A couple of questions for anyone who thinks they know Senator Obama, from someone who admittedly doesn’t know him at all:

Is there any reason to believe that the infamous Wright and Pfleger sermons are any different from what was preached in the Trinity United Church for the last twenty years?

Is there any reason to believe that Barack and Michelle Obama were not cheering and waving with the other congregants when or if those sermons were preached?

An Obama v Romney election would have been absolutely spectacular in terms of judgmental religious attacks coming from both sides. That said, I can’t wait to hear what McCain’s mother thinks of Obama…

it sure seems clear now that Obama is just your normal, run-of-the-mill politician.

Based on what, Bill? You are aware that Obama wasn’t the one who preached those sermons, aren’t you? And that he has refuted what was said in the sermons?

If he went to Church and heard nutty ideas for a long time, that’s not really bothersome to me. I heard and saw the “less valiant in the pre-existence” theory of the priesthood ban taught in Church for a long time and didn’t bat an eye until I actually saw how hurtful it was to a black family I knew in Brazil. Since then, I reject it — and any other justifications for the ban — out of hand. So I accept that Obama may have taken Trinity’s nuttiness with a grain of salt for 20 years, choosing to take the bad with the good until he saw just how divisive Wright’s teachings were for most Americans. Sometimes it’s hard to realize how offensive or divisive something is until it’s made public and you see people’s responses.

I would love to see Craig (#8) in a jeremiad contest with Rev. Wright. It could be like Eminem’s rap contests in 8 mile, only it would be a contest of rants about “evil forces in the land that want to crush you,” and so forth.

Dan, thats funny. If I ever got the chance to visit Obama’s church in south chi town and bust out some beats with some funky fresh rhymes about “evil forces in the land that want to crush you,” I would make Rev. Wright mess his zebra skinned parachute pants on the spot.
Maybe you don’t see the fast approaching looming cloud of utopian misery that is heralded by certain foot soliers of the Goldman/Berkman/Frankfurt School types, (Think Haymarket square X 10,000), but many of us conscience citizens do see it.
Now get back to your all important earth changing blogging with your mellow Bruce Hornsby music in the back ground lulling you into that uncanny self satisfying slumber that only Obama supportes can achieve.

Craig, you make some pretty Limbaugh-esque wild, generalizing assertions with little support to back them up. Funny how the right can mirror the left so well.

Personally, I agree more with Bill’s perceptions. Obama is a run-of-the-mill politician, and probably the best one running for president. His rhetoric is legendary. He doesn’t have to address many issues or limit himself by making promises simply because his rhetoric is so “mind-blowing”. My conversations with die-hard liberals is that this is the big pull to Obama- “Man, he can speak!”
Never mind his platform has shifted and changed in such subtle ways over time that he almost seems moderate- something that has pulled me toward Obama for this election. That and he is taking the heart out of the Democrat base as it was built by the Clintons.
McCain has his work cut out for him- not so much in competition with Obama, but just to pull himself out of obscurity. He needs PR.

Christopher,
I say that because Obama seemed convinced that Trinity church was a good church– a “wonderful community” he called it. Obama defended Trinity church with passion and entreated us to understand and accept it in his “More Perfect Union” speech. Obama said that for all its flaws, it was important to him, his family, and his faith and that the positives far outweighed the negatives. Obama said that the Trinity church could be understood with tolerance and the right context. It was a part of who he was– he could no more deny it than he could his own grandmother!

And now a mere two months later he dumps it. All the soaring rhetoric turns out to be just that- rhetoric. Trinity church turned into a political liability and so Obama throws it to the curb. I’m thinking now that Obama was probably never the convert he claimed he was anyway. He probably used the church to advance his political career when he first came to Chicago and now that it has no further use for him he does away with it.

I don’t believe for a second that Obama was unaware that Trinity was such a awful church. He’s too smart for that. But shame on him for trying to convince the rest of the nation that we should accept it. I’m more than a little miffed that he pulled this political stunt on all of us.

Er, I’m Bill (#4 and #15). I’ll be Bill C. now to avoid confusion!

Craig, you obviously have no idea about George Soros or his philosophical mentor Karl Popper. They have absolutely nothing to do with Berkman/Goldman/Frankfurt (Berkman and Goldman obviously had a lot to do with each other, but neither had anything to do with the Frankfurt school). Popper was in fact a critic of the Frankfurt school.

Soros has contributed significant parts of his fortune to building democracy in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. He is interested in supporting market solutions and in transparency in government. Yes, in 2003 he contributed to the unsuccessful effort to defeat George W. Bush. But between the two of them, I think it’s pretty obvious who is clear-sighted and who tends toward “pie-in-the-sky thinking.”

Mikhail Gorbachev was not the only one who ended the cold war. But that far-sighted statesman certainly deserves credit for it having ended virtually without a shot being fired. He realized that his country was going in a dead-end direction and changed course. That other great statesman, Ronald Reagan, saw in him a man with whom he could deal. Unfortunately, the great opportunities opened up by the two of them were largely squandered by GHW Bush (and his ultra-hawkish defense secretary, Cheney, who distrusted the sincerity of the Gorbachev-Yeltsin move toward the West) and Clinton, (who preferred, early in his term to focus on domestic policy). During the time when Bush I/Clinton were neglecting our interests in the former soviet republics, it was George Soros who tirelessly championed freedom of the press and provided funds for scholarships and for internet access in universities.

Unfortunately, on the watch of GW Bush, Russia has taken a much more authoritarian turn.

I really don’t care about Obama leaving his church, and from the clips of fellow parishoners I saw on TV, it doesn’t sound like they care, either (it might even be a relief that they will not be under such scrutiny).

If he were to denounce Christianity, that would be news. But for many Protestants, switching denominations or congregations is no big thing. It is not at all parallel to a Mormon deciding to “leave the Church.” Protestants go where they like the pastor.

I think it worth noting that POTUS in recent memory did not have memberships at particular churches, which I am sure is politically expedient–they can attend/campaign anywhere and are not held responsible for what any church says. Yet we accept their claims to be Christian, do we not?

Craig (#20), regarding your comment:

We LDS have never advocated or espoused the idea that we are owed anything or that whatever injustices we incurred by the so called Utah war would be paid by our loss of affection and defense of the USA or our constitution.

You really should do some more reading in LDS history before making such sweeping (and, in this case, incorrect) claims. LDS discourse in the 19th century is full of hateful rhetoric towards the United States, its leaders, and with prophecies of doom and destruction of the country’s fate because of their mistreatment of LDS.

ESO, I think you underestimate how significant it is for a Protestant to switch congregations. While you’re right that it isn’t the same sort of thing as a Latter-day Saint experiences when leaving Mormonism, it is still significant that the individual is leaving his or her faith community. In Obama’s case, it is the community and congregation where he experienced conversion to the Christian gospel. On a personal level, that seems like it would be a bigger deal that you seem to think and to dismiss it as “no big thing” seems inappropriate and insensitive.

That’s what it basically is, queuno. Our church is vastly different than Protestant denominations (I honestly have yet to receive a good enough reason for their massive diversity—why should one be a Baptist as opposed to a Pentecostal?)

But if you were going to attempt a parallel with our church, it would be akin to someone moving to another ward because the other ward’s bishop is undermining your presidential run.

Craig,

We LDS have never advocated or espoused the idea that we are owed anything or that whatever injustices we incurred by the so called Utah war would be paid by our loss of affection and defense of the USA or our constitution.

You’re making an eloquent argument against something I never said. Go back and re-read my original comment. I made no claim that the LDS have claimed that we are owed anything. However, if you think that the LDS have always espoused the sort of rah-rah USA patriotism that you currently find in Utah you’re simply ignorant.

Personally I think that our ultra-patriotism (if you can call it that when Berkley, CA sends twice as many people per capita into the military as Provo does) is evidence of a sort of Stockholm Syndrome. The price we paid for statehood was so high that we show mindless love and devotion to our tormentor.

Stockholm Syndrom=fascinating idea! Our hyper-”patriotism” is certainly very disorienting to international LDS members.

When Utah became a state the leadership “assigned” citizens to be both Republicans and Democrats.

If anything, the Mormons back then would have been more hostile to the Republican party, which was the party that had persecuted them over the polygamy issue.

History is full of ironies.

There was a period of about six years starting in 1985 that four out seven members of the County Commission in Clark County, Nevada were Mormons. Three of the four Mormons were Democrats. For much more on that, read my old post “Lame Ducks and the Las Vegas Temple.”

And I agree with you, Lecia, that Phleger’s behavior should not influence anyone’s vote for Obama. What I don’t understand is why people jumped into full apologetic mode over the
Wright remarks, but there was no attempt on the left to address the racism inherent in Phleger’s preaching: I’m preaching before a black audience, so I need to make my comments and delivery as theatrical as possible in order to reach these people… He may as well have put on blackface.