Obama's Speech

I thought I read that too - see Maureen Dowd's column - did she get it wrong?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/opinion/19dowd.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

Controversial does not equal incendiary, how can this be hard to understand? The controversial words he heard were in regards to family values, and doing the right thing, he was very outspoken about it, the reverend could make you blush. None of the topics that have been harped on at nauseum are the things he heard.
 
Easy, I made a mistake but see I'm here admitting it :)
Thanks for stting me straight.
BTW just because I don't advertise it like you, I was a supporter.

Well, personally I hope you will turn back to being a current supporter some day.
 
Three Big Problems With Barack's Speech
By Michael Medved
Wednesday, March 19, 2008


"Misleading Comparisons. At several points in his talk, Obama directly equates the controversy over the Reverend Dr. Wright to the dispute over remarks by Geraldine Ferraro suggesting that the candidate wouldn’t be a leading presidential contender if he were white........

Later, he pushes the same equation between comments by Ferraro and the unhinged sermons by Wright. “We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.”

The comparison between the two firestorms amounts to a slick but unfair attack on Geraldine Ferraro and, by implication, her candidate, Hillary Clinton. No one in either campaign has defended the enraged remarks by Jeremiah Wright (“God d---n America!” or blaming the government for deliberately creating the AIDS virus) as legitimate or worthy of serious debate, but many responsible politicos and pundits agree with Ferraro’s observation that his race played an essential role in Barack’s rise. Moreover, Wright’s comments reflect a long, consistent career of impassioned hostility to the “white power structure” that runs “the U.S. of KKK- A,” while no one had ever before accused the reliably liberal Ferraro of racial animus of any kind.

An even worse comparison involved Barack’s exploitation of his own grandmother (who is still alive) to make a political point. Regarding his on-going relationship with his former pastor, Obama sonorously declares: “I could no more disown him than I can my white grandmother, a woman who helped raise me….but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.”

This wretched analogy should make all of us cringe: there’s no arguable equivalence between his grandmother’s very private kitchen-table remarks (no matter how insensitive) and the very public and thunderous sermons of a famous clergyman addressing thousands of his congregants and later selling his hateful remarks on DVD. There’s also a world of difference between breaking with a blood relative whose home you occupied as a child, and creating distance with a religious mentor you selected as an adult. No one gets to choose his grandmother, but we do choose our pastors, priests and rabbis. Obama’s selection of Wright as his guide and guru says something profound about his judgment and outlook, while his connection with his grandmother reflects only the accidents of his birth and upbringing.

Regarding this claim that revulsion to Wright emerged from a few randomly “cherry-picked” declarations, Pastor Frank Pina, a dynamic church leader who heads a vibrant multi-ethnic congregation in Everett, Washington, sent me an insightful e-mail.

“What I heard coming from Rev. Wright was not just a phrase taken out of context, but a philosophy,” he wrote. “And if you listen to all the different controversial statements, the GD America Sermon (not just a few statements) pretty much sums up the philosophy. And the way the congregation responds lets us know that the philosophy is not just the pastor’s, but the church’s. The point I’m trying to make is that making an inflammatory statement (or two) is not the same as a church’s or pastor’s philosophy. And if Obama didn’t know the pastor’s philosophy after being a member of the church for over 20 years…it speaks to the lack of judgment he has.”

The additional “10-point Vision” of Revrend Wright (still featured on the church website) specifies “A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA.” Nowhere in the “10-point Vision” or the “twelve precepts” or the 25 course offerings for religious education or in any other church materials do the organizers of Trinity mention anything at all about loyalty to the United States of America, or service to the nation that hosts the church, or gratitude to the amazingly benevolent society that has embraced one of the congregation’s members as a leading presidential candidate

In his speech, Obama suggests that his fellow citizens recoiled against Reverend Wright only because they failed to understand that his bitter rage stemmed from centuries of oppression and injustice. “The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright’s sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning.”

Does Obama decry, or encourage, that segregation?"


http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/...three_big_problems_with_baracks_speech?page=1
 
Three Big Problems With Barack's Speech
By Michael Medved
Wednesday, March 19, 2008


"Misleading Comparisons. At several points in his talk, Obama directly equates the controversy over the Reverend Dr. Wright to the dispute over remarks by Geraldine Ferraro suggesting that the candidate wouldn’t be a leading presidential contender if he were white........

Later, he pushes the same equation between comments by Ferraro and the unhinged sermons by Wright. “We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.”

The comparison between the two firestorms amounts to a slick but unfair attack on Geraldine Ferraro and, by implication, her candidate, Hillary Clinton. No one in either campaign has defended the enraged remarks by Jeremiah Wright (“God d---n America!” or blaming the government for deliberately creating the AIDS virus) as legitimate or worthy of serious debate, but many responsible politicos and pundits agree with Ferraro’s observation that his race played an essential role in Barack’s rise. Moreover, Wright’s comments reflect a long, consistent career of impassioned hostility to the “white power structure” that runs “the U.S. of KKK- A,” while no one had ever before accused the reliably liberal Ferraro of racial animus of any kind.

An even worse comparison involved Barack’s exploitation of his own grandmother (who is still alive) to make a political point. Regarding his on-going relationship with his former pastor, Obama sonorously declares: “I could no more disown him than I can my white grandmother, a woman who helped raise me….but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.”

This wretched analogy should make all of us cringe: there’s no arguable equivalence between his grandmother’s very private kitchen-table remarks (no matter how insensitive) and the very public and thunderous sermons of a famous clergyman addressing thousands of his congregants and later selling his hateful remarks on DVD. There’s also a world of difference between breaking with a blood relative whose home you occupied as a child, and creating distance with a religious mentor you selected as an adult. No one gets to choose his grandmother, but we do choose our pastors, priests and rabbis. Obama’s selection of Wright as his guide and guru says something profound about his judgment and outlook, while his connection with his grandmother reflects only the accidents of his birth and upbringing.

Regarding this claim that revulsion to Wright emerged from a few randomly “cherry-picked” declarations, Pastor Frank Pina, a dynamic church leader who heads a vibrant multi-ethnic congregation in Everett, Washington, sent me an insightful e-mail.

“What I heard coming from Rev. Wright was not just a phrase taken out of context, but a philosophy,” he wrote. “And if you listen to all the different controversial statements, the GD America Sermon (not just a few statements) pretty much sums up the philosophy. And the way the congregation responds lets us know that the philosophy is not just the pastor’s, but the church’s. The point I’m trying to make is that making an inflammatory statement (or two) is not the same as a church’s or pastor’s philosophy. And if Obama didn’t know the pastor’s philosophy after being a member of the church for over 20 years…it speaks to the lack of judgment he has.”

The additional “10-point Vision” of Revrend Wright (still featured on the church website) specifies “A congregation with a non-negotiable COMMITMENT TO AFRICA.” Nowhere in the “10-point Vision” or the “twelve precepts” or the 25 course offerings for religious education or in any other church materials do the organizers of Trinity mention anything at all about loyalty to the United States of America, or service to the nation that hosts the church, or gratitude to the amazingly benevolent society that has embraced one of the congregation’s members as a leading presidential candidate

In his speech, Obama suggests that his fellow citizens recoiled against Reverend Wright only because they failed to understand that his bitter rage stemmed from centuries of oppression and injustice. “The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright’s sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning.”

Does Obama decry, or encourage, that segregation?"


http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/...three_big_problems_with_baracks_speech?page=1


As a Clinton supporter, do you have any idea what a hate-filled, rightwing nutjob Michael Medved is? Do you realize how much this man also hates Hillary Clinton? Really, pick a better mouthpiece.

And when did opinion pieces morph into legitimate news?
 

And thank YOU for being so civil in your reply and for taking the time to consider my response thoughtfully. We can disagree about whether he took the Lord's name in vain or not, but IMHO, he did. So from my perspective, for a minister (of all people!) to do that (from the pulpit!) is beyond heinous. :scared:

In utter seriousness, I can say that if my sister and I (she's an elder in her church) were sitting in church and heard that, once we regained our ability to breathe after having gasped in horror as we clutched at each other bug-eyed to signal, "Can you believe that?!?!?!?! I'm about to have a heart attack!"...We would have snatched up our purses, grabbed our kids and marched right out. (With DH coming along, wondering which one of the sisters was going to let loose first. :rotfl2: ) And it is not out of the question (by a long shot) that one or both of us would have spoken up before we walked out right in front of God and everybody. First, that's our nature and second, we're talking about a sin against God in a church! You can't let that pass! The same goes for the remark I considered blasphemous. It's as if God would strike you dead if you didn't speak up and take a stand against it. Or He'd at least make a note of it for future reference.......:rolleyes:

For the record, I've never had one ounce of respect for Falwell or Roberts. Putting words in God's mouth, so to speak, by attributing natural disasters and diseases to God delivering a message of displeasure is also blasphemous, as far as I am concerned. :headache:

Thanks for the response. I'm wondering if the first one is in reference to his God d..n America comments--in which case, I'm not sure he's taking the Lord's name in vain, as I think he's using "d..n" as a verb (incorrectly.) That was a sentiment shared by other church leaders who thought America's declining morals had brought this horror upon us. (Falwell and Robertson made similar comments after 9/11.) I don't agree with this philosophy, but I'm going to guess that's what Wright was trying to get at.

Holocaust deniers make me shake my head, too. And while I agree with you that the HIV invention idea seems crazy, remember that many people also thought the government deliberately blew up the levees during Katrina in New Orleans. Can't explain what would make people so paranoid...

Finally, thank you for your insight on his making blasphemous comments about racism/God. (If that's true, it is indeed horrid for a religious leader to say such things.) I think that was a point Obama strongly denounced--Wright's idea that America is still extremely racist. A thin analogy here, but I'd compare Wright's views to those of my parents. I often hear my parents' generation bemoaning the so-called loss of morals and values and courtesy among the youth. Then I see kids collecting for the animal shelter, shoveling neighbor's driveways without being asked, being kind to the special needs kids in their classroom--and I say, nope, there's nothing wrong with kids today. (Not to suggest there's no racism in American society, as I know it still exists. But I do not think it is as bad as Wright makes it out to be.)

Again, thank you for responding. I truly believe these conversations can only make us understand each other better. :)
 
On this and other similar threads some folks have cited Oprah's "wisdom" in leaving the church. They suggest, even state outright that it was because of "hatespeech." Not so - She stopped attending 14 years ago.
Here are a few excerpts from a SIX year old article in Christianity Today.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2002/april1/1.38.html

"I am creation's daughter. I am more than my physical self. I am more than the job I do. I am more than the external definitions that I have given myself . …Those are all extensions of who I define myself to be, but ultimately I am Spirit come from the greatest Spirit. I am Spirit."

When Oprah goes to church in Chicago, she has been known to attend Trinity United Church of Christ, located on the city's South Side. Trinity is the largest church in its denomination, with more than 8,000 members, several subsidiary corporations, and an annual budget of about $9 million. It is an Afrocentric church with a membership composed largely of upper middle class blacks. These elements, no doubt, appealed to Oprah's roots in the church, her longtime interest in black history, and her concern for social justice.

According to Trinity's senior pastor Jeremiah Wright, however, Oprah has not attended a service there in the last eight years. When she first came to Trinity in the 1980s, it seemed that she would become an active participant. Says Wright, "She walked the aisle to become a member, publicly claimed us as her church in Ebony magazine, and when I would run into her socially, like at a United Negro College Fund dinner, she would say, 'Here's my pastor!'" But Oprah never completed the membership classes and after awhile her attendance dropped off.

Wright says Oprah had been very active as a member of Bethel AME Church during her years in Baltimore. Mentoring young girls was one of her primary interests at Bethel, and it looked as though she would continue that ministry at Trinity. But then The Oprah Show went national and altered the course of her life.

"Sundays got to be a hassle for her," Wright says. "Everybody came at her with notes, with portfolios, with ideas and requests. It made her coming to church a problem."

Shortly after her show was syndicated in 1986, Oprah spoke about the challenges of being a celebrity in a public worship service: "Last Sunday I was in church, and a deacon tapped me on the knee and asked me for my autograph," she said. "I told him, 'I don't do autographs in church. Jesus is the star here.' "

Wright understands the pressures Oprah faces in public settings, but he has seen other celebrities maintain a commitment to their churches, despite their fame. He thinks there might be other reasons for Oprah's absence from the pew. "I think it is hard for most very wealthy people to be a part of the church," he says. "Somebody who makes $100 a week has no problem tithing. But start making $35 million a year, and you'll want to renegotiate the contract. You don't want to be a part of 'organized religion' at that point. That's a generalized statement, but that's what I've found across the years. The wealthier somebody gets, the more they pull away from the church."

Today Oprah's relationship with Trinity and Jeremiah Wright seems strained. In a column for a recent issue of Black Collegian magazine, Wright mentioned Oprah as an example of African Americans who forget their roots in the church after finding success. "A lot of us do not even like the word faith anymore," he wrote. "We prefer the more chic-sounding word, spirituality! We are caught up in an Oprah-generated mentality and a 12-step vocabulary that prevents us from using the very words and the very bridge that 'brought us over!' "

Oprah Winfrey did not respond to CT's request for comment about the article, but Wright stands by his statement. He is clearly put off by the direction Oprah's faith seems to have taken.

"She has broken with the [traditional faith]," he says. "She now has this sort of 'God is everywhere, God is in me, I don't need to go to church, I don't need to be a part of a body of believers, I can meditate, I can do positive thinking' spirituality. It's a strange gospel. It has nothing to do with the church Jesus Christ founded."
 
As tedhowe said, these all happened after 9/11. They don't go back 20 years. So Obama has not been sitting in a pew listening to hate speech for 20 years.

People will believe what they choose. I believe that I will still vote for Obama.

We don't know how far they go back and we don't know if that is the full compliment of them.
 
As a Clinton supporter, do you have any idea what a hate-filled, rightwing nutjob Michael Medved is?
You forgot Movie Reviewer!:lmao:
That is your opinion!

Do you realize how much this man also hates Hillary Clinton? Really, pick a better mouthpiece.
If he writes a bad piece about Hillary, i promise I wont post it.
I do not automatically shut out any opinions simply based on the authors political nature. Isnt that what Obama claims we should do?

And when did opinion pieces morph into legitimate news?
Is there some sort of 'rule' that we arent allowed to post published opinion pieces?????:confused3
 
I thought I read that too - see Maureen Dowd's column - did she get it wrong?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/opinion/19dowd.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

Uh, that column says exactly what we have all been debating since Obama's speech. He said last Friday he was not in church when the incendiary remarks were made. I took that to mean the soundbites that were being played all over the media. Then in his speech he said he had heard controversial statements.

Now, you and others choose to say he was lying. That is an opinion that you are welcome to have. But, its not a fact. Ok?


Now, I love Maureen Dowd and I can't wait until her columns go back to bashing the crap out of HIllary which about 90% have done since this election started. :goodvibes
 
As a Clinton supporter, do you have any idea what a hate-filled, rightwing nutjob Michael Medved is? Do you realize how much this man also hates Hillary Clinton? Really, pick a better mouthpiece.

And when did opinion pieces morph into legitimate news?


You've got to be kidding. I've listen to him on numerous occasions over the years and NEVER heard any hate.

Medved is a hate monger? Prove it.
 
You've got to be kidding. I've listen to him on numerous occasions over the years and NEVER heard any hate.

Medved is a hate monger? Prove it.

So do I - and I have also NEVER heard any kind of hate from him ever.
 
Hillary is in my city this morning, and while I would love to see her its freezing outside and their is already a line a mile long.
 
Does anyone find it odd that the issue of the minister of his church is only now being brought to the national stage? If you look at the dates on the following articles, you'll see that it's actually old news:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/30/us/politics/30obama.html?scp=9&sq=Jeremiah+Wright&st=nyt
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/u...&scp=10&sq=Jeremiah+Wright&st=nyt&oref=slogin
So who is responsible for bringing this out now?

Camp Hillary or the RNC, hoping to derail his campaign?

Clinton's motivation would be obvious.

The RNC, following El Rushbo's lead to attempt to create more chaos in the Dem party, to tighten the race even more?

:confused3

I also posted this on the "Obama supporters" thread, but thought I'd throw it in here for more exposure and opinions.
 
You forgot Movie Reviewer!:lmao:
That is your opinion!


If he writes a bad piece about Hillary, i promise I wont post it.
I do not automatically shut out any opinions simply based on the authors political nature. Isnt that what Obama claims we should do?

Is there some sort of 'rule' that we arent allowed to post published opinion pieces?????:confused3

You can post whatever you want and from who you want. However, an opinion piece is just that: An opinion. It is not a fact sheet, unless it is linked to facts. It is not a news piece. It is an opinion piece and I'll reserve the right to point it out every time.

And yes, in this current climate with news overlapping entertainment and personal opinion, scrutinizing the source is both a must and an obligation. It's the only to get the truth today.
 
You've got to be kidding. I've listen to him on numerous occasions over the years and NEVER heard any hate.

Medved is a hate monger? Prove it.

I'll come up with the proof as soon as you come up with the concrete proof of whatever it is you think Obama meant by controversial statements.
 
If Bill hadn't spewed his love on Monica, we could have saved $70 million.

Because sex is evil and dirty while war is to be exalted and revered? And after all 70 million is nuttin compared to what's been wasted in Iraq, right? ;)
__________________
 

New Posts


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






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

Add as a preferred source on Google

Back
Top Bottom