This Rev. Wright mess is just too funny. America wants to hold Barack accountable for something that someone else said.

To be clear, Barack has not said anything that's pissed America off - in fact, everything that he's saying is all about harmony and togetherness etc. He takes Rodney King's "can't we all just get along" to the Nth degree! In fact he's so much about putting America's past (and current) wrongs behind us that he's rightfully starting to piss lots of black folks off.

So, anyway, his former pastor makes some provocative and challenging statements about America and Barack is now somehow damaged goods politically. Hmmmm.

I guess Hillary and others have asked "why didn't Barack leave" Wright's church? Well, the better question is "what does what Rev. Wright say have to do with Barack"? Why is there a double standard on this exact issue with both McCain and Clinton? Both seem to be able to embrace pastors in their lives with political (and other) baggage - yet not be branded with their misdeeds. Why is Barack being uniquely singled out here?

Heck, if we want to put Hillary under the same "Guilt By Association" scrutiny - she's married to a man who cavalierly broke his marriage vows, who hosted sexual liaisons in the White House under her nose, who perjured himself (felony?), who probably caused American military deaths by putting our service men and women in harms way to take attention away from his personal misdealings, etc.

WHY DID SHE STAY?

What does this say about her morality and judgment - that she remained with a man who appears to be so morally bankrupt? Can we trust that Hillary has the morality and character that we need for someone seeking the office of the president of the United States of America? Do we really know all we need to know about her because of her decision to stay with Bill?

quote:

Originally posted by MBM:
This Rev. Wright mess is just too funny. America wants to hold Barack accountable for something that someone else said.

To be clear, Barack has not said anything that's pissed America off - in fact, everything that he's saying is all about harmony and togetherness etc. He takes Rodney King's "can't we all just get along" to the Nth degree! In fact he's so much about putting America's past (and current) wrongs behind us that he's rightfully starting to piss lots of black folks off.

So, anyway, his former pastor makes some provocative and challenging statements about America and Barack is now somehow damaged goods politically. Hmmmm.

I guess Hillary and others have asked "why didn't Barack leave" Wright's church? Well, the better question is "what does what Rev. Wright say have to do with Barack"? Why is there a double standard on this exact issue with both McCain and Clinton? Both seem to be able to embrace pastors in their lives with political (and other) baggage - yet not be branded with their misdeeds. Why is Barack being uniquely singled out here?

Heck, if we want to put Hillary under the same "Guilt By Association" scrutiny - she's married to a man who cavalierly broke his marriage vows, who hosted sexual liaisons in the White House under her nose, who perjured himself (felony?), who probably caused American military deaths by putting our service men and women in harms way to take attention away from his personal misdealings, etc.

WHY DID SHE STAY?

What does this say about her morality and judgment - that she remained with a man who appears to be so morally bankrupt? Can we trust that Hillary has the morality and character that we need for someone seeking the office of the president of the United States of America? Do we really know all we need to know about her because of her decision to stay with Bill?

As much as I don't care for Hillary or Bill, I do not see her staying with him as a moral flaw or failing. Perhaps she actually takes her marriage vows of "till death do us part", or "as long as we both shall live" seriously.

quote:

Originally posted by MBM:
This Rev. Wright mess is just too funny. America wants to hold Barack accountable for something that someone else said.

To be clear, Barack has not said anything that's pissed America off - in fact, everything that he's saying is all about harmony and togetherness etc. He takes Rodney King's "can't we all just get along" to the Nth degree! In fact he's so much about putting America's past (and current) wrongs behind us that he's rightfully starting to piss lots of black folks off.

So, anyway, his former pastor makes some provocative and challenging statements about America and Barack is now somehow damaged goods politically. Hmmmm.

I guess Hillary and others have asked "why didn't Barack leave" Wright's church? Well, the better question is "what does what Rev. Wright say have to do with Barack"? Why is there a double standard on this exact issue with both McCain and Clinton? Both seem to be able to embrace pastors in their lives with political (and other) baggage - yet not be branded with their misdeeds. Why is Barack being uniquely singled out here?

Heck, if we want to put Hillary under the same "Guilt By Association" scrutiny - she's married to a man who cavalierly broke his marriage vows, who hosted sexual liaisons in the White House under her nose, who perjured himself (felony?), who probably caused American military deaths by putting our service men and women in harms way to take attention away from his personal misdealings, etc.

WHY DID SHE STAY?

What does this say about her morality and judgment - that she remained with a man who appears to be so morally bankrupt? Can we trust that Hillary has the morality and character that we need for someone seeking the office of the president of the United States of America? Do we really know all we need to know about her because of her decision to stay with Bill?

~Is this just HER morality and judgment as a cheated-on spouse that you're questioning?....or is the morality and judgement of ANY cheated-on spouse supposed to be questioned? How fugged up that would be for employers to question a female's morality and judgement if she's ever had a man cheat on her and she forgave him. Should this be on the job application, even? Or a "don't ask, don't tell" type thing?

So, basically, one holds their spouse's character in the palm of their hands. To add insult to the injury, you can commit adultery, an immoral act, and by default and association your spouse is morally bankrupt, too, unless they leave. WOW.

It takes a LOT [and I can't blow that word up ENOUGH] for a spouse to forgive a cheating wife or husband. Why go there with the attacks on the victims morals? This just makes no sense to me. Whatever. Hillary is the scum of the earth. For one reason, or another. Carry on. ~

quote:

Originally posted by kresge:

As much as I don't care for Hillary or Bill, I do not see her staying with him as a moral flaw or failing. Perhaps she actually takes her marriage vows of "till death do us part", or "as long as we both shall live" seriously.

Similarly, I don't see the relationship with Rev. Wright as a moral or character failing on Barack's part.

To be clear though, the point is less about her commitment to Bill and more about the double standard being applied here. Barack says that his commitment was more to Christ than to Wright, yet he is responsible for Wright's words. Hillary, on the other hand, seems not to be impacted by her relationship with someone who similarly has said and done things that, if she were held to account for, would seem to shine unfavorably against her.

I was trying to note the curious double standard in how scrutiny is being applied.

quote:

Originally posted by OhBlackButterfly:

~Is this just HER morality and judgment as a cheated-on spouse that you're questioning?....or is the morality and judgement of ANY cheated-on spouse supposed to be questioned? How fugged up that would be for employers to question a female's morality and judgement if she's ever had a man cheat on her and she forgave him. Should this be on the job application, even? Or a "don't ask, don't tell" type thing?

So, basically, one holds their spouse's character in the palm of their hands. To add insult to the injury, you can commit adultery, an immoral act, and by default and association your spouse is morally bankrupt, too, unless they leave. WOW.

It takes a LOT [and I can't blow that word up ENOUGH] for a spouse to forgive a cheating wife or husband. Why go there with the attacks on the victims morals? This just makes no sense to me.

With the same degree of incredulity I question how Obama can be held responsible for the words of his former pastor.

Again, the context is that McCain embraced a pastor who had all kinds of crazy things to say about Catholics. Hillary's former pastor just got sent to jail for something. Neither John nor Hillary seem to be worse for wear as a result. Why is Barack the only one in the race who is responsible for their pastor?

BTW - I once attended a church where I was almost vehemently opposed to just about every word that was uttered. It was from a denomination that was about as far from mine and yet still considered Christian as possible. Moreover the pastor was of the "God wants you to be rich" variety - which ate at me absolutely every Sunday.

Why did I stay? For a variety of personal/family reasons, none of which had anything to do with me agreeing or supporting the words of the minister.

quote:

Originally posted by MBM:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by OhBlackButterfly:

~Is this just HER morality and judgment as a cheated-on spouse that you're questioning?....or is the morality and judgement of ANY cheated-on spouse supposed to be questioned? How fugged up that would be for employers to question a female's morality and judgement if she's ever had a man cheat on her and she forgave him. Should this be on the job application, even? Or a "don't ask, don't tell" type thing?

So, basically, one holds their spouse's character in the palm of their hands. To add insult to the injury, you can commit adultery, an immoral act, and by default and association your spouse is morally bankrupt, too, unless they leave. WOW.

It takes a LOT [and I can't blow that word up ENOUGH] for a spouse to forgive a cheating wife or husband. Why go there with the attacks on the victims morals? This just makes no sense to me.

With the same degree of incredulity I question how Obama can be held responsible for the words of his former pastor.

Again, the context is that McCain embraced a pastor who had all kinds of crazy things to say about Catholics. Hillary's former pastor just got sent to jail for something. Neither John nor Hillary seem to be worse for wear as a result. Why is Barack the only one in the race who is responsible for their pastor?QUOTE]

~Well, in that context [bold print], this is a valid question. Pastor for pastor. But, the context that I got from your post was a switcheroo from that valid context. Why someone stays with their spouse and why someone stays with their church pastor is an apples and oranges thing. You even mention leaving a church once before. Whatever amount of thought that took for you to do that, surely it doesn't compare to the amount of thought that you would put to leaving your wife and children, no?

True, Obama SHOULDN'T have to answer for his pastor. WHY IS HE?~

quote:

Originally posted by OhBlackButterfly:

~Well, in that context [bold print], this is a valid question. Pastor for pastor. But, the context that I got from your post was a switcheroo from that valid context. Why someone stays with their spouse and why someone stays with their church pastor is an apples and oranges thing.

Sure - but its a decision about who one chooses to associate with.

The piece was meant to be somewhat tongue in cheek - hence the heavy use of smilies.
Nevertheless, the legitimate question is IF it is appropriate to scrutinize the candidates about those who they surround themselves with - then let's also look at Hillary and her relationship with her husband.

MBM, this might make your comparison more parallel. It's about Hillary's elite power hungry "bible study group" where she was hobknobbing and power-praying with the political elite, including conservatives. There are better articles out there about it, but for brevity's sake, I think this snippit about covers it. Indeed, why is this NOT controversial? And it would take all day to post the many clips and articles of John Hagee blasting America for one reason or another, but usually having to do with Israel...


Hillary's secret prayer group

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I thought since we were examining Obama and judging him guilty by association, we should take a look at Hillary's religious associations, replete with Republicans and dictators.


Quote:
Hillary's Prayer: Hillary Clinton's Religion and Politics

.When Clinton first came to Washington in 1993, one of her first steps was to join a Bible study group. For the next eight years, she regularly met with a Christian "cell" whose members included Susan Baker, wife of Bush consigliere James Baker; Joanne Kemp, wife of conservative icon Jack Kemp; Eileen Bakke, wife of Dennis Bakke, a leader in the anti-union Christian management movement; and Grace Nelson, the wife of Senator Bill Nelson, a conservative Florida Democrat.

Clinton declined our requests for an interview about her faith, but in Living History, she describes her first encounter with Fellowship leader Doug Coe at a 1993 lunch with her prayer cell at the Cedars, the Fellowship's majestic estate on the Potomac. Coe, she writes, "is a unique presence in Washington: a genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide to anyone, regardless of party or faith, who wants to deepen his or her relationship with God."

Coe's friends include former Attorney General John Ashcroft, Reaganite Edwin Meese III, and ultraconservative Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.). Under Coe's guidance, Meese has hosted weekly prayer breakfasts for politicians, businesspeople, and diplomats, and Pitts rose from obscurity to head the House Values Action Team, an off-the-record network of religious right groups and members of Congress created by Tom DeLay. The corresponding Senate Values Action Team is guided by another Coe protégé, Brownback, who also claims to have recruited King Abdullah of Jordan into a regular study of Jesus' teachings.

The Fellowship's long-term goal is "a leadership led by God—leaders of all levels of society who direct projects as they are led by the spirit." According to the Fellowship's archives, the spirit has in the past led its members in Congress to increase U.S. support for the Duvalier regime in Haiti and the Park dictatorship in South Korea. The Fellowship's God-led men have also included General Suharto of Indonesia; Honduran general and death squad organizer Gustavo Alvarez Martinez; a Deutsche Bank official disgraced by financial ties to Hitler; and dictator Siad Barre of Somalia, plus a list of other generals and dictators. Clinton, says Schenck, has become a regular visitor to Coe's Arlington, Virginia, headquarters, a former convent where Coe provides members of Congress with sex-segregated housing and spiritual guidance

quote:

Originally posted by MBM:
BTW - I once attended a church where I was almost vehemently opposed to just about every word that was uttered. It was from a denomination that was about as far from mine and yet still considered Christian as possible. Moreover the pastor was of the "God wants you to be rich" variety - which ate at me absolutely every Sunday.

Why did I stay? For a variety of personal/family reasons, none of which had anything to do with me agreeing or supporting the words of the minister.

That's what has been eating me from the beginning of this whole mess. I attended a chruch for more than five years, who's pastor I disagreed with at least 80% of everything he ever said or did (or did not say/do). But I attended that church because my family did. I made several life long friends at that church, and a fair share of enemies as well. I continued to be an active member of that church until I rejected Christianity altogether, and if not for that I'd probably still attend today. Especially since most of my friends from those days as well as my parents still attend.

Obama addressed this perfectly when he discussed in the recent interview about joining a church community. Pastor's come and go... communities are generational. There can be one or several people in that community that I disagree with on a variety of things, but no one person in that community makes the community what it is.

But seriously, all that is neither here nor there. The only reason this double standard is being applied is because deep down in it's heart of of hearts... White America is terrified of the "Angry Black Man", and Obama's political enemies know it. Politically, Obama is basically teflon... they can't make anything stick to him. His only political liability (that doesn't also apply to his opponents) is that he's Black, so that's what they have to attack.

They just don't have any ammo otherwise.

I don't think either Wright or Obama should have to explain anything. "The Black Church" needs no explanation and no justification. If Hillary and McCain aren't being interrogated to the Nth degree about their religious beliefs and their pastors, there is no legitimate reason that Obama and Wright should be placed in this position.


ON another note, looking at Hillary's prayer/study group, it would seem she hasn't truly left her Goldwater Girl days behind, huh?

How eerie is it to be part of a group that intends to govern according to their interpretation of God, and not necessarily according to the constitution, which public officials are sworn to uphold? This is speculation on my part, but perhaps this is why she couldn't be too outspoken against Bush...she is of his religious ilk.

quote:

Originally posted by MBM:

quote:

Originally posted by OhBlackButterfly:

~Well, in that context [bold print], this is a valid question. Pastor for pastor. But, the context that I got from your post was a switcheroo from that valid context. Why someone stays with their spouse and why someone stays with their church pastor is an apples and oranges thing.

Sure - but its a decision about who one chooses to associate with.

The piece was meant to be somewhat tongue in cheek - hence the heavy use of smilies.
Nevertheless, the legitimate question is IF it is appropriate to scrutinize the candidates about those who they surround themselves with - then let's also look at Hillary and her relationship with her husband.

~Noooooooo that is NOT legit. Scrutiny regarding "surrounding" yourself with a church and "surrounding" yourself with your spouse, and asking the heavy-handed question "Why did Barack stay with his pastor?", and then "Why did Hillary stay with her husband?" is not legit as they are not the same context. They ARE legit in SEPARATE contexts, though. The "company you keep", in general, is ANOTHER legit context --- which is not relevant to the "pastor" or the "spouse" question. They are three very different dynamics.

The pastor question is legit because there is a psychological belief system involved. We need to know what Obama [or any other politician]spiritually believes. He believes that Wright's spritual views, as they relate to the black race, are WRONG. Everbody needed to know that. Blacks needed to know it. Whites racists needed to hear it.

The spouse question is legit because, for some, it questions Hillary's strength as an independent woman? I'm guessing. And for others, like Michelle Obama, it calls into question, and I quote: "How can she run the White House, when she can't even run her Own House?".

The "the company you keep" question is legit because this is COMPLETELY, UTTERLY, ABSOLUTELY your CHOICE about whom you call "friends". Enter, Questions About Ayers, Questions about Rezko, and Puerto Rico mainstream media Questions About Larry Sinclair.

I get the smileys --- I do. I get tongue-in-cheek. [B]Nevertheless, legit questions contained therein, are legit questions, still. Hillary's staying with Bill, or "surrounding herself with him", as you put it, IS INDEED a [political] issue for some people, and they DO scrutinize that relationship. If she has actually ADDRESSED this "question", I am unaware of it. Has she? If she thinks that it has nothing to do with her politics, I doubt she's inclined to address the question.

Obama doesn't think that Wright's spiritual beliefs, as they pertain to blacks [liberation theology] has anything to do with his politics. Yet, he's inclined to address it, several times, in order to STRESS a point to a racist constituency that isn't going to vote for him anyway.

Obama has mishandled his superstar status. While he had the nation pretty much swooning over him collectively, he should have "opened the eyes" of the clueless and the ones acting "brand new". A missed opportunity with one group, while he overcompensates for another group......~

quote:

Originally posted by negrospiritual:
I don't think either Wright or Obama should have to explain anything. "The Black Church" needs no explanation and no justification. If Hillary and McCain aren't being interrogated to the Nth degree about their religious beliefs and their pastors, there is no legitimate reason that Obama and Wright should be placed in this position.


ON another note, looking at Hillary's prayer/study group, it would seem she hasn't truly left her Goldwater Girl days behind, huh?

How eerie is it to be part of a group that intends to govern according to their interpretation of God, and not necessarily according to the constitution, which public officials are sworn to uphold? This is speculation on my part, but perhaps this is why she couldn't be too outspoken against Bush...she is of his religious ilk.

~It is eerie, especially since interpretations of "God" are so VARIED. In my opinion, this particular "probe" is legitimate on a basic level. The KKK, afterall, is christian. So, we need a general description of a candidate's belief system. A candidate can be agnostic or atheist, totally leaving "God" out of his/her politics, and the public would want to know that, too --- being a "one nation under God", and all of that. Beyond a surface knowledge of one's belief system, I don't condone the probing or the whole "forced to answer to this and that" fiasco.~

[IMG]http://images-partners-tbn.google.com/images?q=tbn:tx5AsBIM2rA-EM:thecurrent.theatlantic.com/Hillary%20(ROBYN%20BECK%20-%20AFP%20-%20Getty%20Images).jpg[/IMG]~This is more on Hillary's prayer group from Obama's Obama.com Change We Can Believe In site.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/bnarita/gGBhQZ

Does Hillary have anything like this on HillaryClinton.com regarding Rev. Wright?~




HILLARY'S MINISTER PROBLEM: THE SECRET FAR RIGHT "PRAYER" GROUP
By Moonwhile - Mar 26th, 2008 at 2:30 pm EDT



November 2006

Joshua Green's landmark profile of Hillary Clinton reports on how prayer groups helped her become "a uniter, not a divider."


Barack Obama isn't the only candidate with ties to a controversial religious group.

Since Hillary Clinton has launched a frontal attack on her opponent's church and pastor, it's worth noting that she has some odd religious ties of her own. When I was profiling her two years ago, I learned about her involvement with a secretive Christian organization called The Fellowship that has operated in the Washington shadows since the 1930s. I found the story of Clinton and The Fellowship so bizarre that I made it the lede to my piece. In light of recent events, it's worth revisiting.

If you've never heard of The Fellowship (also known as The Family), it will sound like some shadowy organization in a John Grisham novel. (Indeed, as a Google search will demonstrate, critics consider it a cult.) The group was formed in the 1930s to minister to political and business leaders throughout the world, modeling itself as a kind of Christian Trilateral Commission. Several members of Congress are affiliated with the group, mostly Republicans, but some Democrats, too. To the extent The Fellowship is known beyond its members it is probably for founding the annual National Prayer Breakfast in Washington.

Like Jeremiah Wright's Trinity Baptist Church, The Fellowship is run by its own mysterious and controversial figure, Douglas Coe, although temperamentally Coe is Wright's opposite. He eschews the spotlight and has never made a controversial public utterance that I'm aware of -- mainly because he rarely speaks publicly at all. (You won't find him on YouTube.) But like Wright, Coe has ministered to a Democratic frontrunner. He personally leads a private Senate prayer group that Clinton has been a part of.

In my piece, I chose to focus on the Senate prayer group, but others have written extensively about the strangeness and secrecy of The Fellowship. As this Los Angeles Times story and this exquisitely reported Harper's piece make clear, there is something deeply strange about the group. They certainly do not like press coverage, so in that regard Clinton's attraction might make sense. Reporters hoping to look into the group might want to think again. A few years ago, The Fellowship’s archives, which are held at Wheaton College, the evangelical school in Illinos, were reclassified as “restricted” and placed under lock and key.

— Joshua Green

This message has been edited. Last edited by: OhBlackButterfly,

Black Butterfly, sailed across the waters
tell your sons and daughters
what the struggle brings
Black Butterfly, set the skies on fire
rise up even higher
so the ageless winds of time can catch your wings ----Deniece Williams

quote:

How eerie is it to be part of a group that intends to govern according to their interpretation of God, and not necessarily according to the constitution, which public officials are sworn to uphold?

Well ... so much for the "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign or domestic" thing.

And, 1st Amendment? We don't need no stinkin' 1st Amendment.

Wow, MBM ... that was a sad stretch .. even for you.