I so badly want to write in depth about the whole Obama/Rev. Wright business. However, I lack the necessary training in brevity and coherence to tackle this subject effectively.
If you've been following the news lately, Rev. Wright, the pastor of Obama's church, has made some pretty inflammatory comments about America over the years. Is this enough cause for the American people to reconsider their feelings about Obama's character?
To what extent should the pastor of your church be a reflection of your own beliefs/morals? Only in politics would the two be so inseparable. But you are who your friends are, right? By choosing to become a member of a church, you are accepting its leader as a strong influence on your life. Where does the influence stop? Do you only connect with that person on spiritual matters? Or do you connect with them on political matters as well?
Although, I am inclined to believe your pastor should be a good representative of your character, in Obama's situation, I don't believe this to be true. Obama appears to be very genuine and to say these two guys are one in the same is to call him a phony, and I just don't think that's the case.
For those of you who haven't watched his speech today on the topic of race, click on the link below and enjoy. It's very good.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/18/obamas-speech-on-race/
-Matt
KITES
3 years ago
17 comments:
Matt Wood IS the liberal media.
I don't really think my entry showed political leanings one way or the other. It was intentionally a pretty objective post. The only real claim I made was that the guy seems genuine. Your six word comment is more political than my entire post.
Ok, but to say Barak is "genunie" is not necessarily apolitical.
Actually, to the extent it's not political, it's rather meaningless. Genuine what? Genuine racist? Genuine leftist? Genuine opportunist? Most people can't quite figure out what he stands for, so maybe he's "genuinely deceptive," or, more kindly, "genuinely amorphous?" But I didn't think that was what you meant.
I thought you were saying he's "genuinely-not-like-his-pastor," which may be a fair opinion, but it's a pro-Barak opinion.
My question is, if he's genuinely (insert positive word for what his supporters like to think he is), wouldn't he have been offended and disgusted with the ideas Wright promoted?
If he's so enlightened, liberal, and fair, why did he associate himself with that man and that church? His membership suggests he didn't just tolerate it, but embraced it.
And what if the race situation were reversed? Would a republican candidate who embraced a Baptist minister that promoted an anti-black agenda get such favorable treatment?
I agree with the other anonymous person.
First of all, “genuine” does not only work as an adverb. It works perfectly fine for the context in which I used it – as an adjective.
It’s a shame that complimenting a man on his apparent sincerity must have political motivations. Can I not speak of the man without speaking of his candidacy? It may have been a pro-Barak opinion, but not necessarily a pro-“Obama 2008” opinion.
Also, why does becoming a member of Trinity United mean that you automatically “embrace” every word that is spoken under its roof? If you believe Rev. Wright is an America-hating racist, are you willing to make the claim that every member of that church is the same? To generalize the congregation that way is ignorant. Until Obama spouts off similar remarks, I’m willing to take the man at his word.
Spelling Correction: Barack, not Barak (on both my previous post and anonymous').
My preacher, like Rev. Wright, believes the American government planted HIV in Africa to kill off as many blacks as possible. He also believes America was responsible for 9/11 and that God should damn our great country. But I continue to attend the church because he loves Jesus. Why should these other trivial opinions even matter?
But on a serious note, even though I disagree with Obama's solutions, I do think he's genuine and a good man. If only he were a Republican.
Ok, snarky comments aside, this is the primary issue: if Obama is genuinely enlightened, intelligent, and fit to be the most powerful leader in the world, shouldn't he have been disgusted and repelled by the ideas (lies) Wright is now famous for spreading?
Further, shouldn't Obama have been SO disgusted and repelled that he wanted nothing to do with the man?
If not, why not? And would the same standard be applied to the other candidates?
Just because he isn't publicly vocalizing his feelings about his pastor doesn't mean he doesn't have those feelings. He may just feel that his religious feelings, beliefs, faith, etc. are not up for public discussion. Those are between him, his pastor, and God. We are voting for the person that we see best fit to run our country...not on the person who is the most Christian.
I second Matt and Justin in that just because his pastor feels one way does not mean that he agrees. As a Catholic I do not believe in child molestation. But, I am still Catholic. Why am I still Catholic? Because if everyone who disagreed left...nothing would ever change or evolve. In order to create change one must be active and involved. And I must say...you can't get much more active or involved than running for president.
For me I will be voting for the person that I think has our countries best interests at heart. I'm not saying that is or isn't Obama...but, I'm not counting anyone out just due to what a person they have no control over thinks or says.
wait, are we talking about barack hussein obama?
three cheers for those of you who sign your comments.
-Angie Maureen Wood
Whoa...Lots of comments!! Quite the hot topic! So happy y'all are our neighbors and I hope you are feeling better today Angie!
-Erin Maureen Lamb
obama bowled a 37 on saturday.
can you still support him?
a 37?
a 37 is terrible. how can he look at himself in the mirror and not feel ashamed after that one? i'm willing to bet that on the outside he was happy-go-lucky, but on the inside he was a boiling volcano about to erupt on the first person that looked at him funny.
You Write: "Although, I am inclined to believe your pastor should be a good representative of your character, in Obama's situation, I don't believe this to be true. Obama appears to be very genuine and to say these two guys are one in the same is to call him a phony, and I just don't think that's the case."
This is troublesome on a number of fronts. There is no reason you posit why Obama's pastor shouldn't be indicative of his character while most other's pastors should. I propose that Obama, who claims to be brought to faith by Rev. Wright, who had his marriage conducted by Rev. Wright, and has been very close to him for more than two decades is a textbook case of what you mention - that a person's pastor can help define their character.
No one is saying the two of them are one in the same. What this entire episode has demonstrated is an undercutting of the meta-themes of Obama's campaign, like being a "post-racial" candidate or even being the uniting figure America (supposedly) so desperately needs. Being so comfortable (chummy, really) with an anti-semitic, anti-American, racist figure belies each of these themes, and reveals a little more of Obama's closely guarded true character. Flighty rhetoric is particularly cheap when it is based on nothing more than oratorical skill. Keep peeling back the layers on Sen. Obama, and I'm quite certain there's nothing more there than a cheap, Chicago-machine politician with nothing to offer.
But if anyone can point to those episodes in his career where he revealed some characteristics one needs to be President, I'm all ears.
-Joe Magliolo
he's smart.
Post a Comment