Religious Resignation

[Occhidiangela]

I saw on the news last night a story about, yet again, the 2008 Presidential election. Can't get away from it. Senator Obama publicly announced that he was divorcing his church due to it's leadership acting as a millstone around his political neck. He wants to swim, not sink.

Two ways to look at this: good politics, in terms of image burnishing and a decision not to associate with an ideology (a form of liberation theology that uses as its premise the inherent conflict in race that cannot be mitigated) that is at odds with his platform of being both inclusive, and perhaps a "post racial" candidate (whatever that means) whose vision of the future is that race loses its place as a source of political disunity.

Bad politics, from another perspective, in terms of "selling out" his old friends in favor of personal ambition. He made some points about how grassroots and community activism was at the core of his early political activity, and how he got his start into his local, then state and national, political career.

What do you think?

Good move, bad move, or left with no option but to disassociate himself from a source of poisonous political rhetoric at odds with his stated vision to where he'd like to lead America, should he succeed in his bid for the White House?

Occhi

[vor_lord]

What do you think?

I know we're talking about politics, but I'm trying to reign in the cynicism. I think it is a bit harsh to characterize this as "Obama quits church in a desperate bid to disassociate himself from controversy". He did meet with the church leaders, and I'm sure they wanted this also.

If you were a church leader, do you really want the whole church to know that every word said is going to be examined by the media and used however possible to damage the Obama campaign? Preachers having to watch every word they say with the same kind of care as politicians (leading to empty speeches such as we hear from politicians)?

[Occhidiangela]

If you were a church leader, do you really want the whole church to know that every word said is going to be examined by the media and used however possible to damage the Obama campaign? Preachers having to watch every word they say with the same kind of care as politicians (leading to empty speeches such as we hear from politicians)?

Good point, I hadn't considered that.

Occhi

[kandrathe]

...
What do you think?

Good move, bad move, or left with no option but to disassociate himself from a source of poisonous political rhetoric at odds with his stated vision to where he'd like to lead America, should he succeed in his bid for the White House?

My opinion is still that Obama used his church as for political expedience and sashay within the inner city Chicago black community, and once it was no longer useful and in fact hurtful, he dropped them like a hot potato. In fact, I doubt he believes in much of the religiosity of that church, but maybe he resonates with some of the liberation theology portion.

[eppie]

My opinion is still that Obama used his church as for political expedience and sashay within the inner city Chicago black community, and once it was no longer useful and in fact hurtful, he dropped them like a hot potato. In fact, I doubt he believes in much of the religiosity of that church, but maybe he resonates with some of the liberation theology portion.

Kandrathe......I agree with you.:ph34r:

I also think he isn't the only one using his religion to get more votes. The Bush government successfully hijacked Christianity and patriotism to stay in power. Face it religion for most people is a very deciding factor when voting.

[Occhidiangela]

Kandrathe......I agree with you.:ph34r:

I also think he isn't the only one using his religion to get more votes. The Bush government successfully hijacked Christianity and patriotism to stay in power.

Really? I suppose that if you repeat something to yourself often enough you start to believe it.

Hijacked Christianity? Utter horsecrap.

Appealed to Christian voters (which is a diverse constituency)? Yes, in part.

Are you trying to make some joke on "Hijacking Islam" as a sound byte used in far too many hot air moments in the past six to seven years, or do you seriously think President Bush in some way hijacked Christianity?

He ain't that good.

Occhi

[Kevin]

I know we're talking about politics, but I'm trying to reign in the cynicism. I think it is a bit harsh to characterize this as "Obama quits church in a desperate bid to disassociate himself from controversy". He did meet with the church leaders, and I'm sure they wanted this also.

If you were a church leader, do you really want the whole church to know that every word said is going to be examined by the media and used however possible to damage the Obama campaign? Preachers having to watch every word they say with the same kind of care as politicians (leading to empty speeches such as we hear from politicians)?

I agree with this as well.

But I also think he pretty much had to do it anyway. I'm expecting him to be running against McCain (I do realize Hillary could still get the nod but I don't expect that to happen) and that just means that mudslinging and attacks are going to get worse. I don't have a lot of faith in a good portion American, they are swayed by stuff like that, I'm not going to try and claim how many but enough folks to have an impact. He needs to not have that obvious attack angle sitting there for the McCain to leverage against him. It's how the game works. Part of Obama's decision is the same reasoning McCain used when he distanced himself from a religious figure.

Now what does this mean to the folks who think more about all this? Kandrathe I think is a bit too cynical but I don't think he is that far off. Of course his accusation could probably be leveled at a lot of church goers that I've encountered. They don't believe in a lot of the religiosity of the church they attend but they go to church because "it's what you do". I like to believe this is a small percentage of church goers but I do believe it is a noticeable percentage. And I know that on smaller stages of the political theater that mayors and councilmen and aldermen and even judges, whoever are attending churches not for religion but for the social connections and other purely political reasons. You get stories on local levels about stuff like that too.

Even if the person is deep religious and resonates with all the church has to say, the chances are anyone motivated enough to run for a higher public office is going to use every tool available to help leverage themselves into the office they are after and everything they do ends up with some level. Every vote counts, a mayor in a small town change churches 3 years before he ran for mayor because the congregation was 4 times bigger and yes it looks like most of the folks in the new church did vote for him But it came out that votes was the whole reason he changed churches. It happens.

Do I care that much, not really. I don't think an truly honest man can survive the system and I don't think a truly honest man is who I actually want in charge anyway.

[Occhidiangela]

I don't think an truly honest man can survive the system and I don't think a truly honest man is who I actually want in charge anyway.

One way of reading that is that you expect, and nearly demand, that your politicians lie to you, or lie to get things done.

Maybe the issue is degree, and not kind.

Occhi

[Tris]

Well... you could have Hagee:) Enough said...

[Occhidiangela]

Well... you could have Hagee:) Enough said...

Different kettle of fish, though no less entertaining.

[eppie]

Really? I suppose that if you repeat something to yourself often enough you start to believe it.

Hijacked Christianity? Utter horsecrap.

Occhi

I thought this was the consensus about the neocons power since 2000. The neocons hijacked Christianity for their own purposes. They made people believe that if you are a good Christian you should vote Republican.

If this is not true please explain better because this is what I read in serious journals, saw on serious political programs etc., and saw on FOX channels comedies. Of course I am aware that the media I have access to are biased (and that CNN etc. only start mentioning this after Bush' approval ratings went down) but you obviously know something I don't.
So instead of showing us again you are still in your anal phase, why don't you try to explain this.
I also understand that you are wise enough to make your own decisions and don't get fooled by political rhetorics but many religious people are not.

[Kevin]

One way of reading that is that you expect, and nearly demand, that your politicians lie to you, or lie to get things done.

Maybe the issue is degree, and not kind.

Occhi

I pretty much expect them to lie to get things done, yes. It's not a pretty view, but it seems to be the reality. Even in smaller organizations the truth is something that is often warped as much as possible to get to an end result. I was pretty much lied to when I was asked to work overtime but I know without that lie some other folks would have (and could have) refused to do the work and it was good that the work got done. Most advertising has some level of lies to it, etc.

But yes the degree matters. I'm much happier the closer you can get to the truth. I'm happier when the motives are clearer. No I'm not a strict the ends justify the means but have I lied to get things done, yes. Have I lied to get things done and found out it would have been better had I not lied, yes as well. Do I try to avoid it and make the lie as close to the truth as possible, yes. But I was in the military, I was basically trained to lie directly and to lie by omission in some situations. Maybe the brainwashing worked but I think reality works better that way. I will lie to spare feelings at the immediate crisis point and then later on reveal the truth. Of course other times I won't lie to spare feelings. I'm making a judgement call. Would I like a utopia where I know that no one else will lie and I can not lie? Yeah, I think would. Do I have enough faith in humanity to believe it could happen? Nope.

Do I want to be lied to about certain issues that I really do believe are matters of national security, yes. Do I prefer those to be lies of omission, yes. Do I think somethings I'm lied to about by politicians are things they shouldn't lie about, yes. Is it a slippery slope, yes. The lie about going into Iraq because of WMD, bad lie, not happy about it. Clinton saying he didn't have sex, a lie but one I'm not as concerned about. Yeah I picked two of the bigger more recent lies that we've been told.

Heck if the Stargate actually existed and SG-1 was actually out there, I'd be all for the government covering it up. I think that gives better results than the panic that I really do believe would happen if that were true.


So yeah I'm not really bothered much by what Obama is doing. I don't think it's that big of a deal.

[Occhidiangela]

Heck if the Stargate actually existed and SG-1 was actually out there, I'd be all for the government covering it up. I think that gives better results than the panic that I really do believe would happen if that were true.
So yeah I'm not really bothered much by what Obama is doing. I don't think it's that big of a deal.

Aye, a politician lies a bit, or a lot, as a part of his profession.

Occhi

[--Pete]

Hi,

What do you think?

Good move, bad move, or left with no option but to disassociate himself from a source of poisonous political rhetoric at odds with his stated vision to where he'd like to lead America, should he succeed in his bid for the White House?

I think lose-lose situation. That 'church', if it were white, would have eagles with swastikas in their talons on either side of the cross and would be denounced for racism. Not sure if I would want anyone with those leanings in the White House. And "I attended for years but never knew this was going on" doesn't wash it, at least with me. No one could be that much of a moron and still come across with the presence of Obama.

So, it's either stay with the church and lose almost all the white voters as well as a large percentage (I hope and like to think the majority) of black voters. Or ditch that church, lose those extremists and the people who feel that he's "A man whose allegiance / Is ruled by expedience.";) His decision makes sense.

The question that is uppermost in my mind is whether his participation in that church for so long was hypocritical or whether it reflects his true leanings and he's masking that now to gain the presidency. Either way, he's lost a lot of my respect and support, but if he's a racial bigot, then he's lost my vote as well. As much as I dislike it, the Democrats are doing a damned good job of forcing me to go with McSame. Obama basically has from now till November to convince me that his message of unification is not a political ruse. Failing that, I'll revert to Republican (barf!).

Of course, Hillary could always pull one out of her *cough* hat. I could vote for a Clinton -- the only times they lie is when they're speaking, and not always then. At least she's a known quantity, sniper fire and all.;)

--Pete

[kandrathe]

I thought this was the consensus about the neocons power since 2000. The neocons hijacked Christianity for their own purposes. They made people believe that if you are a good Christian you should vote Republican.

If this is not true please explain better because this is what I read in serious journals, saw on serious political programs etc., and saw on FOX channels comedies. Of course I am aware that the media I have access to are biased (and that CNN etc. only start mentioning this after Bush' approval ratings went down) but you obviously know something I don't.
So instead of showing us again you are still in your anal phase, why don't you try to explain this.
I also understand that you are wise enough to make your own decisions and don't get fooled by political rhetorics but many religious people are not.

I think we beat this horse to death in another thread. I think the statistics show that among denominations, protestants tend to vote 60/40 for Republicans, and Catholics tend to vote 60/40 for Democrats. It's mostly a wash, but the "Religious Right" as exemplified by Falwell, Robertson, et. al. tends to be Right Wingers, and much further right than Bush, or McCain. I'm not sure if they help or hurt the Republican party though, as it turns off as many as it attracts. I guess its the same with the ultra socialist wing of the Democrats too.

[Occhidiangela]

I thought this was the consensus about the neocons power since 2000.

The consensus among whom? Euortrash? In 2000, you didn't know what a neocon was.
If you choose to play "Politics for Idiots" I recommend you get a helmet.

The neocons hijacked Christianity for their own purposes. They made people believe that if you are a good Christian you should vote Republican.

I can't tell you how stupid that statement is. You seem to associate "Christianity" with "a core American voting bloc." Try this statement: used a predominantly Christian voting block for political advantage. Same as Bobby Kennedy trying to use the Black vote in 1968. Politics as usual.

Christianity will be around a long time after the neocons have buried themselves deep in the political scrapyard, along with the Marxists, and a few other political movements.

Do us all a favor, before you reach voting age: go play in the Autobahn at rush hour.

Occhi

[Occhidiangela]

Hi,
I think lose-lose situation. That 'church', if it were white, would have eagles with swastikas in their talons on either side of the cross and would be denounced for racism. Not sure if I would want anyone with those leanings in the White House. And "I attended for years but never knew this was going on" doesn't wash it, at least with me. No one could be that much of a moron and still come across with the presence of Obama.

So, it's either stay with the church and lose almost all the white voters as well as a large percentage (I hope and like to think the majority) of black voters. Or ditch that church, lose those extremists and the people who feel that he's "A man whose allegiance / Is ruled by expedience.";) His decision makes sense.

Aye. Wright is a loud mouthed Wracist, sorta like David Duke. Joy.

The question that is uppermost in my mind is whether his participation in that church for so long was hypocritical or whether it reflects his true leanings and he's masking that now to gain the presidency. Either way, he's lost a lot of my respect and support, but if he's a racial bigot, then he's lost my vote as well. As much as I dislike it, the Democrats are doing a damned good job of forcing me to go with McSame. Obama basically has from now till November to convince me that his message of unification is not a political ruse. Failing that, I'll revert to Republican (barf!).

Rocks and hard places are uncomfortable places to stand, sit, or sleep.

Of course, Hillary could always pull one out of her *cough* hat. I could vote for a Clinton -- the only times they lie is when they're speaking, and not always then. At least she's a known quantity, sniper fire and all.;)

The only thing she pulls out of any orifice that is of any worth ought not be flushed, as it clogs the latrines. I'll be happy to see her going back to being a loud mouthed Senator from New York. She wears that well, and New York bloody well deserves her.

Occhi

[Jester]

Aye. Wright is a loud mouthed Wracist, sorta like David Duke. Joy.

David Duke believes that Whites are inherently superior to Blacks, that the nation should be segregated along racial lines, that Judaism is a mental illness, and that Black people are no better than animals.

Rev. Wright argues that racism is abhorrent, that no race is superior to another, that historical racial divisions should be ended, and that God loves all people.

He's a loudmouth. He's dead wrong about a whole range of subjects, and is even willing to flirt with strange and outdated racial theories about "different ways of thinking". But he's not David Duke, he's not the black equivalent of the Nazis, and I find it incomprehensible that otherwise reasonable people are making these comparisons. The worst that can be said of him is that he turns a blind eye to the dark side of Louis Farrakhan, which, while more than enough to sour me on him, does not turn him into the Grand Wizard of a black KKK.

It's for the best that Obama has left the church, as most of America seems to think the same way as we have seen on this board, that a radical black church is basically just the mirror image of the Nazis, or of the KKK, or whatever. That's an anchor no politician can afford not to cut. But I think there is a serious perspective problem, both in the US generally, and on this board specifically.

-Jester

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . a radical black church is basically just the mirror image of the Nazis, or of the KKK, or whatever.

Yes. What is the *only* direction that focusing on the injustices of the past can lead to? (Hint, think Ireland or the Balkans).

But I think there is a serious perspective problem, both in the US generally, and on this board specifically.

Your opinion, and you're welcome to it. I think that most of the nation is reading it right. And the more that comes out, the more I think that.

--Pete

[Jester]

Yes. What is the *only* direction that focusing on the injustices of the past can lead to? (Hint, think Ireland or the Balkans).

I'm not saying he's correct. I think he's wrong about a great many things, as I have said. I'm not even saying that what he's saying will go good places.

However, that is a long way indeed from David Duke, or the Nazis, or Jim Jones, or any of the other extreme comparisons that have been made in the last month around here. One would be stretched far and wide to find any worse comparisons, really. He is literally being lumped in with the worst of the worst.

-Jester