There has been talk lately that Barack Obama belong to a church that gave an award to Louis Farrakhan. OK fair enough. It should be question why Obama belongs to a church that gave an award to an anti-Semite like Farrakhan.
But why is there nothing about Giuliani belonging to a church that named Pope Pius IX venerable (which means heroic in virtue) and beatified him. Both of these things occurred fairly recently and while Guiliani was a member of the church. Keep in mind that Pius IX called Jews dogs and actually ordered the kidnapping of a Jewish boy and then had the child brainwashed.
Say what you will about Farrakhan, as far I know, he never participated in the kidnapping and brainwashing of a Jewish child.
So why is the media concerned with Obama’s church giving an award to Farrakhan, but not even so much as mentioning Guiliani’s church and its naming Pope Pius IX venerable and beatifying him?
It may be that Giuliani’s behavior is being ignored because at this point not even he can think of himself as relevant. Or it may be that Catholicism is a lot more mainstream than Louis Farrakhan. It’s hard to get excited about it either way.
My guess would be partly due to Giuliani not being anywhere near a frontrunner, and part due to the guy living 150 years ago and no one knowing who the hell he was. Also, thinking racist things 150 years ago is a different animal from thinking them today.
Right, but I can’t see the public getting upset over someone from the 1800’s, regardless what they did. You could beatify Vlad the Impaler and it would be the same public reaction. The church being wrong for doing it is a different story- you didn’t address the church in the OP, just why Giuliani isn’t taking shit over it.
Giuliani is a member (sort of–ne never actually got an annulment for his second marriage before entering his third marriage) of a huge denomination (with roughly a billion members–depending on who is counting–it is about the same size as Islam). Within that huge denomination, a few people in the Vatican (which has little connection to American politics) have decided to canonize a long-dead pope. (A move I consider foolish, but they did not ask me).
Obama is the personal friend of the pastor of a church with a few thousand members and that pastor has authored or approved a number of specific statements praising Farrakhan.
There is a difference in association in the two situations.
Now, my personal belief is that a person, even a high profile politician, should be permitted personal friendships with all sorts of people with whom he may or may not agree. (The current administration is a perfect example of what can go horribly wrong when one only associates with people who slavishly agree with one’s opinions.)
I do not care whether Obama or Giuliani or Clinton, Romney, Huckabee, or whomever associates with axe murderers or used car salesmen as long as they can keep their own views separate from that of their friends, so I think the Obama stories are little better than second-hand smear campaigns, but the comparison of the OP is a bit far-fetched.
I think church relationships are different from other relationships because they are about a community of beliefs. It should be legitimate to presume that a politician shares the beliefs of his church, so long as the presumption can be fully rebutted–and the issue fully dropped–by that politician denying those beliefs. Obama has done so with regard to Farrakhan, but I think asking him about it was a fair question.
The only problem is that in our political environment, a fair number of people won’t follow the whole process. They’ll hear the question, but not the answer. That is troublesome, but I think its a problem with the system, not the question–so long as the question is sincere.
Oh, I think that the question is fair: How do your views correpond to those of your pastor and friend?
However, once the answer has been given, then, barring serious evidence that the answer was false, repeating the question (especailly without the answer) across dozens of Op-Ed columns, blogs, and talk radio programs is not productive, only a smear campaign.