Conservatives? What did Reverend Wright say that was so wrong?

[RandFan]

Monday morning quarterbacking.

In 2008 (the OP), we had the choice of a rather young senator from Illinois, a former first lady or a former maverick who sold out....

This untested and rather young senator from Illinois had very little information available about him. So in 2008, the question was brought up about his personal connections and what those connections said about him.

He sat in that church for 20 years... If he objected, he would have left the church. It is that old saw about judging a person by the people he associates with. So we have Wright blaming the US for getting attacked on 9/11 (which any serious historian will agree... we do have some blame there for our international actions). But to the masses, this wasn't a valid criticism because it attacked our collective national victimhood.

At the same time, we had the associations with Bill Ayres and other VERY left leaning individuals. Now combine those ideologies together and what kinds of assumptions (yes it does make an ASS out of U and MPTION) can we make about this young untested and unknown senator?

That was the real issue brought up. Is he going to be a pussy and apologize for being American (ie the world apology tour, which BTW he kinda did), or is he going to be ***MAN*** and go out and kick ass and chew bubble gum.

It really was a question about his manhood and his ideology.

Okay, thanks. From that perspective I certainly had no qualms. And at the time I was a registered Republican who supported the Iraq war.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Now we have the choice between a former Illinois senator who's shown no left-leaning inclinations over the last four years, and a former governor who is STILL a member of a church that institutionalized racism until just a couple decades ago, one which he could have left at any time (if he objected).

The LDS church leadership figured that crap out 34 years ago -- and at the time, many local churches and a lot of their membership had already decided it was long overdue.

Obama's church is still openly racist today.

Hardly a comparison that favors Obama.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Is he still in the racist church?

 

[RandFan]

The LDS church leadership figured that crap out 34 years ago -- and at the time, many local churches and a lot of their membership had already decided it was long overdue.

Obama's church is still openly racist today.

Hardly a comparison that favors Obama.

Based on my understanding of how and why they were racist, I have no problems with it. Blacks did not oppress and enslave Mormons. Blacks did not institute the equal of segregation with Jim Crowe laws against Mormons. And Romney could have left the Mormon church when they did prevent blacks from holding the priesthood. I do very much think it favors Obama.

 

[gnome]

TruthersLie, care to have a go at my question? Right now I'm looking for anyone who has a problem with Obama and Wright's association to address it. So far nobody has.

 

[xjx388]

Let's see: According to Mr. Wright, the American Government:

• Created HIV to kill minorities
• Perpetrates terrorism overseas, like Hiroshima and Nagasaki
• Knew about Pearl Harbor and did nothing
• Engineered the Tonkin Incident as a pretext for entering the Vietnam War
• Gives minorities drugs

And a candidate for POTUS sat in his pews for years. Obama did a good job deflecting this in his speech and he subsequently won.

I, personally, have a much bigger problem with his association with Bill Ayers.

 

[RandFan]

Let's see: According to Mr. Wright, the American Government:

• Created HIV to kill minorities
• Perpetrates terrorism overseas, like Hiroshima and Nagasaki
• Knew about Pearl Harbor and did nothing
• Engineered the Tonkin Incident as a pretext for entering the Vietnam War
• Gives minorities drugs

And a candidate for POTUS sat in his pews for years. Obama did a good job deflecting this in his speech and he subsequently won.

I, personally, have a much bigger problem with his association with Bill Ayers.

Guilt by association fallacy (ad hominem) and ad populum, appealing to passion and prejudices. I would never vote for Wright or Ayers. Where did Obama embrace the views of Ayers or support him monetarily or otherwise? In fact it was a largely casual relationship, the result of circumstance and not shared ideology. Also, where has Obama repeated or embraced the views of Wright?

 

[gnome]

Let's see: According to Mr. Wright, the American Government:

• Created HIV to kill minorities
• Perpetrates terrorism overseas, like Hiroshima and Nagasaki
• Knew about Pearl Harbor and did nothing
• Engineered the Tonkin Incident as a pretext for entering the Vietnam War
• Gives minorities drugs

And a candidate for POTUS sat in his pews for years. Obama did a good job deflecting this in his speech and he subsequently won.

I, personally, have a much bigger problem with his association with Bill Ayers.

You're missing the key part of my question, which was when... was he saying stuff like "god damn america" that whole 20 years?

 

[AvalonXQ]

Also, where has Obama repeated or embraced the views of Wright?

It's a problem either way you look at it.

If Obama sat and listened to Wright for 20 years and was affected by his sermons, then he's picked up some very bad ideas that an American president should not share.

If Obama sat and listened to Wright for 20 years and was not affected by his sermons, then I question his sincerity as a faithful churchgoer and genuine Christian. It seems to me that the only person who could possibly pull that off is someone who's not really listening because he's only there for show.

It seems to me there's a lot of circumstantial evidence pointing to Obama's religious "beliefs" being largely political, and this is certainly one of the bigger pieces of that.

 

[pgwenthold]

Obama's been a decent Commander-in-Chief.

Decent?

Tell me anyone who's been better in the last 50 years.

Obama has been a SPECTACULAR C-i-C.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

It's a problem either way you look at it.

If Obama sat and listened to Wright for 20 years and was affected by his sermons, then he's picked up some very bad ideas that an American president should not share.

If Obama sat and listened to Wright for 20 years and was not affected by his sermons, then I question his sincerity as a faithful churchgoer and genuine Christian. It seems to me that the only person who could possibly pull that off is someone who's not really listening because he's only there for show.

It seems to me there's a lot of circumstantial evidence pointing to Obama's religious "beliefs" being largely political, and this is certainly one of the bigger pieces of that.

Couldn't he have sat there and listened to Wright's sermons about actual Christian theology and just glazed over during the racist rantings? Does it have to be either or?

I just don't get this widespread doubt of Obama's religion. It seems to me that people who would be infuriated if someone doubted their faith are all too willing to doubt the faith of others.

 

[RandFan]

If Obama sat and listened to Wright for 20 years and was affected by his sermons, then he's picked up some very bad ideas that an American president should not share.

Not necessarily no.

If Obama sat and listened to Wright for 20 years and was not affected by his sermons, then I question his sincerity as a faithful churchgoer and genuine Christian. It seems to me that the only person who could possibly pull that off is someone who's not really listening because he's only there for show.

Wait, this is a Christian Church not a club. Obama certainly could embrace the theology while rejecting or simply not accepting of these various ideas that, BTW, are worthy of discussion IMO.

It seems to me there's a lot of circumstantial evidence pointing to Obama's religious "beliefs" being largely political, and this is certainly one of the bigger pieces of that.

Well of course. There's also lots of circumstantial evidence pointing to America being behind 9/11. An entire cottage industry has sprung up around it.

I don't find Wright's opinions pernicious or traitorous. More importantly I find nothing pernicious or traitorous about Obama's stated views and policy decisions. Further, Obama has repudiated those things. There's just no there, there.

Now, as for Romney, I find nothing in his policies or or views to demonstrate racism. I think it would be fair to ask him about that and I think it's fair for people to try and find out if he is a racist. If Romney fairs as well as Obama then big deal.

 

[osbo]

To point out, baring the fringe of both sides, liberals and conservatives alike thought Reverend Wright commentary was absolutely wrong.

Obama, as he expressed outrage and shock at a press conference on April 29, 2008:

I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened by the spectacle that we saw yesterday... The person that I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago. His comments were not only divisive and destructive, but I believe that they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate, and I believe that they do not portray accurately the perspective of the black church. They certainly don't portray accurately my values and beliefs. And if Reverend Wright thinks that that's political posturing, as he put it, then he doesn't know me very well. And based on his remarks yesterday, well, I may not know him as well as I thought either.... What became clear to me is that he was presenting a world view that contradicts who I am and what I stand for, and what I think particularly angered me was his suggestion somehow that my previous denunciation of his remarks were somehow political posturing. Anybody who knows me and anybody who knows what I'm about knows that I am about trying to bridge gaps and I see the commonality in all people. ...[A]fter seeing Reverend Wright's performance, I felt as if there was a complete disregard for what the American people are going through and the need for them to rally together to solve these problems. ...[W]hatever relationship I had with Reverend Wright has changed, as a consequence of this.

 

[RandFan]

To point out, baring the fringe of both sides, liberals and conservatives alike thought Reverend Wright commentary was absolutely wrong.

Until a year ago I was a life long Conservative and registered Republican. I'm an unabashed patriot. I love America and I have defended America passionately in this forum for a decade now. I like capitalism and I do not share Wrights views on HIV, American govt involvement with the drug trade etc.

I do not believe that Wright's commentary was absolutely wrong. As a skeptic I hold views provisionally and embrace the market place of ideas with no prior conclusions as to any proposition.

I guess that makes me fringe, go figure. Okay, fine, so what?

 

[DavidJames]

It's a problem either way you look at it.

If Obama sat and listened to Wright for 20 years and was affected by his sermons, then he's picked up some very bad ideas that an American president should not share.

If Obama sat and listened to Wright for 20 years and was not affected by his sermons, then I question his sincerity as a faithful churchgoer and genuine Christian. It seems to me that the only person who could possibly pull that off is someone who's not really listening because he's only there for show.

It seems to me there's a lot of circumstantial evidence pointing to Obama's religious "beliefs" being largely political, and this is certainly one of the bigger pieces of that.

Of course it's a problem anyway YOU look at it. I suggest throwing off your ideological cloak. Judge the man by his actions. Don't cherry pick whatever suits your bias and draw CT like conclusions.

It's unbecoming.

 

[osbo]

Until a year ago I was a life long Conservative and registered Republican. I'm an unabashed patriot. I love America and I have defended America passionately in this forum for a decade now. I like capitalism and I do not share Wrights views on HIV, American govt involvement with the drug trade etc.

I do not believe that Wright's commentary was absolutely wrong. As a skeptic I hold views provisionally and embrace the market place of ideas with no prior conclusions as to any proposition.

I guess that makes me fringe, go figure. Okay, fine, so what?

Perhaps I mispoke when I dealt in absolutes.

But now I'm curious: aside from blaming the victim...what did you agree with in terms of what Wright said?

 

[AvalonXQ]

Of course it's a problem anyway YOU look at it. I suggest throwing off your ideological cloak. Judge the man by his actions.

The man wasn't elected by his actions; he was elected by the strength of his rhetoric and the appeal of his ideological cloak.

 

[RandFan]

Perhaps I mispoke when I dealt in absolutes.

But now I'm curious: aside from blaming the victim...what did you agree with in terms of what Wright said?

No problem. I do it all of the time and I never exaggerate.

Let's take the two most inflammatory statements that I (and I'm willing to bet you too) have read or heard dozens of times. "Blacks should not sing 'God Bless America' but 'God damn America.'"

Many blacks believe that America has yet to address it's past and, as MLK said, live up to our creed (All men are created equal). From that perspective I can understand harsh rhetoric. I don't think it's a binary truth but simply a value. I think many blacks suffering poverty and oppression don't want to simply be patriotic in the hopes that some day America will have, in the minds of blacks, lived up to that creed.

America to blame for 9/11. America has in many instances acted atrociously. We have committed crimes, helped to over throw democratically elected govts and killed populist leaders and their followers. Our hegemony often ignores the desires of sovereign citizens and we do so simply for our own purposes. What about failing to get consent of the govern? What about unelected power? Are these things not inherently antithetical to our tradition?

Can you imagine if Obama cut a deal with Castro or Chavez to install a Cuban or Venezuelan military base in America? American citizens would be spouting Jefferson and talking about 2nd Amendment remedies. Can you imagine the Soviet Union teaming up with BP Global to squash a popular uprising in America? We've done these things.

Now, would I use Wright's rhetoric or arguments? No. Do I think his remarks justified by the facts? I don't find that to be a binary proposition. It's a bit more nuanced than that. I dislike black and white thinking.

 

[Brainster]

Guilt by association fallacy (ad hominem) and ad populum, appealing to passion and prejudices.

You consistently get that guilt by association fallacy wrong, and it's tiresome. Guilt by association takes a (relatively) trivial commonality between two things and then draws the false inference that the two things are therefore alike in other ways as well.

The Wikipedia article notes this form:

John is a con artist. John has black hair. Therefore, all people with black hair are con artists.

Or, as I like to put it:
Hitler was a vegetarian and evil
Morgan Spurlock is a vegetarian
Therefore, Morgan Spurlock is evil.

It is not a fallacy to point out that Obama associates with distasteful people like Wright and Ayers. If you met someone who told you he was good buddies with David Duke, would that tend to make you wonder about his character? It certainly would bother me.

 

[xjx388]

Guilt by association fallacy (ad hominem) and ad populum, appealing to passion and prejudices. I would never vote for Wright or Ayers. Where did Obama embrace the views of Ayers or support him monetarily or otherwise? In fact it was a largely casual relationship, the result of circumstance and not shared ideology. Also, where has Obama repeated or embraced the views of Wright?

I fully realize that my feelings are just that: My feelings. It's probably not exactly fair that I feel this way. However, I do judge people by the company they keep. I'm not going to vote for a conservative that associates with, for example, KKK members either. The fact is that Ayers was a low-level domestic terrorist. He used violence to attract attention to his cause. I don't understand how he is accepted in Chicago politics but I guess that's the way things work there . . .

Similar for Wright. Why did Obama choose to attend that particular church? Surely there were other alternatives. The fact is he chose to sit there and listen to stuff like that and I think that says something about him. I put myself in his shoes: If I went to a church and heard a message like that, chances are I wouldn't be there very long.

Again, totally subjective, but there it is.