Which is it? That’s a false binary. They are lying because they are Hillary and McCain supporters. I thought I had made that implication clear. The only people who say they care are those who are already predisposed to other candidates.
Is it as insulting as generations of wide spread institutionalized prejudice that was accepted by whites?
Would you say it’s a reasonable response to blacks not being welcome to patronize white businesses?
Please explain why owning a Mexican restaurant means you’re not welcome. I’d also like to see the specific clip or text you’re talking about. To clarify my understanding of the point you’re trying to make, do you think it’s an insult to open a business that caters predominantly to a specific race or culture. it a hair salon specializes in black people’s hair which is different than white folks hair insulting the white community?
There’s a difference between suggesting people patronize black businesses and saying, don’t ever patronize a non black business, or non black patrons aren’t welcome. It’s also not suggesting that a poorly operated black owned business should be given preference over a hard working well run non black business.
Is it evident? please show me the specific quote. Perhaps Wright believes things still aren’t equitable based on his own experience. Can you show he is clearly wrong? When choosing where to spend your money there is more involved than just price and service.
If his statement means “We have to support each other in the black community because the majority has shown we they won’t support us” then the question becomes , “Is he correct?”
But evidently the belief that Wright and Pfleger are all about hate America is pretty dam easily created. Isn’t that objectionable in any way?
I used to be a member of a Christian church. My beliefs are much different now and I am no longer a member, nor could I be in good conscience. I still value and am grateful for that particular part of my past. It was a part of my growth as a person and I see it in a positive light.
Obama’s decision is practical but I can easily see it as a normal moving on as well. He joined that church for certain reasons and it’s a big part of his personal history. Now he’s in a different phase of his life with different priorities. As he said, his faith isn’t tied to a particular congregation. What he’s done is try to bring the focus back to real issues by disarming his opponents of at least part of their arsenal.
No longer being a member of that particular church is not the equivalent of disowning them. when I stopped going to a particular church I didn’t cease having affection for the people in it. He did say they are part of America right? Making the decision to try and disarm critics who desperately want to use the church against him is a recognition that America may include that church but includes a lot more as well. As a priority choice he seems to be placing all of America’s diversity on a higher priority than one particular group. Doesn’t that directly address the concern you just mentioned a few posts ago. He doesn’t share the sentiments of Wright that people saw as objectionable precisely because he is able to walk away and place America as a whole as the higher priority.
You’d think that more people would see Fox’s biased commentary for the BS political agenda it is. I can barely watch them most of the time because their comments are dishonest and inane. The repeat the same false and malicious conclusions over and over cloaked in the appearance of a political discussion. It’s a betrayal of any claim to journalism and an insult to our intelligence. I think they’ll be surprised at how many people will see it for what it is.
What evidence do you have for this? The only evidence you’ve given so far is your belief. There are plenty of people who are on the fence or just don’t know Obama all that well. The world is not divided up into die-hard Obama supporters, die-Hard Clinton supports and right wing nut jobs.
No.
I think it’s awesome that Obama left his church. Everybody should leave their churches.
I’m holding out until he denounces and rejects his white grandmother.
You said “holding out” not “holding my breath” right? 
The way things are moving in the denounce-o-sphere these days, I might be OK either way…
The first and the third do have a great deal in common, unfortunately.
He didn’t just drift away from it gradually over a period of years. This was a loud, public denunciation, in response to a loud, public act of theirs. Any difference between that and disowning, even if it exists, doesn’t much matter. Unless, that is, you’re suggesting that his denunciation was just for show.
First, the words “all” and “America” are not givens. Now, IYHO, is the view that they’re spreading racial hatred wrong? Next, is the concern that Obama might share a little of that himself, given his many years of personal commitment there, irrational?
Shayna, I realize that a statement from Obama himself is entirely satisfactory evidence to you, but do you think it is, or even should be, to everyone?
tom, interesting quote there. It’s quite unusual for a church of that denomination *not * to welcome a golden chance to get its message out to a much wider audience, rather than consider all that attention a distraction. Anyway, the reporters wouldn’t be there if they didn’t suspect a story there, and they wouldn’t suspect a story there if they didn’t keep getting given stories there.
“I didn’t leave my church. My church left me.”
This statement
seems to indicate pretty thoroughly that this statement
commits an error of omission by excluding the second.
It is convenient that you ignore his statement that what was disrupted was the services and the lives of the congregation.
Is he distancing himself from the church so that it does not detract from the campaign? Probably. There are too many people focusing on what happens there, sporadically, rather than paying attention to his words and actions.
On the other hand, he expressed a sincere regret that his presence was disrupting the lives of the people, there. That is not “disowning” the church, howeveer desperately you need to portray it that way. (It is particularly amusing watching you cluck your tongue over the statements emanating from that church, given that, with the sinlge exception of Pfleger’s insults to Senator Clinton, you have expressed nearly all the same sentiments over the years.)
As if evangelizing isn’t one of their duties as well?
More like repudiation than distancing, but whatever. And yes, that’s the purpose, and yes, he’s the one asking us to entrust him with the Presidency, and yes, the church can otherwise take care of itself.
Cite for “sincere”? We have only his own word for that, and his own word is what’s being discussed here.
No doubt you have an example or two you can point to? :dubious: Please stick the subject and keep the personal potshots to the Pit, okay?
The subject, to help provide some obviously-necessary clarification, is *not * Pfleger’s views, or Wright’s, or the congregation’s, but Obama’s, and what his actions and words in response to them expose about them, and what that means for *his * credibility as a candidate. Pfleger and Wright are not running for President.
Yes.
One gives such absolute belief to a religious prophet, not a politician. Which is he?
Can you demonstrate this or is this just voicing an opinion
I ask you to please show me specifically where he loudly *denounced * this congregation as opposed to just stopped being a member. They are not the same thing.
Yes it clearly is. That is an idea largely created by selective editing and malicious parsing by pundits with an agenda. They are purposely fanning the fires of racial tension in the manner of their attack on Obama as much if not more than anything Wright said. Why isn’t that objectionable?
Since the idea that that church preaches and teaches race hatred has never been established in any realistic way then the only those who have bought into these false ideas purposely created by those who never had any intention of painting an honest picture of Wright or Obama, will be prone to wonder if Obama shares that. Irrational? I’m not sure being successfully manipulated can be called irrational. It seems at least unwise and a little unreasonable and irresponsible to allow ourselves to be manipulated in that way. It seems quite unreasonable, unfair and judgemental, to think we can form a valid judgment of a man’s life and attitudes based on a few carefully and maliciously selected clips.
I doubt the reporters flocking to the church are interested in helping them get their message out. They are scrutinizing them hoping for some gaffe they can exploit for ratings. That says a lot more about the sad state of media seeking sensationalism over substance than it does the church. What Obama said makes perfect sense. He expects his every word to be examined for error and opportunities for criticism because it goes with a presidential bid. He doesn’t see any good reason for the members of that congregation to subjected to that kind of unfair scrutiny.
I noticed you ignored the latter part of my post.
As I have already told you, others are still included in this particular type of marketing plan; you do know that I can support a soul food restaurant, you can come to that restaurant too (you’re not excluded from anything) and, if we both want Mexican, we can still choose to go to a Mexican restaurant.
You get that right?
You’re only insulted if you decide to be insulted, or are afraid, or want to use language that is inflammatory, while claiming innocence because you say you’ve moved on to some completely perfect, brave, new world where the conservative mantra of “pulling yourself up by your bootstraps” only works in ways you approve of.