Like I said earlier, there are no underlying factors keeping me tied to the Catholic Church. There is nothing in it for me either financially and/or politically. NOTHING!

Wright publicly preached hate in his sermons, sold hate on DVDs, placed hate in the Church’s magazine called the Trumpet, Awarded Farrakhan a Lifetime Achievement Award (not twenty years ago, but just last year), etc. Obama knew damn well what was going on, yet continued to attend the Church while it happened. On the other hand, most Catholics including myself had no idea about the perverted actions of 2% of the clergy. Those deranged sob’s committed their crimes personally, it wasn’t taught as part of any theology. Wright taught his ideology openly to his congregation. For me, it is an entirely different situation. If this makes me a bigot and hypocrite, so be it.

Further, this mess within the Catholic Church has come to light and the Church has responded.

I didn’t notice this before, but you claim to be friend of Obama, you characterize him as man of “principle”. A man running for President, who knowingly chooses to associate himself with an admitted terrorist, bigots and haters of America in the World According to GE FAN is a man of “principle”. That says it all.

Obama is in it to win it, nothing more. He kept ties to his pastor until the cost outweighed the benefit. April 29th, the Gov of N.C. endorses Hillary, also on April 29th, Obama publicly cuts ties with Wright. See the connection there?

Hillary is now closing the gap in N.C. and in one case up. But I guess me and all those folks are just stuck on stupid.

Hillary Clinton Takes Lead Over Obama 04/29 - 04/29 571 LV 42 44 Clinton +2.0

I am glad you defend your friends, I would expect nothing less of you.

Just to show my great balance, here is a perceptive article by Dan Henninger in the WSJ.

Where Were Obama's Friends?
May 1, 2008; Page A15

It's tough being Everyman.

Way back when, before the angry and antic prophet Jeremiah rose to smite him, Barack Obama appeared before us as an open presidential vessel, into which many poured their political dreams.

Foremost were black Americans. Bill Clinton famously diminished the Obama candidacy during the South Carolina primary as just one more Jesse Jackson fling. But across the black community, support for this candidate clearly had deeper roots. Head to head against Hillary, he has been getting huge majorities of the black vote. This was their moment.
Wonder Land columnist Dan Henninger notes that no prominent Democrats stood with Barack Obama during the candidate's recent dark hour.

Upscale white voters signed on and were belittled as liberals exorcising white guilt. Maybe, but for many Obama was also the un-Bush and un-Hillary.

Independents worn down by 16 years of Red-Blue trench warfare bought the "change" promise. Obama sounded like he could pull it off. Indies like to dream.

Brand-name Democrats, such as various members of the Kennedy aristocracy, went over, calculating it might be easier to push the party forward with Obama's lightness of being than the Clintons' boxcars of baggage.

The periodic ideals of young America we know about.

Even as they watched Barack win, pundits and reporters were agog that a one-term, black-American senator from Illinois could have such an effect. This pickup-team coalition of idealists and pols, led by a virtual Luke Skywalker, was on the brink of pushing the Clinton empire over the cliff. It made the Clintons crazy.

This week we learned the limit of a dream in American politics. At Barack Obama's darkest hour, not one prominent ally came forward to support him. Everyone abandoned Everyman.

No prominent black clergyman came forth to make even the simple point that Jeremiah Wright's notion of the "black church" is but one point on a spectrum of faith. Rev. Wright, now written off as a virtual nut case, got more support from black clergymen than did Obama.

Barack Obama was bleeding by Monday and needed cover. Where, when he could have used them, were Obama's oh-so-famous endorsers: Jesse Jackson, Ted Kennedy, Oprah, John Kerry, Chris Dodd, Patrick Leahy, Tom Daschle, Amy Klobuchar, Claire McCaskill, Jay Rockefeller, John Lewis, Toni Morrison, Roger Wilkins, Eric Holder, Robert Reich, Ted Sorenson, Alice Walker, David Wilhelm, Cornel West, Clifford Alexander, Donald McHenry, Patricia Wald, Newton Minow?

Where were all the big-city mayors who went over to the Obama camp: Chicago's Richard Daley, Cleveland's Frank Jackson, Atlanta's Shirley Franklin, Washington's Adrian Fenty, Newark's Cory Booker, Baltimore's Sheila Dixon?

It isn't hard for big names to get on talk TV to make a point. Any major op-ed page would have stopped the presses to print a statement of support from Ted Kennedy or such for the senator. None appeared. Call it profiles in gopher-holing.

Blogs and Web sites are overflowing with how this meltdown is largely of Barack Obama's own making. What difference does that make? He is not running for class president; he's running for the presidency of the United States. Even at the crudest level of political calculation and cowardice, there's a point in a presidential race when a candidate's supporters are all in. We passed that point weeks ago. It's him or her.

Analysts and historians will spend years sorting through the lessons of this most bizarre of all presidential campaigns. The Obama desertion points in a few directions.

The nature of modern media coverage and the length of the campaign (two years!) has made these presidential candidates truly larger than life; indeed, they've become almost cartoon-like. Their personas dwarf and overwhelm the parties to which they nominally belong.

As entities, the parties continue to recede. The Democratic superdelegates, created to represent the party's interests, look like deer frozen in the headlights of the two candidates' roaring tractor trailers.

As for the supersized candidates, what strikes one most about them is their "aloneness." They look so solitary. Indeed, it is possible that the old and honorable notion of "standing with" a candidate like Obama simply didn't occur to his famous supporters this week. Everyone has become used to watching celebrity stars and athletes take it in the neck on their own. Even someone running for the nation's presidency looks like just another personal crack-up.

What about the voters – the average Joes and Janes showing up in record numbers in formerly obscure primary states? It's wonderful to learn so much about the politics of Rhode Island, eastern Indiana or swaths of central Pennsylvania, and the candidates themselves are pressing more retail political flesh than ever. The result, though, is pretty clinical – data flowing into exit-poll categories whose fluctuating post-primary percentages are somehow more exciting than, well, real people.

The list is long this week of supporters who let Barack Obama hang out to dry. More than a few were last seen running out on Hillary Clinton. Perhaps the solution here is for the two soloists to meet, flip a coin, and spend the next six months as a pair running against John McCain. It looks like they're the only friends they've got.

quote:

Originally posted by bitterboy:

I didn’t notice this before, but you claim to be friend of Obama, you characterize him as man of “principle”. A man running for President, who knowingly chooses to associate himself with an admitted terrorist, bigots and haters of America in the World According to GE FAN is a man of “principle”. That says it all.


I am glad you defend your friends, I would expect nothing less of you.

I never said he was a friend. I said I know him. Let's try to be a little accurate in using each other's words to attack each other's positions. What, have you been training in the school of Jombl?

And real, quick, I know it is off topic but when did the Catholic Church respond? I, as a confirmed Catholic, am still waiting for the response. Shuffling the priests around from one church to another to help bury the mess is hardly a response in my estimation.

I know you said that you and the Pope are friends. I'm glad you defend your friends, I wouldn't expect anything less from you.

And one more thing - you still haven't shown me how Obama's ties to his church ever benefitted him....sans gaining 10,000 votes in a state that he had locked up.

quote:

Originally posted by bitterboy: Obama is in it to win it, nothing more.

So, McCain and Clinton are in it to lose it?

quote:

Originally posted by bitterboy:
On the other hand, most Catholics including myself had no idea about the perverted actions of 2% of the clergy. Those deranged sob’s committed their crimes personally, it wasn’t taught as part of any theology. Wright taught his ideology openly to his congregation. For me, it is an entirely different situation. If this makes me a bigot and hypocrite, so be it.

Further, this mess within the Catholic Church has come to light and the Church has responded.

As the youngest of nine Irish-American Catholic children, I find it hard to believe that anyone can say that we haven't known about the pedophile priests for years. The church did not respond in any way, shape, or form until recently. Before we knew about the crisis, be certain, the church knew about it. They originally responded by denying and moving priests. No one is holding us responsible as the pew-sitters. Why should Obama be held responsible for what was said when he was sitting in a pew listening?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: little...way,

quote:

On the other hand, most Catholics including myself had no idea about the perverted actions of 2% of the clergy. Those deranged sob’s committed their crimes personally, it wasn’t taught as part of any theology. Wright taught his ideology openly to his congregation.

You didn't know...but the pervert's bosses sure weren't in the black about it. And they run the show. They set the policies. They shuffled priest from parish to parish. State to state. All in the name of hiding this dirty little, well-known "secret". So, BB...you need to come to the dark side with me and start attending the Church of Good Deeds. Do unto others, etc. Help those you can. Etc. But be warned, being a good person (and I am) will certainly get me a first-class ticket to Hell. At least I'll be down there with a clean conscience.

'Scuse me. One more thing. (That was my Peter Falk as Columbo impression through my keyboard)

The United Church of Christ is an entire denomination. United Church of Christ website
Reverend Jeremiah Wright is one retired pastor at one church. He's not the leader of the whole church. Do we all agree with everything that every priest says from the pulpit? Do we consider what they say to become the theology of the church? Or, do we understand that it is one priest's opinion on any given Sunday?

Uh, I think I'm done, but don't be surprised if I'm not.

little...way: as i mentioned earlier...we all knew THEN at my catholic high school that the sophomore english teacher was molesting boys. he would even take boys off to his lake house. my 14 year old sister even saw him in boxer shorts through the patio window with the boy across the street (whose mother was up at the rectory being the church secretary. 8 years later the new pastor would begin molesting boys there.) (both have now been locked up or now kept under lock and key) this was in the 70's...we all knew, but we also knew that nothing would be done about it. the catholic church has alot to answer for...am i personally responsible for not turning this guy in as a powerless 15 year old? you know, maybe i am...
and wow, i've sure listened to some weird stuff from the pulpit at various catholic churches...very weird. just about 2 years ago at the kick off to our kid's teen youth group mass we were treated to a rant at st. pet's by a visiting priest calling all of our kids sex-crazed bad people (i paraphrase) ...a rant that went on for almost 40 MINUTES!!!!! and we sat in the pews...not one of us got up and told this guy to knock it off. and there were children (under 11, say) in the audience.
on second thought...maybe everyone SHOULD be judging us cradle catholics as nuts...just the way they're judging obama.
frankly, i think it would take alot more that rev. wright to really influence a harvard-law educated university of chicago law professor.
it KILLS me to see hannity night after night riffing on this rev. wright stuff. last night colbert was hysterical...lumped himself, hannity, and "papa bear" (o'reilly) together as the irish catholic contingent (hope they don't fire colbert from teaching religious ed)

ENOUGH ALREADY!!!

quote:

Originally posted by howdy60137:

frankly, i think it would take alot more that rev. wright to really influence a harvard-law educated university of chicago law professor.
it KILLS me to see hannity night after night riffing on this rev. wright stuff. last night colbert was hysterical...lumped himself, hannity, and "papa bear" (o'reilly) together as the irish catholic contingent (hope they don't fire colbert from teaching religious ed)

That's that part that gets me. That's the part that shows, to me, how close minded and nonobjective the people are who are making this an issue.

Like I said, love him or hate him for his politics, inexperience, liberalness, etc., but give him some credit.

The guy went to a great college, then went to Harvard Law School, then taught at University of Chicago...and we are going to believe that he is influenced, to the point of tyranny, by a Pastor in a church.

Please!

on the daily show last night jon stewart played a tape of billy graham talking to nixon around 1972 bemoaning the influence of jews on the country...great stuff!
and who has george bush had as a spiritual influence these past 7 years...dick chaney.
gus, i was thinking of your comment a few days ago that we need a business man in the white house...we have one right now and look where we are! george w. is our first MBA (yale) president, who has run businesses. yet, we are now facing a deficit for a war started on a lie which our great-grandchildren will probably be paying for!!!
let's get back to the real issues!

quote:

Originally posted by little...way:
'Scuse me. One more thing. (That was my Peter Falk as Columbo impression through my keyboard)

The United Church of Christ is an entire denomination. United Church of Christ website
Reverend Jeremiah Wright is one retired pastor at one church. He's not the leader of the whole church. Do we all agree with everything that every priest says from the pulpit? Do we consider what they say to become the theology of the church? Or, do we understand that it is one priest's opinion on any given Sunday?

Uh, I think I'm done, but don't be surprised if I'm not.

Glad you brought that up. In 1957, the United Church of Christ formed through the union of the Evangelical and Reformed Church with the General Council of Congregational Christian Churches.

The Congregational Church dates back to the Pilgrims.

Howdy, we as a nation, collectively, don't know what bad is. Exactly how long did you expect the economic expansion to last? Take out the slight downturns and this has almost been a quarter century of incredible growth.

You also fail to mention the attacks of 9/11 and how Bush and Greenspan, despite my displeasure with the sub prime mortgage fiasco, resurrected the economy with it's tax cuts. But don't worry, you might get your tax increases as you wish, and then we'll see what happens. You seem to dismiss the economic, political, and emotional impact the destrucion of the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, and quite possibly, the White House, had on this great country. I for one, do not.

As to BG and Nixon, who cares. Looked what happened to him! You seem to point out flaws of the 2 above named individuals but I guess that should apply to Obama too, correct??? When Jesse Jackson referred to New York as Hymie town he basically got off the hook. The press seemed to forgive him of that so I guess Obama will be treated with the same Kid Leather Gloves, no?

I'm waiting to validate the information that I got from a friend as to the "professions" of various presidential candidates the past 20 or 30 years. It was entitled "The Democratic Party-A party of lawyers". It listed the various Dem vs. GOP candidates and thier occupations prior to political office. Please stand by, intresting reading but I need to verify. I'm sure Ronkas and Fan will be glad to hear that!

Finally, you cannot PROVE in any way, shape, or form, that Bush lied to the country regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. The dems have been trying to do this for years but to no avail. I'm sure it would have led to impeachemnt, which they were gunning for. For sure it was bluff contrived by Hussein but that did not play out to his expectations. Instead of living in luxury, he's pushing Daisies up with a country in ruins most of it by the hands of his own people. But, as 60 Minutes Aired, Hussein admitted it was only a matter of time before he would have resurrected his nuclear program. This comes from a guy who tried to create one of the greatest enviromental disasters by blowing up his oil wells, or have you forgotten that incident. Wonder what he would have done with a nuke or 2 in his hands? Funny, haven't heard any rebuttals to that segment that aired on prime time. I guess, in the end, Bush and Cheney were naive to think that a Democratic, popularly elected government, could form in Iraq. Maybe some day it might. I pray that this is the case and do have hope in modern man.

As to Cheney, the Dems did their damndest to pin corruption via his oil deals with Halliburton but alas, to no avail.

What concerns me is the "hatred" and anger that seems to prevail in a PART of the African American community. It's time to try and heal these scars which I think the Fed Government has been trying to address since the 50's. I do believe, based upon my travles, that the US is the most progressive nation in the world regarding it's political and social mores. Of course, there is always room for improvement. Improvement needs to come forth from all sides.

In the end, I would bet you that Rev Wrights comments were NOT the first time heard by Sen Obama. This is my hunch, right or wrong. It finally surfaced and I am sure will derail his campaign either for the dem race or presidency, whichever comes first.

And believe it or not, I turn off the TV when Hannity or O'reilly start to rant. Sort of what I did with Dan Rather. They can all be a pain in the A**!

Sorry Gus, but without resurrecting the old merry go round of arguments we had, Bush was an incompetent business man and is an incompetent President.

I am interested in that new book "Thirteen American Arguments." Heard the author on the radio and it sounds like an interesting historical analysis, showing in one part that the great social issues in the country's history began in the churches. For good or bad, that's where they have started.

By the way, Jackson was pretty much vilified for his comments, but he is made of teflon. Unlike Robertson, Falwell, Hagee and others. But, speaking of Hagee, isn't it funny that he said God punished New Orleans for the Gay Pride parade and spared most of Bourbon Street? "Glad to have his endorsement" says McNasty.

For God's sake we can't lose Bourbon street! I think we all agree on that one.

gus...i agree with you on hannity and o'reilly, and about bourbon street for sure!
peace out!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ronkas:
Sorry Gus, but without resurrecting the old merry go round of arguments we had, Bush was an incompetent business man and is an incompetent President. QUOTE]

At the risk of sticking my neck out, calling W an incompetent President is risky thinking. Has he done more or less what every other President has had the opportunity to do? Call your side for the war, but there have been no other American soil terrorist attacks due to his leadership. It is about time some of these people and countries realized that there are consequences to their actions.
Business man? Maybe not, but as President, you can hardly make the assertion of incompetence. No more so than any other President that has had to face the world's issues.

Rob: You know what. You are right. There have been no more domestic terrorist attacks since 2001. Then again, from 1941-1995, there were none, unless you count the 60's when the word terrorist had no meaning. The event in 1995 was perpetrated by a veteran. This does not make Bush competent.

One needs to look at the entirety of incompetence, and you only have to look at the last press conference to see the "senioritis" this man exhibits. Review the tape, and tell me he exudes the respect for the office.

Let's start with the economy. Republican congress/Republican President. Nirvana for conservatism right? Deficits that would make Reagan blush.

Go to foreign policy. He has revived the specter of "ugly american" around the globe, and has allowed Putin to revive the idiots in Russia. Don't even debate the war, which will go down in history as the greatest American foreign policy blunder.

Domestic policy. The Constitution gets a thorough going over by John Ashcroft and Gonzalez, and we get an Attorney General who can't seem to be able to comment that water boarding belongs only on episodes of 24. We immunize the phone company after the fact for turning over records as if martial law existed.

January 20 is going to be the greatest day in my children's life. Somebody competent will take over.

Fan,

You stated:

quote:

I know Barack Obama personally and I know him to be a good man, a man of principle and a man of great loyalty to his country.

Knowing someone personally and vouching for their character led me to believe you are friends. Sorry.

You stated:

quote:

What, have you been training in the school of Jombl?

I’ll take this as a compliment.

Then you asked this:

quote:

And real, quick, I know it is off topic but when did the Catholic Church respond? I, as a confirmed Catholic, am still waiting for the response. Shuffling the priests around from one church to another to help bury the mess is hardly a response in my estimation.

Little…way brought up an excellent point, when he/she stated:

quote:

“He's not the leader of the whole church”

I couldn’t agree more little..way. However, he is the leader of HIS church. This is a vacuous (got that from Ron) position, particularly if you’re arguing that it was alright Obama stayed, rather than leave in the first place.

You see Fan, the situation is quite different as there are different ecclesiastical structures at Protestant Churches (like Wright/Obama) and Roman Catholic Churches. The UCC is a very loose confederation of churches. Mostly, the confederation is for financial reasons, i.e. it is harder to get operational loans to run church offices and buildings if one is a totally solo church. But if one is part of a larger group, it is easier to do so, but I digress....

In the Roman Catholic Church, priests serve at the pleasure of the Bishop. They are truly assistants to the Bishop to help him in his regional ministry. But in Protestant Churches, the "pastor" is not a priest at all, he is actually a solo operator, working at just one church. There is no boss for him. He is the boss, so to speak.

The sex scandal in the Roman Catholic Church was resolved when Bishops removed the guilty priests from office. They removed the guilty priests from office due to complaints from parishioners. Thus, the parishioners were acting in a moral way, seeking to protect the interests of the community from the sick sex pervert priest.

If the Bishop would not remove the priest from office, then, I think, it would be quite appropriate to go to another church. But there is a grand system in place for order in the Roman Catholic Church which there is not in Protestant Churches, which, like I stated above are all solo operators.

For Obama's situation, it is slightly different. The local parishioners would have to decide, as a group to remove him. Or, they could decide individually, to leave. As there is no ecclesiastical structure in place that could force Wright from office, the responsibility clearly lays completely with the local parish.

Two different church situations, entirely.

Anyone who would go to a church of this loosely structured denomination clearly shares the views of the pastors that this is okay.

Back to the Roman Catholic Church - no one shares the ideas that having sex with boys is normal. Those priests have been removed from office and many are in jail or in mental hospitals.

No Bishop has the power to remove Wright, Obama and his co-parishioners must do so. But, they won't, because, clearly, they agree with him.

I hope this answers your question, because I can’t answer it any better. I respect your opinions and you, at times, can be quite a persuasive writer. I hope you respect my opinions and we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: bitterboy,

What a load of bull **** IMO. You cannot really be supporting the Church? You cannot really be trying to validate the actions of the "leaders" of the church.

But, even if you are, although I cannot agree with the logic and facts that you write, I will agree to disagree. I will end it here.

That is all.