift boated.
March 20, 200818 yr Doesn't he have that right? And shouldn't we be willing to listen to opposing views, while forming our own? Of course he has the right to express his opinion. No one on here has said he doesn't have a right to his opinion. But isn't he, like all of us, accountable for his opinions and beliefs? I am, you are, he is and so is Sen. Obama. And despite all the wonderful words about racial unity in Sen. Obama's speeches, I judge a man and a woman not on what he or she says, but rather by his or her actions. And I'm sorry, but Sen. Obama's continued support of Rev Wright by continuing to attend Wright's church when Wright was saying such things, by continuing a close friendship with Wright, by having Wright marry him, baptize his children and serve as his spiritual advisor reveals much, much more to me than some flowery words in eloquent speeches. People supporting Obama have tried their best to spin this issue into something it isn't. This isn't about whether the Reverend had a right to express his opinion. This isn't about one comment made in one isolated sermon. This isn't about a one offensive joke. This isn't about whether he said it in 10% or 20% of his sermons. This isn't about whether you and me should end our friendship with a person that is obviously a bigot. This is about a man running for the President of our country that has a made racial unity a major theme of his campaign, that now is confronted with the fact that his spiritual advisor is himself a racist (and I'm sorry, but there is no denying that Reverend Wright's words qualify him as a racist). Its not you and me having a bigoted spiritual advisor; its the person who may be our next President with the bigoted spiritual advisor. Its the man who may be our next President who choose this Reverend to marry him and to baptize his children. I'm not saying that Sen. Obama needed to totally revoke his friendship with Wright, but he sure as heck didn't need to give him the honor of marrying the Senator, of baptizing the Senator's children and as serving as the Senator's spiritual advisor. I'm sorry if the irony and hypocrisy of that being the case with someone running on a platform of racial unity is lost on Senator Obama's supporters. And folks there is no way that any one can logically contradict that. I know that some people say that Wright became a racist because of the way blacks have been treated in this country for years. I don't recall MLK, Jr., using this type of hateful language and I'm sure he endured as much discrimination if not more as Wright, yet he found a way to preach a totally different message than Wright. I know that some folks will say that that's just the way black churches are. Well if that's the way they are, perhaps the leaders of those black churches bear a lot of responsibility for the continued racial tensions still present in America. I know that some folks will say that the Reverend is of an older generation of blacks that dealt with things that younger blacks do not. Well, he sure as heck is trying to fill the minds of young blacks in his church with hatred. And I know that if a Catholic Priest got up in the pulpit and advocated the abuse of young boys and tried to defend the abuse of young boys by Catholic priests, that Rockmom and others in the parish would go ballistic. As someone raised in the Catholic church, I know that I would. I wouldn't be reading a bunch of malarkey about how wrong it is leave that parish if the Bishop refused to remove the priest. I wouldn't read a bunch of rationalization about why its okay for a Catholic priest to express his opinion. I'd read about how wrong it was for that Priest to spread that message and how if the Priest is not removed, a lot of people would join another parish. And I know that every poster that is defending Sen. Obama and defending Rev. Wright would be attacking unmercifully Sen. McCain if he continued to attend a church for a long period of time that was led by a minister espousing similar comments about blacks. And I know that I could never follow a man of the cloth that took the Lord's name in vain like Rev. Wright did. And I know one other thing: that I and I think many others will have a very hard time believing what Sen. Obama says about racial unity if he becomes the President. This country in my opinion has bent over backwards to try to rectify the past discrimination; and to try and give blacks an equal opportunity to succeed (and Sen. Obama's rise is defacto proof of that). For Wright to dwell on what happened 50, 75 or a 100 years ago; to say that we had 9/11 coming to us as a result of dropping the A bomb is not in any way going to help unify this country; it is going to make such unification much more difficult. And if other leaders of other black churches are doing the same, it will make it even more difficult. And I don't care how many times Sen. Obama says he doesn't have those same beliefs, his actions speak much more than his words.
March 20, 200818 yr Leatherneck - Just wondering do you have the same angst and problem with those that sought to blame the "moral condition" of the US as the main reason for God allowing 9/11 to happen? Falwell, Robertson and I believe even Ruth Graham made similar national statements on TV shows that were syndicated nationally. Since it is highly unlikely that George W. "broke with them," is this a failure on him as well? On the GOP? FWIW, I think that those looking to "nail" Obama are going to see it the way they want. Even with the newest revelation of "not sure I saw him there on that date," no one whose been adamant vs. Obama has spoken of this confession, they've gone to the "well, over 20 years" argument. Those that want to support Obama are going to see it their way. They want to cite other examples and comparisons that might or might not have some validity. As for me, I'm probably not voting for Obama anyway (despite what Run to State thought in an earlier post ).
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.