Comments on: Obama’s Reaction Doesn’t Cut It

By: Aaron

Aaron — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 03:48:32 +0000

You can disagree deeply over certain issues with someone you love, admire, respect and even look up to. If you’re running for president, hopefully you aren’t the kind of man who doesn’t have some ideas that are different from your pastor. Obama said he had experienced Wright’s views, and admitted to understanding them even if he didn’t share them. Considering the gravity of that statement, it’s no wonder he hesitated in giving this speech. Politics is inherently risk-averse. The fact that he made such a strong and lucid statement in the end suggests a lot about his character and capabilities to lead the country, policies aside.

By: poetryman69

poetryman69 — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 01:54:43 +0000

Getting yourself pastored by a radical hater shows bad judgment. Lying about it when asked by the media shows dishonesty. Request for presidency denied.

–klqtzz

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 14:17:59 +0000

I agree with all of that, Michael- and I also just think that if Obama truly disagreed with a certain part of Wright’s theology, or the direction he took it in-and I think it’s quite possible that he did- he should have spoken out about it all along, not after it starts coming out in the media. Making a blanket statement early on that he disagreed with Wright on some things just isn’t enough, given the close association. Obama’s continued close relationship and membership in the church implies tacit agreement until proven otherwise, and he didn’t do enough in the past to explain how he reconciled his differing views.

It is a dangerous thing for politics to be justified on the basis of religion (which is different than a church espousing a moral stand on a particular issue- what I’m speaking of is a whole theology which purports to say that God’s plan for us involves a political movement or philosophy.) Everyone who agrees with that has a responsibility to not participate in it. The Catholic church under JPII forcefully dealt with liberation theology in Central and South America, and said we’ll have none of that (because it’s basically a Marxist philosophy which uses religion as it’s justification.) Black church leaders who justify race baiting politics on the basis of ‘Jesus was a poor black man in a society where rich white men ruled’ ought to be similarly given the heave ho, and it’s incumbent on a black politician who wants to move the country beyond racial politics to do so.

By: Michael van der Galien

Michael van der Galien — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 13:59:19 +0000

Christine: I think that's exactly what Obama is trying to say here. I also read PoliMom's post, but that one doesn't cut it either. Again, Obama says he's greatly inspired by Wright, he named one of his books after one of Wright's sermons (in which Wright talked about Hiroshima, how rich white people oppress the black people and other controversial subjects as well by the way), etc. Not only that, but Obama was an atheist before he joined this Church. He joined this Church because he was moved by what Wright had to say. It's amazing to me that too many of his supporters refuse to understand this story. "Crazy uncle" my ass. This man played a major role in Obama's life, in his spiritual life and in his political life.

By: Polimom Says » Churches, communities, flocks, and sheep

Polimom Says » Churches, communities, flocks, and sheep — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 13:30:54 +0000

[...] Evidently, not everyone has — but those folks weren’t inclined toward understanding anything about Obama in the first place. On the other hand, there are many who can, in fact, wrap their minds around the possibilities. Clearly people will come to their own conclusions, based in part on their own life experiences… or their own political tendencies. [...]

By: utsu

utsu — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 13:29:42 +0000

Apparently Obama has been to close to this man for a while, and said man seems to have been spouting Sharpton-class BS for a while, even though he could have many qualities that would have gained him Obama’s support. Bothersome. I don’t give a flying fornication about whether Obama is "spiritual" or whatever because I think religious belief is intrinsically bad and reflects poorly on him no matter what. I can be moral and a good leader without a religion and so can Obama.

But if he is going to have "spirituality" as a fudge-word and voter-greasing attachment to his presidency and appeal as a person then the quality of that spirituality and the reverend that is a part of it is important.

Whether he genuinely feels that his religious life should
be out there in politics or is just being pious for the plebeians is one thing - but he can’t remain attached to any reverend without the implication that he stands by said reverend’s sermons et al.

Of course, I’m not for Obama because I expected better from him than this, and I will never settle for immoral, triangulting sociopaths like Clinton or pragmatic, half-tolerable half-loathsome pro-zygotes like McCain. But I do think Obama deserves to be in trouble over this – if he just hadn’t infecting his campaign with all this
"I go to church just like you and that somehow
makes me safe and apple pieish!"-claptrap this wouldn’t have been as important.

By: C Stanley

C Stanley — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 13:24:21 +0000

Unfortunately for Obama, anything he says now is going to be too little, too late.

I loved Ed Morrissey’s comment: "I sat in his church, but I didn’t inhale."