Bombshell Obama Pastor Video

I wanted to post this here, although I am certain most will not care to try to understand it. She says it much better than I and she certainly has more experience and credibility than I do. However, I do agree with what she says.

Friday, March 14, 2008
Putting Rev. Wright's Preaching in Perspective (by Diana Butler Bass)


http://blog.beliefnet.com/godspolitics/2008/03/obamas-pastor-by-diana-butler.html

The current media flap over the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama's former pastor, strikes me as nothing short of strange. Anyone who attends church on a regular basis knows how frequently congregants disagree with their ministers. To sit in a pew is not necessarily assent to a message preached on a particular day. Being a church member is not some sort of mindless cult, where individuals believe every word preached. Rather, being a church member means being part of a community of faith--a gathered people, always diverse and sometimes at odds, who constitute Christ's body in the world.

But the attack on Rev. Wright reveals something beyond ignorance of basic dynamics of Christian community. It demonstrates the level of misunderstanding that still divides white and black Christians in the United States. Many white people find the traditions of African-American preaching offensive, especially when it comes to politics.

I know because I am one of those white people. My first sustained encounter with African-American preaching came in graduate school about twenty years ago. I had been assigned as a teaching assistant to a course in Black Church Studies. The placement surprised me, since I had no background in the subject. But the professor assured me that "anyone with experience teaching American religion" would be able to handle the load.

The subject matter was not, as the professor indicated, difficult. The emotional content, however, was. To prepare, I had to read literally thousands of pages of black preaching and theology covering the entire scope of American history. While the particulars of preaching changed through time, one thing did not. Throughout the entire corpus, black Christian leaders leveled a devastating critique against their white brothers and sisters--accusing white Christians of maintaining "ease in Zion" while allowing black people to suffer injustice and oppression.

Typical of the form used by black preachers is Frederick Douglass' address, "What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?" first delivered on July 5, 1852. The address, a political sermon, forcefully attacks white culture. "Fellow-citizens," Douglass proclaims, "above your national, tumultuous joy, I hear the mournful wails of millions! Whose chains, heavy and grievous yesterday, are, today, rendered more intolerable by the jubilee shouts that reach them." He goes on to calls American conduct "hideous and revolting" and accuses white Christians of trampling upon and disregarding both the constitution and the Bible. He concluded his sermon with the words, "For revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival."

This was very hard to take. I confess: nearly everything I read that semester pained and angered me. But four months of listening to voices that I wanted to reject made me different. I began to hear the power of the critique. I came to appreciate the prophetic nature of black preaching. I recognized that these voices emerged from a very distinct historical experience. And I admired the narrative interplay between the Bible and social justice. Over time, they taught me to hear the Gospel from an angular perspective--the angle of slaves, freed blacks, of those who feared lynching, of those who longed for Africa, those who could not attend good schools. From them, I learned that liberation through Jesus was a powerful thing. And that white Americans really did need to repent when it came to race.

Learning to listen was not easy. It took patience, historical imagination, and lots of complaining to my friends--even my African-American ones. Eventually, I figured out that even if your ancestors had been the oppressors, you can enter into the world of those who had been oppressed with generosity and a heart open to transformation.

As MSNBC, CNN, and FOX endlessly play the tape of Rev. Wright's "radical" sermons today, I do not hear the words of a "dangerous" preacher (at least any more dangerous than any preacher who takes the Gospel seriously!) No, I hear the long tradition that Jeremiah Wright has inherited from his ancestors. I hear prophetic critique. I hear Frederick Douglass. And, mostly, I hear the Gospel slant--I hear it from an angle that is not natural to me. It is good to hear that slant.

That is not, of course, comfortable for white people. Nor is it easily understood in sound bites. It does not easily fit in a contemporary political campaign. But it is a deep spiritual river in American faith and culture, a river that--as I had to learn--flows from the throne of God.

Diana Butler Bass holds a doctorate in American religion from Duke University. She is the author of six books including Christianity for the Rest of Us (HarperOne, 2006).

Every so once in a while, someone doesn't think the talking point through and the current talking point about Obama and his pastor is one of them. So if Obama must hold the beliefs of his pastor, therefore every member of Hagee's congregation is a racist/homophobic/anti-semitic/anti-Catholic bigot. Everyone's who's ever attended Bob Jones University is a racist/anti-Catholic bigot. Is that it because, after all, people always agree with their pastors. Works for me. ;)

You would think people would think the talking point through before it bites them in the ***. But, nooo. :lmao:
 
Every so once in a while, someone doesn't think the talking point through and the current talking point about Obama and his pastor is one of them. So if Obama must hold the beliefs of his pastor, therefore every member of Hagee's congregation is a racist/homophobic/anti-semitic/anti-Catholic bigot. Everyone's who's ever attended Bob Jones University is a racist/anti-Catholic bigot. Is that it because, after all, people always agree with their pastors. Works for me. ;)

You would think people would think the talking point through before it bites them in the ***. But, nooo. :lmao:

Yup, you're so right... All of that is just FINE.... you go with that :thumbsup2

This thread is precisely why there will never be one America... it will never happen. There's the left side, there's the right side, and there's nothing in between.
 
:thumbsup2


One of the main reasons I left the Republican party was the entanglement of religion and politics. Once more, with feeling: RELIGION HAS NO PLACE IN POLITICS. Romney should NEVER have had to make a speech to reassure the evangelicals that he was just like them. McCain shouldn't have to be sucking up to people like John Hagee and Ron Parsley-he was right when he called those kind of people "agents of intolerance" and I wish he had stuck with that.

I don't care where Obama goes to church or if he goes. I don't care where Hillary goes to church or if she goes. I care how they're going to get us out of Iraq, how they're going to help the middle and lower classes survive the recession, how they're going to fix healthcare and how they interpret the Constitution.

I'm not voting for McCain because of his stance on war and his admitted lack of economic knowledge-but just to be fair-I don't care where or if he goes to church either.

YES!!!!!! This is exactly what I think too. I don't like that the Republicans have pandered to people who wish to impose their beliefs upon me. I thought the Republican ideal was that the government should be getting OUT of people's lives?!?! Not telling me who I should love.

And I second the remark that I am not voting for McCain because of the war. Absolutely. Sadly, we can't afford it. Period, end of story. I am not willing to drive our country deeper into debt (and expect my children to pay the price) to maintain an ill-advised, ill-managed war. I have voted for McCain in the past, but this time I have to pass. Our country has HUGE economic issues and the war is not helping them.
 
Friday, March 14, 2008
Putting Rev. Wright's Preaching in Perspective (by Diana Butler Bass)


http://blog.beliefnet.com/godspolitics/2008/03/obamas-pastor-by-diana-butler.html
But the attack on Rev. Wright reveals something beyond ignorance of basic dynamics of Christian community. It demonstrates the level of misunderstanding that still divides white and black Christians in the United States. Many white people find the traditions of African-American preaching offensive, especially when it comes to politics.
****************

Typical of the form used by black preachers is Frederick Douglass' address, "What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?" first delivered on July 5, 1852. The address, a political sermon, forcefully attacks white culture. "Fellow-citizens," Douglass proclaims, "above your national, tumultuous joy, I hear the mournful wails of millions! Whose chains, heavy and grievous yesterday, are, today, rendered more intolerable by the jubilee shouts that reach them." He goes on to calls American conduct "hideous and revolting" and accuses white Christians of trampling upon and disregarding both the constitution and the Bible. He concluded his sermon with the words, "For revolting barbarity and shameless hypocrisy, America reigns without a rival."

This was very hard to take. I confess: nearly everything I read that semester pained and angered me. But four months of listening to voices that I wanted to reject made me different. I began to hear the power of the critique. I came to appreciate the prophetic nature of black preaching. I recognized that these voices emerged from a very distinct historical experience. And I admired the narrative interplay between the Bible and social justice. Over time, they taught me to hear the Gospel from an angular perspective--the angle of slaves, freed blacks, of those who feared lynching, of those who longed for Africa, those who could not attend good schools. From them, I learned that liberation through Jesus was a powerful thing. And that white Americans really did need to repent when it came to race.

Learning to listen was not easy. It took patience, historical imagination, and lots of complaining to my friends--even my African-American ones. Eventually, I figured out that even if your ancestors had been the oppressors, you can enter into the world of those who had been oppressed with generosity and a heart open to transformation.

As MSNBC, CNN, and FOX endlessly play the tape of Rev. Wright's "radical" sermons today, I do not hear the words of a "dangerous" preacher (at least any more dangerous than any preacher who takes the Gospel seriously!) No, I hear the long tradition that Jeremiah Wright has inherited from his ancestors. I hear prophetic critique. I hear Frederick Douglass. And, mostly, I hear the Gospel slant--I hear it from an angle that is not natural to me. It is good to hear that slant.

That is not, of course, comfortable for white people. Nor is it easily understood in sound bites. It does not easily fit in a contemporary political campaign. But it is a deep spiritual river in American faith and culture, a river that--as I had to learn--flows from the throne of God.

Diana Butler Bass holds a doctorate in American religion from Duke University. She is the author of six books including Christianity for the Rest of Us (HarperOne, 2006).


A few comments.....

I did not misunderstand anything. It just didn't give me the warm fuzzies the the same way it seemed to do for Rev. Wright's church members. Perhaps when your race is being portrayed as evil oppressors, it is not so easy to "understand" the Christian fellowship aspect? No, I believe I understood perfectly. He was harping on how The Man has all the power (I'd love to know where my family's share of that power has been hiding all these years! :lmao: ) and how everything is so unfair for Blacks. I understand that he was using foul language and making obscene movements from the pulpit. I understand that message....I just don't agree. I found him offensive on many levels. Maybe the Black church in question should try to understand that many Whites are tired of being blamed for things they had diddly squat to do with and have no power to change. Not all of us are "the rich powerful White men who control America." And we never will be.

Douglass delivered that seminal speech in 1852, back in the days of slavery. Must it be mentioned that Whites also fought a war that gave freedom to slaves at the cost of nearly destroying the US? That "little" step in the right direction seems to get glossed over as the current ranters get stuck back in 1852 and forget that much has happened in over 150 years. Times and circumstances have changed. Why not give that a nod? It's not 1852 anymore.

As for the "prophetic nature" of the preaching, when a church is so fixated on the past, I wonder how it can ever be considered prophetic? As for "long(ing) for Africa...." Seriously? In the strictest sense, is the author actually trying to say they would want to trade their life in America and return to live in Africa? I don't think so. I've seen studies on this in the past and even heard about one a few weeks ago (radio, didn't get enough info to search it down) and this is never the case when polls are conducted. They show that Blacks would prefer America as it is over Africa as it is. As for White Americans needing to repent "when it comes to race," she can repent twice over for me because I'm opting out. I have nothing to repent about. If she feels some sort of White guilt, goody gumdrops for her. But how dare she or anyone other than God, tell me I need to repent? That is presumptuous, arrogant and a waste of their time and energy.

Then there is the bit about descendants of oppressors entering the world of the oppressed, yada, yada....Who is to say which of us are descended from oppressors? Would that be the descendants of slave owners or of any Whites at all? Whites who came to the U.S. only before a certain date? Do they get an exemption for being an indentured servant? If you're only half White are you half oppressor, half oppressed? What of the fact that some Africans were sent into slavery by other Africans? Ooooohhhh....That muddies things considerably, doesn't it? Do you have to know if your ancestors were taken into slavery by only Whites or by a combination of Whites and Africans before you can know whether to be angry at only Whites or Whites and Africans?

Sheesh! :rolleyes:
 

Talk about sugar coating it and wrapping it up in a pretty package! How sweet!:rolleyes:

The nasty sermon that Rev Wright preached is simply inexcusable, period
I think that anyone who buys into "Obama didn't know that his pastor was like that" or whatever, is blind to the fact that Obama is not a nice person**gasp**. He cares about himself and his goals, not yours, not mine, not Americas.

What the above blogger states above is mild preaching compared to what Rev. Wright did this ONCE (if you believe that it was one time... I don't.)
I have been in church when we have had a wonderful, wonderful brown skinned (African American) minister. She was lively and inspiring to all in attendance. It was just the best! I loved it!

Rev Wrong is full of nastiness.... and Obama and his family admire him. For the love of America people, open your eyes!

I so admired Obama until I heard his quiet riot speech. It didn't seem right and now even more than then, I KNOW that what I thought then was correct. I had to see him for what he is....what he really is. :sad2:

Please don't just keep pulling out anything and everything to save Obama! If you have to keep doing, keep digging for it, it is almost like you have to convince yourself that you are right, for the sake of being right.
This is our country's Presidency we are talking about!!!

He obviously has too many fooled. Good for him. Bush did it, Obama can too, oh yes he can!! :thumbsup2

I have been following this thread for quite a while. After hearing the preacher, I thought about Obama's wife stating she hasn't been proud of America in her adult life (something to that effect). Scary.
 
Here's my question: Shouldn't ALL these ministers who endorse specific candidates lose their tax exempt status?

I'm for taking it away from all of them. I realize it will hurt their social ministries and I'm sorry about that, but these guys should know better. If they want to talk about church teaching in regard to social issues like abortion, homosexuality and poverty-that's one thing-but as soon as a candidate's name gets mentioned positively or negatively-tax exempt status should be GONE.
 
Here's my question: Shouldn't ALL these ministers who endorse specific candidates lose their tax exempt status?

I'm for taking it away from all of them. I realize it will hurt their social ministries and I'm sorry about that, but these guys should know better. If they want to talk about church teaching in regard to social issues like abortion, homosexuality and poverty-that's one thing-but as soon as a candidate's name gets mentioned positively or negatively-tax exempt status should be GONE.

:thumbsup2 When done from the Pulpit YES!!!!!!!!
 
:thumbsup2 When done from the Pulpit YES!!!!!!!!


should it make a difference though? I mean, if a minister gets up on a stage, or stands in front of his church, or goes on the radio and says-"I endorse Candidate X" or "candidate Y should not be President" -isn't that the same thing? The minister's congregation is influenced in the same way by his words whether they are uttered in or out of the pulpit. The congregation is still saying, "well, Pastor says that Candidate X is a good person" or "Pastor says that Candidate Y is a bad person" and would infer that it's a religious, not a personal statement.

It's a slippery slope-because it could be argued that we're taking away an individual's right to free speech. However, there are things that you give up in certain occupations.
 
Here's my question: Shouldn't ALL these ministers who endorse specific candidates lose their tax exempt status?

I'm for taking it away from all of them. I realize it will hurt their social ministries and I'm sorry about that, but these guys should know better. If they want to talk about church teaching in regard to social issues like abortion, homosexuality and poverty-that's one thing-but as soon as a candidate's name gets mentioned positively or negatively-tax exempt status should be GONE.

I totally agree with you. I don't see where it is needed first of all. In Wright's situation, I have a hard time drawing a line between politics and religion in his sermons. Equally, I could care less if Rev. so and so endorses my candidate. Moreover, it strongly appears that these religious wingnuts are more of a liability than a benefit to a candidate.
 
Did you folks know that Hagee's congregation has 18,000 members. Using the "Obama/Wright" test presented by some here, that's 18,000 racist/homophobic/anti-semitic/anti-Catholic bigots. After all, as some have pontificated here, everyone agrees with their minister 100% of the time. That was the talking point,right?

Another Planet Bush "OOPS". :lmao: :rotfl2: :rotfl:
 
Yup, you're so right... All of that is just FINE.... you go with that :thumbsup2

This thread is precisely why there will never be one America... it will never happen. There's the left side, there's the right side, and there's nothing in between.

It is not just the "rights" saying we are appalled by Rev. Wright's remarks and have concerns about BO's following him for 20 yrs. This situation is affecting those on the left, right and in the middle. There are posters in this thread saying they are offended and they are not Reps, Conservatives or consider themselves part of the "rights".
 
Did you folks know that Hagee's congregation has 18,000 members. Using the "Obama/Wright" test presented by some here, that's 18,000 racist/homophobic/anti-semitic/anti-Catholic bigots. After all, as some have pontificated here, everyone agrees with their minister 100% of the time. That was the talking point,right?

Another Planet Bush "OOPS". :lmao: :rotfl2: :rotfl:

Here's a good read on politicians and their spiritual "leaders".
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/sally_quinn/2008/03/our_friends_and_their_views.html
 
Did you folks know that Hagee's congregation has 18,000 members. Using the "Obama/Wright" test presented by some here, that's 18,000 racist/homophobic/anti-semitic/anti-Catholic bigots. After all, as some have pontificated here, everyone agrees with their minister 100% of the time. That was the talking point,right?

:

Well, the sad truth is, they just might. So what does that do for the Obama "didn't know or didn't agree (he can't decide)" argument?

Who knows, McCain may be hiding a white hood and robe in his closet.
 
Well, the sad truth is, they just might. So what does that do for the Obama "didn't know or didn't agree (he can't decide)" argument?

Who knows, McCain may be hiding a white hood and robe in his closet.

At least your talking points are consistent.

So in other words, they're all bigots. Obviously, if they haven't repudiated Hagee's views, they must agree with him 100% if the time. That's is the logic, right.

Of course, Obama did denounce/reject Wright's views, but that doesn't matter. What matters is Planet Bush thinks they found an issue they can run in instead of the economy, healthcare, and the Iraq war.

Btw, for the record, I doubt very much if McCain has a white robe/hood in his closet. I don't think he's a bigot even though he may associate himself with some. Unlike Bush, McCain's loyalties are to the US and not to the Saudi government and Jack Daniels.

So I will extend that "I doubt if he's a bigot" courtesy to McCain. Let's see Planet Bush get off the "talking point express" and admit the same about Obama.

If not, all of Hagee's congregation are racist/homophobic/anti-semitic/anti-Catholic bigots, all of Bob Jones University graduates are racist/anti-Catholic bigots, and McCain is keeping the white robe/hood handy.
 
should it make a difference though? I mean, if a minister gets up on a stage, or stands in front of his church, or goes on the radio and says-"I endorse Candidate X" or "candidate Y should not be President" -isn't that the same thing? The minister's congregation is influenced in the same way by his words whether they are uttered in or out of the pulpit. The congregation is still saying, "well, Pastor says that Candidate X is a good person" or "Pastor says that Candidate Y is a bad person" and would infer that it's a religious, not a personal statement.

It's a slippery slope-because it could be argued that we're taking away an individual's right to free speech. However, there are things that you give up in certain occupations.

To me it does make a BIG difference. One is that all religious leaders are people, and do have political beliefs. If on their "off time" they want to do political work that is fine.

But when a religious leader stands on the altar during a religious service...THAT IS ALL they should be doing....teaching their religion.

We must have seperation of Church & State in this country in order to survive.:thumbsup2
 
To me it does make a BIG difference. One is that all religious leaders are people, and do have political beliefs. If on their "off time" they want to do political work that is fine.

But when a religious leader stands on the altar during a religious service...THAT IS ALL they should be doing....teaching their religion.

We must have seperation of Church & State in this country in order to survive.:thumbsup2

I agree-that wall protects both State and Church and it needs to be strong for the benefit of both.

However, I really don't see how any Pastor's influence on his congregation changes when he steps outside the church. If Bishop Serretelli-my bishop here in NJ- says from the Cathedral, "Catholics should not vote for Hillary because she supports abortion"-that's an obvious no-no, but how is it different if he goes on WNBC for an interview and says "Catholics should not vote for Hillary because she supports abortion". To me it's not at all different. It's still a religious leader making a specific statement about a candidate.
 
Wow this was just released today: www.cnn.com

If Obama were to win the nomination, he would get 47 percent of the vote compared to 46 percent for McCain -- a statistical tie given the poll's 3 percentage point margin of error. Should Clinton win the nomination, the poll suggests she would get 49 percent compared to McCain's 47 percent -- another statistical tie.


************************************

Someone called into a radio talk show this morning and said that protesters showed up at Obama’s campaign stops yesterday in PA. He said they were 50 or more. All carrying signs..”Who will lead you!”. Can anyone confirm that?


.
 
Wow this was just released today: www.cnn.com




************************************

Someone called into a radio talk show this morning and said that protesters showed up at Obama’s campaign stops yesterday in PA. He said they were 50 or more. All carrying signs..”Who will lead you!”. Can anyone confirm that?


.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. They were asking the same question to JFK and we've seen the re-emergence of Herbert Hoover. :lmao:
 


Disney Vacation Planning. Free. Done for You.
Our Authorized Disney Vacation Planners are here to provide personalized, expert advice, answer every question, and uncover the best discounts. Let Dreams Unlimited Travel take care of all the details, so you can sit back, relax, and enjoy a stress-free vacation.
Start Your Disney Vacation
Disney EarMarked Producer

New Posts







DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Add as a preferred source on Google

Back
Top Bottom