“Person X is an important person in my life, and my spiritual adviser”
is not equivalent to
“I believe and agree with everything X has ever said, especially the more inflammatory stuff.”
But lots of folks tried to make out like it was, and thus there was a big kerfuffle about it. That’s my take, anyway.
The point was Obama chose that person as a spiritual adviser, and maintained a close relationship despite his inflammatory beliefs. This isn’t like having a racist grandmother.
This kind of comment is better suited for the Pit. Please dial it back.
Not unexpected from a blind righty ]like you. Info plus Obama’s own words don’t matter as much as your unfounded beliefs.
Which do you find more amazing-that gonzomax did such an incredible job with that fake Obama article, or that he fooled the Huffington Post into publishing it?
gonzomax, I agree that Shodan was out of line, but you have been warned for this over and over again and I just gave you a mod note about personal comments yesterday. I’m giving you a warning this time, and the staff will discuss your posting privileges.
I withdraw the remark and apologize to gonzomax and to the boards.
Regards,
Shodan
Please quote the parts of the article showing that Obama was not really influenced by Wright, and that Obama only said he was to curry favor with religious people.
Regards,
Shodan
Another way to look at it is that some voters want their President to be “Cheerleader in Chief”, with an optimistic outlook about the country and it’s future.
While Rev. Wright is free to hold his views and express them, few people would be comfortable electing a man to the Office of the President who shared the view that the country aught to be damned to hell, even if figuratively.
Wright no more ran for office than his namesake prophet. If you want a cheerleader that says the US can do no wrong and someone who has no problem with torture and waging war, there are quite a few right wing preachers to choose from.
Can you name a President who was elected while being a “gloomy gus”?
The media ignored the story for over a year until, finally, they could not ignore it any longer. Of course they quickly determined there was nothing to see there and moved on after Obama’s enlightening lecture on race relations.
Contrast that with how quickly the media jumped on Perry for a comment that some pastor who supports Perry made about Mormons.
Here’s the short segment from the 40 minute speech. It wasn’t hard to find. I figure it might as well be examined, since we’re talking about it.
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/21/the-full-story-behind-wright’s-“god-damn-america”-sermon/
“My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.” - Carl Schurz.
There was no Obama story until it was invented by Fox.
The Perry story pretty much wrote itself.
Obama’s relationship with Wright was one of congregant to pastor in a religiuous situation. As Obama noted, Wright led a large community in a threatened neighborhood while it engaged in Christian activities such as caring for the poor. I doubt that Obama was unaware of Wright’s political views, (although it is not difficult to believe that he probably did not hear them often–not many preachers spend more than a Sunday or two a year on politics, particularly national politics). On the other hand, as long as those political views remained a periodic expression to a local audience, he could pretty well ignore them. When Wright went public, nationally, after having a couple of his more fiery local declamations quoted (or misquoted) by Fox, Obama rejected those national attacks on the U.S. I have had pastors who were much more Right wing or Left wing than I am and I have had no trouble ignoring their politics while taking inspiration from their spiritual declarations. I am pretty sure that Obama is capable of doing the same thing.
Perry’s relationship to Jeffress was a bit tenuous, as he has no long relationship with Jeffress. However, Jeffress introduced Perry to a religious group in front of the national press by proclaiming that Perry is a "born-again follower of the lord Jesus Christ,” strongly suggesting that Romney is not. He then noted, after the speech, that Mormonism is a cult. Perry immediately took the microphone after the introduction and did not bother saying anything to temper the claims (or the strong implication) that only he, and not Romney, was a born-again Christian. Following the speech, it took two tries for his press secretary to distance Perry from the claim that Mormonism is a cult. Given the context: a speech to the Religious Right, with a national audience, in the context of considering endorsements for presidential candidates, there is no way that the story would not have been played by all the news outlets–as even Fox did–in contrast to Wright’s earlier comments that were dragged out from Sunday sermons, some correctly, some edited for increased excitement value. When Wright did make a nationally recorded speech, the media reported it immediately, just as they did Jeffress.
Had Perry immediately distanced himself from Jeffress’s remarks, the story would have gone in a completely different direction. The media never edited Perry’s remarks, (or those of Jeffress), for heightened inflammatory value.
I remember reading that someone from Us Weekly said that in light of the Jeremiah Wright controversy, the mainstream media no longer has any claim to journalistic superiority over tabloids. I don’t know if I’d go that far, but I agree with the sentiment. Much, much ado about nothing.
For the record:
The James passage you linked to exhorts its audience not to curse human beings. But Wright, if he was cursing anything, was cursing a nation.
Moreover, it’s not clear that Wright was cursing anything, since everything he said was conditional. (There’s an “as long as” clause after all the 'God damn America’s.)
(Also, since it’s not clear that saying “Damn Y” is cursing Y. I’d need to know more about Greek to be able to judge whether James was talking about the act of saying “God will damn you” is a curse. I don’t really know what “cursing” is, Biblically speaking.)
(Also, to my knowledge no one, at least on reflection, thinks that it’s unpatriotic to exhort one’s nation to live up to the ideals one believes applies to it.)
Wasn’t Wright waiting in the wings to introduce Obama at a speech when at the last minute he was cancelled because of the non-story?
… and? What does that have to do with, well, anything? It was a non-story, until the Republicans (and that damned Liberal Media!!!) pushed it to the forefront.
Tell me- do *you *think Obama hates America?
I’m truly glad to have this issue re-hashed again, because now, in light of the past few years of the Obama administration, it has become obviously clear that Obama is a virulent anti-American white hater who is trying his best to destroy both the Jews and America.
If only we had heeded the advice of the right wing …