More fun from Obama's church

Non-lacrosse specific topics.

Postby OAKS on Sat May 31, 2008 6:00 pm

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/31/ ... index.html

"Obama resigns from controversial church"


I haven't watched the video, but if a church pushes a certain candidate or party, isn't the government able to revoke their tax-exempt status? Does anyone know if this has happened before? (I personally don't think they should be tax-exempt in the first place, at least on property and other similar taxes)
Will Oakley
Assistant Coach, Glen Allen High School
User avatar
OAKS
Bumblebee Tuna!
Bumblebee Tuna!
 
Posts: 1174
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 9:57 am


Postby KnoxVegas on Sat May 31, 2008 10:02 pm

Our long national nightmare is over. :roll:
Dagger!
KnoxVegas
All-America
All-America
 
Posts: 1762
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 12:03 am

Postby StrykerFSU on Sun Jun 01, 2008 9:25 am

Jana wrote:IMHO the Catholic problem with child abuse is far more appalling - indeed criminal. What Obama's former pastor said is just exercising freedom of speech to spout of on subjects that he chooses. What the Catholic church did was criminal behavior by failing to report priests and putting them in positions to abuse other children.

Indeed a reprehensible situation and I believe one that is universally condemned by not only the Papacy but also Catholics everywhere, including politicians. However, that is a case of comparing apples to very rotten oranges. At the very least, there is the difference between a criminal act committed in private and a history of racist and sexist sermons from the pulpit. I don't think the comparison is appropriate.

I don't think anyone is accusing Obama of any wrongdoing based on the sermons that occur at his former church, but he is certainly required to explain his association with his "spiritual advisor" and why he chose to remain in a Church whose leadership appealed to the lowest common denominator with race baiting screeds. Just because Obamamaniacs don't think it's a big deal doesn't in fact make it not a big deal.

But we don't hold all Catholic politicians responsible, and do not criticize them for failing to leave their churches. I'm pretty sure there were politicians attending Catholic churches when the abuse was going on.


If anyone knew of the abuses and did nothing, then they are certainly partly responsible. That would be a matter for the criminal justice system. Which Catholic politicians went to a Church where sexual abuses occurred?

I understand that the issue of Rev. Wright and the Trinity Church is not important to some people but it is very important to others, especially given that a former parishioner wants to be the Leader of the Free World. This is a place where for 20 years, and after donations of thousands of dollars, Sen. Obama sat with his family and listened (or maybe not) to a preacher who blamed all of the problems of African-Americans on white people in general and the Federal Government specifically. Now that same pulpit has been used as a platform to promote the payment of reparations, one of the most divisive and absolutely categorically ridiculous ideas to ever see the light of day. If there ever was an issue to make me take to the streets, that's the one. It is Sen. Obama's obligation to address these an other issues stemming from his association with the church and his explanations may or may not prove adequate to the voters. In my opinion, this issue is as important as his position on Iraq, health care, or any other issue.
Cliff Stryker Buck, Ph.D.
Department of Oceanography
Florida State University
User avatar
StrykerFSU
Premium
Premium
 
Posts: 1108
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:37 pm
Location: Tallahassee, Fl

Postby Tim Whitehead on Mon Jun 02, 2008 12:52 pm

StrykerFSU wrote:I don't think anyone is accusing Obama of any wrongdoing based on the sermons that occur at his former church, but he is certainly required to explain his association with his "spiritual advisor" and why he chose to remain in a Church whose leadership appealed to the lowest common denominator with race baiting screeds. Just because Obamamaniacs don't think it's a big deal doesn't in fact make it not a big deal.


You say that no one is accusing Obama of any wrong doing, then go on to do just that later in the same sentence. :roll:
Tim Whitehead
Simon Fraser Lacrosse
1997 - 2000
User avatar
Tim Whitehead
All-America
All-America
 
Posts: 558
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 1:05 pm
Location: Coquitlam, BC

Postby StrykerFSU on Mon Jun 02, 2008 1:13 pm

Tim Whitehead wrote:
StrykerFSU wrote:I don't think anyone is accusing Obama of any wrongdoing based on the sermons that occur at his former church, but he is certainly required to explain his association with his "spiritual advisor" and why he chose to remain in a Church whose leadership appealed to the lowest common denominator with race baiting screeds. Just because Obamamaniacs don't think it's a big deal doesn't in fact make it not a big deal.


You say that no one is accusing Obama of any wrong doing, then go on to do just that later in the same sentence. :roll:


The previous poster was trying to compare the criminal acts of some Catholic priests with Rev. Wright's words and Obama's place in his congregation. That is a comparison that I wholly reject and the former is the "wrongdoing" I was referring to. I guess I should have been more clear.

Obama's blind eye to his spiritual advisor's sermons are what need to be more adequately explained in my opinion.
Cliff Stryker Buck, Ph.D.
Department of Oceanography
Florida State University
User avatar
StrykerFSU
Premium
Premium
 
Posts: 1108
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:37 pm
Location: Tallahassee, Fl

Postby KnoxVegas on Mon Jun 02, 2008 1:54 pm

The very same could be said about McCain and his pastors Hagee and Parsley as noted in an earlier post. But I do not see nearly the outrage or threads on this board discussing that topic, so I guess McCain gets a pass.
Dagger!
KnoxVegas
All-America
All-America
 
Posts: 1762
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 12:03 am

Postby UkraineNotWeak on Mon Jun 02, 2008 2:08 pm

The very same could be said about McCain and his pastors Hagee and Parsley as noted in an earlier post. But I do not see nearly the outrage or threads on this board discussing that topic, so I guess McCain gets a pass.


Don't expect a response.
"Thank you, your Holiness. Awesome speech."
UkraineNotWeak
Veteran
Veteran
 
Posts: 123
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 3:40 pm

Postby StrykerFSU on Mon Jun 02, 2008 2:11 pm

McCain gets a pass or there is a big difference between political endorsements that were subsequently rejected and the racist and sexist attitudes of a candidate's self-described spiritual adviser, and those that share his pulpit, that the candidate listened to for 20 years and donated large sums of money in support. Hagee and Parsley are certainly not McCain's pastors. McCain clearly made a political mistake in accepting their endorsements without doing his homework but he has since rejected both of them. But again I point out...20 years of spiritual guidance and close friendship versus a few months of political association.

Obviously this issue is not going to sway Obamamaniacs away from their cause but it is troublesome for independents and moderates alike. This issue is certainly not going away. Even as Obama separates himself from the church the questions will remain as to why it took him so long. And I, for one, find it incredibly hard to believe that he was unaware of such "sermons" or of the opinions that Rev. Wright held. This is his "spiritual adviser" for crying out loud...what did they talk about if not what the man preached, the fate of Steve Bartman? I guess I'm just too blinded by the politics of divisiveness or whatever term Sen. Obama uses to dismiss these uncomfortable questions.
Cliff Stryker Buck, Ph.D.
Department of Oceanography
Florida State University
User avatar
StrykerFSU
Premium
Premium
 
Posts: 1108
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:37 pm
Location: Tallahassee, Fl

Postby Jester on Mon Jun 02, 2008 5:13 pm

Sure, the ravings of a spiritual advisor, who I'm sure was unable to come up with any other kind of insights, either personal, theological, or philosophical.

If BO displayed ANY tendencies towards sexism or racism as items he (consciously or not) took away from that relationship, then worry about him. Otherwise, if he acts like an adult, capable of forming his own opinions about things and trying to inform others of same, then there is little ground to stand on there.

Final thought - every group of friends has at least one (jerk) in it. You put up with it partly out of loyalty, partly out of habit, and partly because there is something in them to be redeemed (see Darth Vader).

BTW, if you are the one who says "Not my group of friends! No (jerks) here, no sir!", then you need to know that you are the (jerk).
Dan Henrich
St. Olaf Lacrosse '03
Coach - Coon Rapids Lacrosse
Jester
Rookie
Rookie
 
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 12:34 am
Location: Roseville, MN

Postby semilaxed on Mon Jun 02, 2008 8:28 pm

I just feel like you either have to say, he went there and these comments have influened him and his family, or they go to church for 20 years just to go and not listen. The fact that he has donated so much money to the church means it has moved him in someway. Plus he seems to have no problem exposing his children to this propaganda so what is he going to expose the US people to.

Also I love how the counter argument is to call out republicans with these other crazy white preachers. You certainly can't call McCain a religious republican.

I really had no problem with Obama until this whole thing. But I find this church so offensive that i wouldn't support anyone who went there twice. I feel like Obama supporters are in denial and are still so star struck they refuse to except the fact that this church is a substantial part of his background. He picked this church 20 years ago because they are political. It scares me that Bush messed things up so bad that democrats will vote for any guy with a smile.

Anyone who supports Obama should sit through 2 full sermons at this church before they vote. And then think about sitting there for 20 years.


I personally do not support any candidate. I HATE all of them. When it comes to voting I will vote for who ever will help ME the most. Though I share many of the moral and economic views of the republicans, it would be finacially advantageous for me if the Democrats won because I work in the environmental services industry. I am an independent now leaning toward McCain after this church thing.
finem respice

Lueco Non Uro
User avatar
semilaxed
Rookie
Rookie
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Feb 03, 2005 12:41 am
Location: North Miami Beach

Postby Jana on Tue Jun 03, 2008 7:20 pm

I'm suspicious of all preachers who harange their audiences. So yes, I think it's fair to bring up preachers for both candidates.

I'm far more interested in how both candidates plan to govern, who they will put in their cabinets, how they would manage both congressional houses, how they would choose supreme court justices, foreign policy, balancing the budget, health care, social security deficits, immigration, foreign aid to Africa and other poverty striken nations, and how they plan to win / end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I truly do not give a rat's patootie what their former, now retired, semi-senile pastors have to say. My elderly grandmother spouts off saying embarassing things too. But I still love her and I'm not going to disown her.
Jana
Veteran
Veteran
 
Posts: 201
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 6:56 pm
Location: Seattle

Postby JW on Tue Jun 03, 2008 7:37 pm

One needs to realized that people go to churches and stay in churches for many reasons. While the pastor can be one of those reasons, there are others;

Fellowship with the congregation
The youth programs
Adult Bible Studies
It is in their neighborhood.

So it begs the question, can someone go to a church, donate time or money to a church, but not agree with everything the church stands for?

I would say yes.
A few years ago the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (a Denomination that i grew up in and was a Youth Pastor at for 4 years) stated that openly Homosexual pastors could remain pastors as long as they remained celibate. I was unaware of this until i read an article last August. This article was reporting on the ELCA's gathering to discuss whether or not openly Homosexual Ministers partaking in openly homosexual relationships should be allowed to continue in their capacity as ministers of their respective churches. The conference concluded that that was not the time to decide on the subject, that it should wait until 2009 to determine what it should do.

Now in my study of the scripture i have found places in the Old and New Testament where it speaks against Homosexual relationships, therefore, I am against such a practice (not against the people themselves). In my opinion the church should not have to have a conference to figure out what it should do.

So should I just completely cut ties with a place in which I grew up as a Christian and served as a Youth Minister?

Or should people practice Catholicism after there have been so many Priests found guilty of molestation, etc.?

I am not an Obama supporter, and it's not because of his religious values, its because when I listen to the guy speak, it makes me feel funny, like there is more to the story that he is holding back.
John Williams
Ministry Intern
Cross and Crown Mission www.crossandcrownmission.com
Oklahoma City, OK
Alumnus, 02-04,06
University of Texas - Arlington
PM Me if interested in supporting me in ministry
User avatar
JW
All-America
All-America
 
Posts: 545
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2005 4:34 pm
Location: Fort Worth, Texas

Postby Adam Gamradt on Tue Jun 03, 2008 9:14 pm

"when I listen to the guy speak, it makes me feel funny, like there is more to the story that he is holding back."

Funny, I feel the same way when people choose to believe only the passages of religious texts that support their view of the world.

1 Samuel 18:3-4

And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt

1 Samuel 20:41

"After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with is face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together - but David wept the most."
Adam Gamradt | www.minnesotalacrosse.org | "It's better to have a part interest in the Hope Diamond than to own all of a rhinestone." -Warren Buffet
User avatar
Adam Gamradt
All-Conference
All-Conference
 
Posts: 457
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:25 am

Previous

Return to Water Cooler

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


cron