Obama Abandons Church

Too Little Too Late?

Barack Obama has resigned his 20 year membership in the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago in the aftermath of inflammatory remarks by his longtime pastor the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and more recent fiery remarks at the church by another minister.
Obama campaign communications director Robert Gibbs said Obama had resigned from the church “over the last few days.”

1. Did Michelle Obama also quit?  If not, it’s meaningless. If she did, it’s still too late.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 31, 2008 at 2035 hrs




2. Way too late. Sorry - if you go to a church for 20 years - you don’t just all of a sudden realize that your pastor is a racist nut job.

   People who don’t agree with a pastor - leave and go to another church.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 31, 2008 at 2057 hrs




3. 

   I thought he had ‘quit’ TUCC after Rev. Wright’s weekend where we all got to hear him “in context.”

   Posted by hsgbdmama on May 31, 2008 at 2058 hrs




4. B.Hussain Obama ‘resigned’ from TUCC but he refused to renounce the church.  So , he is talking but saying nothing, as usual.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 31, 2008 at 2214 hrs




5. It must be a rough position to be in.  His campaign spinsters must be running circles around each other.

   How do you play both sides?  How do you get the “black community” behind you.  The same black community that overwhelmingly is willing to believe OJ is innocent, the US government blew up the levees in N’Orleans and that the white man is responsible for ALL their problems. (aka the TUCC constituency)  and at the SAME time patrionize the democratic base which is largely plain old typical liberal democratic white folks who just want something for nothing from the government, but yet don’t buy into the obsessive victimology and self-pitying culture of the black community.

   Man.. I don’t envy Barack’s spinmeisters.  Thats a tangled web to weave.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 01, 2008 at 0009 hrs




6. Are you guys as concerned with right-wing Christian extremists?  I mean the ones who have influenced American politics for decades, the ones who have actually run for president, the ones who continually make high profile endorsements of your candidates…

   Posted by scott on June 01, 2008 at 0833 hrs




7. Scott,
   Whith of the three candidates in this election is a right-wing Christian extremist?  Once you point that out for me, I’ll show my concern.

   Snide comments aside, I agree that Christian extremists have played too large a role in shaping the Republican party, but it’s Obama’s handling of his church that is causing the problem for him.  I doubt it will cost him the nomination, but it will hurt him in the general election.  People understand sticking with your religion, and I think Obama could have done that.  Unfortunately for Obama, people also understand throwing your church under the bus when it becomes politically conveinent.

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 01, 2008 at 0847 hrs




8. I agree that Christian extremists have played too large a role in shaping the Republican party

   Okay, we’re square.

   Posted by scott on June 01, 2008 at 0850 hrs




9. Yes, yes, yes!

   Right-wing “Cristians” have had too much influence on the Neorepublican Party, and to quote my minister:

   “Now the chickens have come home to roost.”

   I heard this at target practice last week:

   ...Thank [goodness] Fagee, oops, [I]mean Hagee was dropped by McPain, RIGHT?]    

   Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 01, 2008 at 1059 hrs




10. I have nothing to say other than I thought xxpilot’s post was great.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 01, 2008 at 1138 hrs




11. Thank GOD!

    Now we can pray that since he has left the phony church know as TUCC, may he find God.

    The only way to find God is throught Jesus Christ, and the only way to find everlasting life is through HIM.

    THE ONLY WAY TO JESUS CHRIST IS THROUGH THE HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.

    I know alot of the readers of this will be upset, but the truth is ALWAYS upsetting to the unbeleivers.

    THE ONLY WAY TO RECIEVE SALVATION IS BY THE HOLY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.

    THE ONLY WAY TO BE FORGIVEN OF YOUR SINS IS BY CONFESSION TO A ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST.

    It is the ONLY way.

    Let us pray to Mary mother of God.

    Pray that obama fids the one true church. The Catholic Church.

    AMEN.

    I prayed for Obama this morning at Mass.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 01, 2008 at 1303 hrs




12. Parker,

    The Bible tells me that Jesus is the one is the who has saved me. I don’t see any verses talking about the Catholic church anywhere in the Bible. Try reading Eph 2:8-9 and especially telling for the Catholic church - you should closely read Gal 1:6-9

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 01, 2008 at 1406 hrs




13. xxpilot - Good post.  How does right wing Christian extremism fit in here.  Revrend Hagee endorses McCain is as egregious as belonging to TUCC for 20 years?  Yea, that the ticket…

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 01, 2008 at 1446 hrs




14. I wish we could just skip the hypocritical, disingenuous bullshit.  The American right has been in bed with religious nutcases for decades.  Now you’re all incensed by the appearance of one on the left?  C’mon.  Wright is extreme—but hardly a one of you has any moral high ground to criticize Obama from.

    If the senator from Illinois was a Republican you’d all be saying it didn’t matter.

    How much nicer it would be to have a discussion about the policy and ideological reasons why you don’t like him, rather than character assassination and gotchaism.

    Posted by scott on June 01, 2008 at 1452 hrs




15. What bothers me most is that he first stood behind his church, and said that he didn’t share the extremist views of the good Rev, and now has backed out.  To me, it would have shown more integrity to either stay the course, or leave when the news first broke… not 3-4 months after defending that church. 

    What else will he bend on when the pressure mounts, that’s what bothers me now.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 01, 2008 at 1522 hrs




16. Anybody who thinks Rev. Jeremiah Wright dished out every Sunday for 20 years what we saw on Youtube is if nothing, a total idiot. Nearly every legitimate theologian in Chicago and notionally had respect for Wright.

    For that reason Obama should have stuck with his church. Why he was in that church is his business, not ours, especially when it comes from people who have accepted for years for those most disgusting snake oil salesmen on the “Christian” right.

    Of course Ronald Reagan had the best solution. He never went to church.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 01, 2008 at 2106 hrs




17. scott, name a right wing pastor that was influential in the GOP or a presidential canidate that is as racist as Wright and Fleger.  Name one who used his pulpit on Sundays to policitalize the presidential campaign. 
    And no, Keith, Reagan did go to church, but not that often.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 02, 2008 at 0208 hrs




18. Neither of these two clergy are racist.

    As far as your statement about using the pulpit, all the right wing preachers did it. Come on Dan. You’re not that clueless.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 02, 2008 at 0408 hrs




19. Keith - you must live in an interesting world - one I’m not sure I’d like to visit. How can you say that Wright is not a racist? Whitey is holding down the black man? The government gave the black people AIDS? He is the most racist person I’ve ever seen.

    Maybe this definition will help you:

    Racism, by its simplest definition, is discrimination based on racial group. People with racist beliefs might hate certain groups of people according to their race, or in the case of institutional racism, certain racial groups may be denied rights or benefits. Racism typically starts with the assumption that there are taxonomic differences between different groups of people.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 02, 2008 at 0754 hrs




20. Dan, I see that you’ve conveniently narrowed the criteria: You only want examples of racist statements, not any of the other kinds of extreme or hate-filled views commonly espoused by the American religious right.

    There are probably dozens of clergy in your camp who have records as long as your arm for being intolerant and hateful—whether it’s regarding religious views or sexual orientation or political affiliation.  My favorite cherry-on-top example is when Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson said that America deserved the 9/11 attack and that organizations like the ACLU for bringing it about.  These guys have long careers built on this stuff.  Surely you’re not going to contest that fact.

    Posted by scott on June 02, 2008 at 0805 hrs




21. “You only want examples of racist statements, not any of the other kinds of extreme or hate-filled views commonly espoused by the American religious right.”

    Extreme or hate-filled views? Commony espoused? The American religious right?

    That’s a mighty large tar-and-feather setup you’ve got there, Scott. I can’t imagine how you could get more stereotypical unless you just said Christian or white or American.

    Get thee behind me, Hyperbole.

    Posted by tee bee on June 02, 2008 at 1058 hrs




22. Uh, I’m not sure what your objection is, actually.

    Posted by scott on June 02, 2008 at 1104 hrs




23. There are probably dozens of clergy in your camp who have records as long as your arm for being intolerant and hateful—whether it’s regarding religious views or sexual orientation or political affiliation.  My favorite cherry-on-top example is when Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson said that America deserved the 9/11 attack and that organizations like the ACLU for bringing it about.

    And if John McCain was a 20 year member of the church where Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson were pastor, was married by Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson, and said that Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson was a “close friend” then you’d have an applicable comparison.

    You’re painting with a pretty broad brush there scott.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 02, 2008 at 1110 hrs




24. I’m sorry, but the level of disingenuousness is approaching critical levels, here.  A Republican insinuating that a Democrat has too close a ties to a religious extremist is the the pot calling the kettle a pot.  On some other planet, in some other reality, you have a brilliant point, I’m sure.  But here in the real world, your party has been pandering to, been blessed by, been endorsed by and otherwise jerked off by some of the most nut jobbiest kooks of the American religious scene.  Hell, Pat Robertson himself made a pretty respectable run for president back in the 80s.

    You want to say that Wright is extreme?  Fine.  You want to say that Obama’s association with him is a knock on his character?  Fine.  But if you want to start that shit, you’d better be prepared to answer for decades of your own party’s associations with religious extremism.  If you’re not prepared to answer for it—if you’re only prepared to lamely dodge it and otherwise deny reality—then don’t be surprised if you get called out as a partisan hack.

    Posted by scott on June 02, 2008 at 1129 hrs




25. Re: 11
    Parker:

    Get your facts straight. Per your rant, Lutherans, Methodist, Presbyterians, etc are all damned? Better stop smoking the incense and do a little reading.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 02, 2008 at 1221 hrs




26. Well I’m not a republican scott, so any claim of partisanship on your part is just some desperate attempt at a deflect.

    There are extremists who align themselves with republicans and extremists who align themselves with democrats, and extremists who align with green, libertarian etc.

    But here we have a presidential candidate who by all accounts had an exceptionally close personal friendship and association with an extremist for many many years.  Thats pretty unprecidented….  though you would like to spin it as not so.

    And I’m sorry, but the only reason Barack is rejecting him now is because his advisors are telling him its the thing to do.  After 20 years, you KNOW who a person is and you know what they believe, and people tend to not develop deep personal associations with people who’s core beliefs they do not embrace.

    This departure now is nothing more than damage control, and back to my original post, its a rough position for Obama.  Having to appease BOTH of these 2 critical constituencies.  The “black community” that pretty overwhelmingly espouses these extreme views and conspiracy theories (that white folk are the root of all their problems and everyone from the cops in their community to the federal government is out to get them).  And then appease the traditional liberal constituency of unions and such that is comprised of people who would flat out reject the attitudes and victimology of the black community. 

    I can’t see how he’ll win in November.

    America is ready for a black president, but its not ready for a president who is so closely aligned with people who have such spurious beliefs and misappropriation of blame for their circumstances and events that occur.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 02, 2008 at 1239 hrs




27. its a rough position for Obama.  Having to appease BOTH of these 2 critical constituencies.

    I just don’t see where Obama’s denunciation of Wright or his leaving the church really affects his appeal among black voters at all.  I think it’s just sheer speculation on your part and that it’ll ultimately be proved wrong.

    Posted by scott on June 02, 2008 at 1324 hrs




28. Let me address one point.  the idea that one person knows another just beause they have had a relationship for the last 20 years.  My personal experience with this was that I have a very good friend.  Great lady who was, on the surface, the all american mother.  Career, kids, nice home, went to church, etc…  Then out of the blue she announce that she has had an ongoing affair with not one but two different men for the last decade.  I still call her a friend but will never look at her the same way again.  I don’t spend much time with her and probably never will again.  So, to blankly say that you know a person after any given time period is ludicrous.  I’m fairly sure that Obama thought he knew Rev. Wright but in the end found out that he did not.  It also seems apparent that this was a difficult decision for Obama and to say it is all about spin is arrogant, because that would presume that you know Obama so well that you know his thoughts.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 02, 2008 at 1430 hrs




29. I just don’t see where Obama’s denunciation of Wright or his leaving the church really affects his appeal among black voters at all.  I think it’s just sheer speculation on your part and that it’ll ultimately be proved wrong.

    I think recent history has presented a pretty good base of information from which to judge how the “black community” treats those amongst themselves who don’t buy into the attitude.

    Let me address one point.  the idea that one person knows another just beause they have had a relationship for the last 20 years.

    lol… do you realize how rediculous that sounds.  I mean theres an exception to every rule, but if i was a betting man, i’d take the odds that usually after 20 years, you know a person.  Your anecdote is a fun little story, but I really don’t see any applicability here.

    Having said that, having seen the video of the sermons in context, and judging by the reaction of the congregations, I think its safe to say that various extreme views and comments that Obama is now trying to separate himself from are pretty widely held and embraced by the congregation.

    So now do tell me the story about how you went to a church for 20 years and all of a sudden woke up one day and found out that the entire church and congregation you’ve been part of for 20 years had these unknown-to-you extremist views?

    Get real.  Lets not be so open-minded that our brains fall out.

    Its a stretch just to say that Obama didn’t really “know” his friend of 20 years.  But its a blatant rejection of rational thought to suggest that these extremist views of his congregation were unknown to him.

    Noone is that blind or ignorant.

    If Obama is smart enough to be worthy of president surely he wasn’t oblivious to these attitudes and views widely espoused by his church and congregation.

    This is just a matter of political expediency.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 02, 2008 at 1457 hrs




30. Then out of the blue she announce that she has had an ongoing affair with not one but two different men for the last decade.

    Great, so we’ve got a poster who says he/she is a previous elected official in some capacity who is trying to equate a friend’s secret affair with a number of sermons from a preacher.  Ridiculous.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 02, 2008 at 1815 hrs




31. If Obama is smart enough to be worthy of president surely he wasn’t oblivious to these attitudes and views widely espoused by his church and congregation.

    ...Is yet another example why religion becomes a dumbassed sidewhow in the political arena.

    Unless you or anybody else ever set foot in Trinity or had the foggiest notion about what goes on in a black church or a UCC church, you really don’t know jack do you. Neither can a simple mind grasp the complex connections between two people.

    This is just an attempt to make some brainless connection, when you’d rather not talk about the issues because quite frankly, to most of the American people your side of the issues suck.

    Both of these clergymen were widely respected and have done much good for their communities. But who gives a crap when you have to work up the rubes. Right boys?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 02, 2008 at 2231 hrs




32. I guess I was not clear in my meaning.  My point was that it is arrogant to assume that any one person knows what another person is thinking or how another person will behave just because they have known them for a period of time.  My experience was what it was.  I was not trying to equate an affair to obama and the sermons that a preacher gave.  So, to jason, do you get it now? What by the way does my past have to do with this discussion?

    xxpilot,  you are right there are exceptions to every rule, but that does not diminish my point that one person never truly knows another person.  Just because those beliefs were held within the church that does not mean he holds them or ever has held them.  Do we know if he has in the past 20years spoken out to try to change the views or make them more moderate?  The reality here is that critics of Obama are painting with some fairly broad brushes and assuming things not in evidence.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 03, 2008 at 0737 hrs




33. My point was that it is arrogant to assume that any one person knows what another person is thinking or how another person will behave just because they have known them for a period of time.

    With the facts of this particular instance, it is arrogant to assume that a person could disagree with the message of his preacher for 20 years and continue to go to that church…  add on top of it, that the person in question then decided to leave that church only AFTER the public has seen a sample of the sermons in that church. 

    We’re certainly not talking about intimate knowledge between a member and a preacher, but about the general teachings of the preacher.  It’s rather obvious in the videos that have been made public what the preacher in question thinks about our country.  While he might not be teaching it daily, weekly, or monthly, I certainly would not have returned to that church if I was in attendance when it happened.

    I was not trying to equate an affair to obama and the sermons that a preacher gave.

    I disagree, your post tried to do exactly that. 

    Just because those beliefs were held within the church that does not mean he holds them or ever has held them.  Do we know if he has in the past 20years spoken out to try to change the views or make them more moderate?

    Again, my problem isn’t really about if Obama has incorporated that message, but that he hasn’t said “I disagree, and have has discussions with him about it”, or that he has attended for 20 years.  As I said, if it were me, and I saw that in my church, I would voice my disagreement, and then likely find a new church.  I wouldn’t wait until it became public knowledge in my community, defend it, then a couple of months later denounce it as pressure mounted.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 03, 2008 at 0929 hrs




34. Blah frickin’ blah.

    The fact is if a Republican had the exact situation going on you’d vote for him anyway.  It’s really that simple.  And as long as that’s the case, this isn’t an issue worth discussing.  You’d be better off discussing the REAL reasons why you don’t like Obama—the reasons that actually matter—instead of mucking around with this BS.

    Posted by scott on June 03, 2008 at 0934 hrs




35. This is just an attempt to make some brainless connection, when you’d rather not talk about the issues because quite frankly, to most of the American people your side of the issues suck

    Speaking of brainless…

    I gotta tell ya Keith.  I think its pretty brainless and arrogant for you to sit and say what ‘most’ american’s think.

    Pollsters can’t figure it out and are consistently proven wrong.

    News media can’t figure it out.

    But Keith Schmitz knows what “most american’s think”

    But who gives a crap when you have to work up the rubes. Right boys?

    Bigot

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 03, 2008 at 0941 hrs




36. The fact is if a Republican had the exact situation going on you’d vote for him anyway.  It’s really that simple.

    Pure factless conjecture scott.

    I’m not a republican anymore, but I think republicans have a pretty marked proclivity to jettison people involved in controversy from their ranks.

    Trent Lott, Bob Ney, Mark Foley, Larry Craig, alberto gonzales… a variety of different issues/scandals, but republicans, to their credit perhaps, or because they are gun-shy to the media/political pressure are pretty quick to throw their own under the bus.

    So your baseless comment that “oh if it were a republican” falls pretty flat and makes for poor debate.

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 03, 2008 at 1010 hrs




37. The fact is if a Republican had the exact situation going on you’d vote for him anyway.  It’s really that simple. 

    Prove it. 

    And as long as that’s the case, this isn’t an issue worth discussing.

    It’s not the case, and just because you think it’s the case, it why it’s not work discussing with you.  Just like most things you post here scott.  Baseless, factless, and completely unfounded emotions is about all you share with us.

    You’d be better off discussing the REAL reasons why you don’t like Obama—the reasons that actually matter—instead of mucking around with this BS.

    Besides the obvious problems I as a conservative have with him being a liberal, I’ve stated here in this thread a number of times why I have issue with his actions to this specific topic.  Did you miss them, or are you just crying to see who hears you?

    Posted by (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on June 03, 2008 at 1014 hrs