Saturday, March 15, 2008
Why Did Obama Sit and Listen To Hate Speech For Twenty Years?
I have to wonder why Barack
When you sit and listen to these messages for twenty years. When you, apparently, financially support a church that preaches these messages. You support these messages. I just wonder more and more who Barack
Saw this at Slate via Instapundit.
If it offends you I condemn it!What do you believe? 20 years of financial and personal support for these messages or a few moments of denial in order to win the presidency?
"All of the statements that have been the subject of controversy are ones that I vehemently condemn." --Barack Obama
This seems to be the General Rule of Obama--if it's going to damage him, he condemns it! And rejects and denounces. Vehemently! The Rule would seem to apply to all past and future controversial statements--his campaign could get that sentence printed up on little laminated cards and hand them out to reporters, or include them after the statements of all Obama surrogates, like those fine-print 'void where prohibited' waivers. "Condemned if controversial."
UPDATE: More HERE.
Barack Obama has attended Wright's sermons for over twenty years. By his own admission, Obama consults with Wright before making any "bold political decisions." Obama calls Wright his "spiritual advisor." He calls Wright one of his prime mentors. Obama got the title of his book, "The Audacity of Hope," from a Wright sermon of the same name. He says that Wright was extremely important in shaping his life and his views. Obama and his wife were married by Rev. Wright. Reverend Wright baptized Obama's daughters. Barack Obama donated over $20,000 to Wright's church in 2006. He continues attending services in Wright's church.
Obama worries me more and more. He has a slick, polished, feel-good message but his history doesn't necessarily support this. I don't really support Hillary but at least we know where she stands.
90% of the people I know that go to a Church anywhere will at some point be subjected to messages they do not agree with. I don't know a single Protestant who goes to Church without a Preacher who sounds crazier than a sack of rabid weasels about something.
And I'm Catholic and we have a whole dogma of brickabrack that they find just as ludicrous.
Some of them leave the church and look around for a new one. Sometimes it takes them a while. Others stay in their church for long periods of time because they are involved with the social and fellowship aspects of the church more than they are a part of the sermon every Sunday.
That's what caused the Reformation, Protestantism, and then the disentigration of Protestant churches into more protestant churches. Our entire religious makeup as a nation has to do with crazy preachers and the people that are either driven to another church or stick around regardless.
It was these kinds of disagreements that drove me away from my Church long ago, and getting back has not been easy. But Church is a part of my culture, my family, my community, and my very being - so I can't get away from it so easy, and I'm much less invested than most.
I just think this whole thing is really the most ridiculous denunciation of a candidate I have ever seen. Maybe it is because, down in Georgia where I came from, I knew a lot of folks who would judge others very harshly based on what Church they belonged to and what preacher they listened to on Sunday. I used to do that to, but I realized that a person is more than the sum of their parts. A person is more than just the church they belong to, crazy preachers and all.
"If it offends you, I condemn it." Nice new motto for the USA, huh?
I know plenty of people who go to churches and listen to those crazy messages. A surprisingly high number eventually move to a different church, virtually all.
If a white minister gave the same sermons with "white" used instead of "black," a long time member of his church wouldn't have a prayer :-) of getting as close to the presidency as Obama already has.
That's one way we are able to cope with living in a world where so many people important to us disagree with us on fundamental issues.
For anyone who is Christian, and believes and attempts to follow the Ten Commandments - Wright appears to be on a hell-bound train.
In old English: "Thou shalt not take the name of thy Lord God in vain. That's G-D this, or G-D that for those not familiar. That is the third commandment.
No one, anywhere, has mentioned that. Or if so, it has not hit the main stream, much less any estuaries. Why? Because it is absolute condemnation of Reverend Wright. Openly and loudly disobeying the third commandment.
"But everyone says it." And everyone is wrong. Especially a preacher supposedly teaching Christ in a Christian church.
Then read the third commandment. All ten can be found all over the 'net, too.
Not a bible thumper, although I am a believer. Not a shining light for Christianity, either. I would never want someone to base his beliefs on my example.
But then I revisited the Westminster Shorter Catechism and see that I was wrong anyway:
The Third Commandment requireth the holy and reverent use of God's names, titles, attributes, ordinances, Word, and works.
Thanks for pinging me on that. Not the worst way to spend a few minutes on Resurrection Sunday!
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
Links to this post:
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]