Obama too lax with his faith

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Bobby
    June 5, 2008 8:40 a.m.

    To John Brush,

    I see it exactly opposite. You take religion too seriously, which is dangerous. The most horrible problems in our world today are rooted in people like yourself taking religion too seriously. You all need to be more lax with your bigoted, fanatic, irrational religious beliefs and the sanctimonious, self-righteous, patronizing attitudes it gives you, and instead love you fellow beings enough to leave them alone -- keep your religious paws off of other people's bodies and relationships!

  • Funny
    June 5, 2008 8:19 a.m.

    No one that I saw mentions McCain walking away from his religious endorsements, one from a protestant and one from a catholic. Both clergy men have made offensive, blind remarks in the past. Both were courted by McCain's campaign in order to bring in the evangelical voters. Both were disavowed by McCain after comments they made in the past were brought to light. ALL candidates do this sort of thing. This partisan finger pointing is ridiculous because every candidate has issues, and sometimes one candidates issue that they're lambasted for - the other candidate is just as guilty of.

  • Nelisse
    June 5, 2008 7:12 a.m.

    There is a huge difference for most people between a particular congregation and the whole religion, and between a congregation and general religious faith. While LDS people see their congregations as pretty much interchangeable and commit to the larger worldwide Church, many other Christians do not.

    My friend moved to a new town and decided that though she was Baptist, she did not like the local Baptist Church because it was too liberal and she didn't like the sermons. Her family attended another church. It wasn't even Baptist. It was not a huge deal. If she moves again, she may prefer another Baptist congregation, but may choose another church altogether. However, she doesn't feel her faith had fundamentally changed. She still believed in God and the Bible. That was the most important thing to her.

  • Anonymous
    June 4, 2008 11:23 p.m.

    Let's stipulate this: the state of UT will vote Rep like they are expected to by the old white men of the LDS and that, with 5 electoral votes, it won't matter in the least.

    Meanwhile, the country and the world are getting a very good look at the 18th century mentality of the LDS, your holy-than-thou attitude and your proclivity for deciding that Blacks, gays & women should be happy with second class citizenship and that every other state should be coerced into your ideas of morality.

    I was not particularly aware or interested in the LDS prior to the candidacy of Mitt Romney. Since I decided to become informed and have observed the opinions of Utahans on DN I have come to have an extremely low opinion of the LDS. I am sure individual Mormons can be decent people but as a group you I think you have a very negative influence on policy.

  • No, "Anonymous", 12:26AM
    June 4, 2008 11:01 p.m.

    No, the original written opinion that started this post was not, as you said, "another far-right wacko who mentally cannot let go of the fact that their boy Mitt can't cut the mustard."

    No, instead, this was an intelligent post by an astute observer who called it as it was; Obama cowered and cut bait when he came under fire for his association with his reverend / religion. Something Mitt did NOT do. Period.

    I'll tell you what your post is, though.....

    A demeaning attack on someone's character. You see, the original writer just made an observation; no name calling. You, on the other hand, called that person a, quote, "far-right wacko".

    If you're trying to get me to respect you and what you have to say, it isn't working....

  • I don't think...
    June 4, 2008 8:40 p.m.

    Barack is leaving religion behind, his current church maybe but he will join another church.

  • Mark B
    June 4, 2008 8:08 p.m.

    There isn't one in a thousand posters here who could even FIND that church. Nor do you really know what the sermons were like week after week, though everyone THINKS they do because of a few minutes of tape. And if I were looking for people who understand minority life in Chicago, I certainly wouldn't start with this group, who are taught not to be judgmental, but seem to feel just fine about ignoring that counsel if it can be done anonymously.

    Obama and his former church have split, and Joe Moe is right - he would have been attacked for EITHER going or staying. But people do it all the time, and it just isn't our business. If the church preached hate, there would be evidence of it - a street gang of Wright disciples or a member who burned down a local store following a sermon. No doubt we would hear about anything like this, but ... nothing.

    Instead of gossipy second guessing, the better among us should be sympathetic, even offering another way through religion's questions. But long ago, I guess, it all became a political scorecard. How sad.

  • Steve D
    June 4, 2008 7:20 p.m.

    Really good Lamonte, The usual liberal diatribe. You go off on your Websters word play. You can't get to a real point because you are wrong. You even admit there was nothing friendly about what he said, but all you can do is insult me, and you never make one point about your idological post about him being a "man of principle". You my good man are a liberal coolaide drinker. Say something about him following the crap spewed by Wright for 20 yrs then leaving when he deems in politically expedicious. Look that up in your websters.

  • Joe Moe
    June 4, 2008 6:59 p.m.

    Poor guy was in such a fix. Stick with Wright and carry that baggage, or leave the church and be labeled a turncoat or panderer extraordinaire. The conservative were going to nail him either way, and liberals weren't going to care either way. I guess he figured this is the best move for the independent vote he'll need so much.

  • Typical White Person
    June 4, 2008 6:37 p.m.

    "I don't think he's doing it just to help him get elected, I think he's doing it because he's tired of the garbage coming from that specific church's podium."

    He'd still be there if the Rev Wright, et al., tapes hadn't come to light.

    There... In the pew... With wife and family.


  • Cut Obama Some Slack!
    June 4, 2008 5:50 p.m.

    For crying out loud people!
    It's not like it was a real church, anyway.

  • Steve - Obama, the right Choice
    June 4, 2008 5:38 p.m.

    If Obama wants to leave his church and join another that's his business (and nothing wrong with it). He's not abandoning his morals, he's sticking to them (and they tell him that his current place of worship isn't the correct place for him and his family).

    I don't think he's doing it just to help him get elected, I think he's doing it because he's tired of the garbage coming from that specific church's podium.

    Good luck to him in November, I hope he wins.

  • Anonymous
    June 4, 2008 4:43 p.m.

    "Obama too lax with his faith"
    Leave it to a Utah neoconservative to start demonizing somebody about their faith.

  • Whats wrong with that?
    June 4, 2008 4:41 p.m.

    Faith or church is supposed to be an uplifting experience. If it ceases to be so, whats wrong with moving on? The author of this article writes like one is tied to their faith no matter what.

  • wrz
    June 4, 2008 4:20 p.m.

    Samme: "That keeps his adherents returning each Sunday... dancing in the pews in pure ecstasy at his rantings... Including the Obamas... until just recently."

    Actually, I doubt seriously if the Obamas were dancing in the pews as you suggest. They were probably shocked into petrification over Wright's tirades. Looking up at their beloved preacher with questioning and astonished expressions... staring in disbelief. That's why they left, twenty years later... and that ultimately gave them the drive and courage to condemn. Some decisions take time. Good for them.

  • Freddie
    June 4, 2008 3:46 p.m.

    "So far, no one has provided any evidence that this is the case with Rev. Wright, let alone Barack Obama."

    They're both too clever to put that on display. Besides, how many times do I have repeat that blacks cannot be racist. Only whites. It probably even says so in the Bible someplace.

    Just because Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton come to the defense of blacks only and not whites does not mean they are racists. Partial to black brothers and sister in trouble maybe, but not racists.

  • Anonymous
    June 4, 2008 3:23 p.m.

    The best thing America has seen in years.
    Bye-bye Neocons.

  • Samme
    June 4, 2008 2:53 p.m.

    jackhp: "Or to point out the REALITY of the history of black people in our country?"

    History is past. Everyone is trying to put it behind. The evidence being that Obama has secured the Dem nomination for Pres of the US... in white America with white American votes. Rev Wright needs to stop harping about the past. Start acting like an American. Start with dropping the "African" from "African American." Stop making racial insinuations. And tell his adherents and fellow pastors to do the same.

    Will he? No. Because he feels he needs to keep the racial divide roiling... to preserve racial tension and division in America. So he harps on the past. That keeps his adherents returning each Sunday... dancing in the pews in pure ecstasy at his rantings... Including the Obamas... until just recently.

  • jackhp
    June 4, 2008 2:11 p.m.

    Repeating your idiotic statements doesn't make them true. I'm sure there are black people who hate white people because they're white. They would be racists. So far, no one has provided any evidence that this is the case with Rev. Wright, let alone Barack Obama.

  • Ask Obama
    June 4, 2008 2:07 p.m.

    Ask Obama.
    He'll tell you Wright is a racist.
    Go ahead. Ask him.

  • ediddy
    June 4, 2008 1:59 p.m.

    As is sometimes the case, I don't agree with your spin on the subject at hand. I do appreciate that, unlike most of the anonymouse comments here and the name callers, your point has some fact and reason. I may end up voting for Obama in the Fall, but I still question his motives and the feeling of elitism I sense in him. I still question the timing of his leaving Wright's congregation. Surely he heard the racist overtones years before. His change seems related to political expediency than to core values. I hope I'm wrong.

  • don't hold your breath
    June 4, 2008 1:44 p.m.

    A black man as president of the United States.
    What a concept!
    Does this mean that if he makes it, Utah legislators will be taking part in Martin Luther King Day like the rest of the country?

  • jackhp
    June 4, 2008 1:42 p.m.

    Really 1:29 p.m.? Please quote and cite a source for Obama calling Wright a racist.

  • Freddie
    June 4, 2008 1:38 p.m.

    jackhp -

    You musta missed it. Blacks can't be racist. Only whites.

    What I don't understand is... why do blacks wish they were white? Or, at least not black? Black is beautiful. Whites are always at the tanning salon or the beach trying to get black (tan). Go figure.

  • jackhp
    June 4, 2008 1:34 p.m.

    Seriously MEB, how is it racist to decry white racism? Or to point out the REALITY of the history of black people in our country? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying some of the things Wright says aren't offensive. But as I previously implied, "offensive" doesn't equal "racist".

    I don't believe Imus is a "racist". Did he make a racially charged comment that was offensive? Yes, but that doesn't mean he's a racist. People need to understand that racism is a deeply held BELIEF that one race is SUPERIOR to all others. I don't believe for a second that Wright or Imus believe that. Being offensive or ignorant and being a racist are not the same things.

  • Chris Plummer
    June 4, 2008 1:28 p.m.

    Reverend Wright taken out of context is as bad as Brigham Young taken out of context.

  • ask a biracial Hawaiian
    June 4, 2008 1:29 p.m.

    hey Jack hp:

    Ask Obama.
    He'll tell you Wright is a racist.
    Obama say bye bye.

  • Wright the Racist
    June 4, 2008 1:25 p.m.

    Wright draws conclusions about and levels accusations against all whites based on, well, based on whatever is running around in his febrile lame mind.

    He is a racist

  • lost in DC
    June 4, 2008 1:14 p.m.

    no comment other than I wouldn't trust Obama's judgement any more than Rocky Anderson loves GWB. just amused to see what others are writing. Yep, lamonte, here's where we disagree.

  • MEB
    June 4, 2008 1:09 p.m.

    Seriously, jackhp. You're alone in your world. Well, maybe you have the pleasant company of Reverend Wright. Those statements are widely accepted as racist, even by many who are actually supporting Obama, and are glad to see that he finally separated himself from this pastor so that he has a better chance of winning the presidency.

    They are far more offensive than the little quip (very offensive, BTW) that Don Imus made. Don lost his job. There is no place in this country for that level of civic discourse. You are free to say it, but don't be surprised when others call out for an apology.

  • jackhp
    June 4, 2008 1:05 p.m.

    Does Wright hate white people because they're white? Does he believe blacks are inherently superior to whites? Does he think interracial marriage should be outlawed between blacks and whites because it would diminish the black gene pool? Does he support lynching of white people if they look cross-eyed at a black person?

    Racism is a very serious charge. I'll need a bit more proof than just a couple of rants on the Internet decrying the white power structure in our country for their history of poor treatment toward black people. If you have proof of anything similar to what I've outlined above then I'll be happy to join you in calling him a racist.

    As far as I can tell, Rev. Wright doesn't hate white PEOPLE; he hates white people's RACISM. He may be off (at times extraordinarily so) in his characterization of white racism but that doesn't make HIM a racist.

  • wrz
    June 4, 2008 1:00 p.m.

    "wrz - please explain how Barack Obama could have racists attitudes towards white folks - if he is one - or against black folks - if he is one."

    He doesn't have a racist attitude against anyone. By definition, Black folks cannot be racists. No minorities can be racists. That is a definition alloted to others.

  • Freddie
    June 4, 2008 12:45 p.m.

    "Is Rev. Wright a racist?"

    No. There is an unwritten law (or maybe more like a guideline) that says blacks cannot be racists. Only whites.

  • lamonte
    June 4, 2008 12:44 p.m.

    Steve D - I guess you would know what Reverend Wright said every Sunday for 20 years because you were there, right? I know where you get your news, from the same right wing rags that fill the minds of the majority of Utahns. You should really try to get out more often.

    Reverend Wright "admonished" Barack? Really? Have you ever used that word in a sentence before? Perhaps you meant criticized, lambasted, condemn, deride, disparage...but not admonish. There was nothing gentle or friendly about what the reverend did to Obama.

  • jackhp
    June 4, 2008 12:37 p.m.

    That doesn't prove he's racist. He didn't say "I hate Hillary because she's white." He was making a point that the black experience in the country, especially for someone from HIS generation, is a very differnet from the white experience. That doesn't make him a racist. That makes him a realist.

  • lamonte
    June 4, 2008 12:34 p.m.

    wrz - please explain how Barack Obama could have racists attitudes towards white folks - if he is one - or against black folks - if he is one. You see, he, among so many candidates, is uniquely qualified to understand the great chasm that exists between the races in this country because he has been the victim of prejudice from both sides - especially on this blog page.

  • change is good.
    June 4, 2008 12:23 p.m.

    I don't think I've ever seen such childishness before in America in my 63 years.
    And the group most at fault is that in which believes their neighbor is some kind of internal enemy or traitor for daring to upset the applecart and push fo progress and change.
    When that sort of thing happens you are dangerously close to a fascist system.
    I want my old America back!

  • MEB
    June 4, 2008 12:19 p.m.

    OK, jackhp, here are a few:

    December 2007: Hillary aint never been called a ni----. Hillary has never had a people defined as a non-person.

    December 2007: Barack knows what it means living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich, white people. Hillary would never know that.

    April 2003: The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes three-strike laws and wants them to sing God Bless America. No! No No! God d--- America for killing innocent people.

    ...to name a few. There are dozens more if you want to go look for them.

  • Mark B
    June 4, 2008 12:02 p.m.

    to: Birds 10:31
    You don't know me. Perhaps you "talk down" to other people you don't know about what "character" is and isn't. Most people resent a wagging finger in their face.

    If Obama had no real convictions at all, don"t you think he could have avoided the whole mess by just claiming a very generic set of beliefs, like Reagan, that had no real part in his personal life? My "problem", as you put it, is that professed beliefs have no demonstrated relationship to presidential success. I already cited Lincoln (no church) and Nixon (Quaker) as examples. One was the best president of all, the other a failure. Carter, a Christian, regarded as unsuccessful while FDR, a religious part-timer, was a success. Today, it's McCain, adulterer and lackluster student from a party-hard military tradition, vs. Obama, at this moment unattached to a formal church, but with a history of belief. I don't know which would make a better president on the basis of this comparison, and neither do you. But public demonstration of beliefs is a poor guide to presidential success, as Bush's example clearly shows.

  • whatever
    June 4, 2008 11:53 a.m.

    Some trust their intuition, their gut, and if something just doesn't sound right - they move on.

    Others, who are told to NEVER trust your gut but to follow the orders and commandments wouldn't dare leave the flock for fear of losing their souls and they "stay the course."

  • jackhp
    June 4, 2008 11:45 a.m.

    "divisive and destructive" does not equal "racist". Saying he's racist implies he hates ALL white people BECAUSE they're white. Is that true? If so, I'd like some evidence please.

  • Steve D
    June 4, 2008 11:41 a.m.

    Sheesh Lamonte, where do you get your news, "the force". He left after Wright admonished him for not supporting the racist rants he had been listening to for 20 years. Yes all you liberal lunk heads, 20 YEARS. How many times does it have to be repeated before you get it. 20 YEARS. Obviously he left to salve his political wounds. He is NOT a man of priciple! He is a politician.

  • MEB
    June 4, 2008 11:32 a.m.

    @jackhp - Are you kidding? Have you been asleep the past two months? Even his close friend, Barak Obama, has admitted that Wright's words are "divisive and destructive".

    Seriously, spend 10 minutes and do a google search on the subject in case you are really interested. My guess is that you are not, so you won't. It's easier not knowing.

    No matter - Obama finally did the right thing.

  • wrz
    June 4, 2008 11:23 a.m.

    Mary Beth:

    It's not so much that B. Hussein Obama was a member of Wright's church or that he decided to leave it. It's about the fact that he sat there for years listening to a preacher uttering racist tirades and who is obviously racist... and did little or nothing about it until it was brought to his attention. Does that mean Obama has racist tendencies or sympathies toward racist attitudes? The American people have a right to get the answers. I think he is and does. That's just my opinion.

    I would add that I think, with effort, he can get over it.

  • Mike Richards
    June 4, 2008 11:20 a.m.

    The question is one of core values. Whatever a person's religious beliefs are, those beliefs should reflect his core values - values that won't change ever for any reason - short of a Damascus experience.

    No matter who the person is, candidate or best friend, when that person changes core values, questions will and should be raised about whether that person actually has core values.

    When we vote for a public official, especially for the President of the United States, we should expect that person to have core values that will not change because of the results of polls that are printed in the morning newspapers.

    Pandering to public opinion has no place in the Office of the President.

  • Anonymous
    June 4, 2008 11:19 a.m.

    A man of faith, conviction, style, integrity and principle.
    The type people from Utah despise but wish they could be more like.

  • jackhp
    June 4, 2008 11:06 a.m.

    Is Rev. Wright a racist? Just because many people repeat the charge, that doesn't make it true. Can someone please provide some evidence?

  • Samme
    June 4, 2008 11:05 a.m.

    >>The focus on Obama's leaving his church to join another because of unsolicited negative publicity is irrelevant. Of course, his Kansas family will be minimized to focus attention on his "foreign" African roots.

  • lamonte
    June 4, 2008 10:51 a.m.

    ediddy - You may recall that Obama did not leave his church after the tape of Reverend Wright was shown spewing racist statement. He was not present when the reverend made those remarks and they were uncharacteristic of his usual sermons. He (Obama) took the opportunity to educate the country about the history of racism. He spoke of the feelings and motivations of folks in the black church, their longstanding feelings of persecution despite legislation and public pronouncements from white politicians, and he spoke about the feelings of white folks who feel they have been shortchanged in the country's efforts to make things right for African Americans. You see, because of his personal family history, Obama is the only candidate who can speak with authoirty on this matter. It was not until Reverend Wright reiterated his racist feelings at the National Press Club that Obama denounced him. And then finally when Obama's church allowed a Cathoilic Priest to give a surmon that was very offensive to Hillary Clinton did Obama actually resign his membership in that church. He is a man of principle.

  • psychological damage
    June 4, 2008 10:43 a.m.

    It is well-known the psychological damage that patriarachal, authoritarian systems can have on a person.
    It denigrates the psyche of the women.
    It puffs up the ego of the men.
    And in both cases, dehumanizes everyone and serves only those in power-positions.

  • Mary Beth Sorensen
    June 4, 2008 10:37 a.m.

    How many enlightened people chose to leave the LDS church because of its racist beliefs prior to the uniquely convenient revelation of 1978?

    They were probably criticized by many for belonging to a church with such unconscionable teachings, and were criticized again when they left only to be shuned as apostates.

    There is much to be admired in the LDS church and much to be condemned. However, to criticize an person for making a decision to join with or leave a church is a individual decision which should not be second-guessed.

    No church is perfect, neither in its leadership or membership. Just like a family, we have to take the bad with the good if we choose to be associated with it. However, there is always the choice to disassociate from either the church or family when circumstances make it impossible to stay.

    In Utah, the paramount opposition is because he a Democrat and is not LDS like Mitt Romney. Although Romney is a good and capable man, his supporters remain angry because he was rejected, for the most part, because of his religion. Therefore, religion is very important in choosing a national leader for people of Utah.

  • good enough to repeat
    June 4, 2008 10:35 a.m.

    David Craig obviously was bothered by the posting that he felt he had to repeat it.
    The truth hurts.
    It also can set you free.

  • Birds of a Feather
    June 4, 2008 10:31 a.m.

    flock together. Wright, Ayers, Pflegler, SF elites. Certainly not the close friends one would expect from a uniter. Especially since these friends trade in the currency of division.

    Mark B, you are so mis-guided. It is exactly the personal stuff that determines how one will function in office. That personal stuff is called character. We all base our actions on our beliefs. Why do you have such a problem that many of us consider Obama's beliefs to be transitory.

  • David Craig
    June 4, 2008 10:26 a.m.

    Anonymous | 9:22 a.m. June 4, 2008
    I commend anyone that walks away from any patriarchal, authoritarian system.
    It takes courage. Not much of that in Utah.
    They just do as they're told.

    Ha Ha - where's your courage mr anonymous

    Obama made a gross error of judgement listening to the hate preacher for 20 years and has corrected it now, the question is, having had such a truly useless president for 8 years, do you want another with poor judgement?

  • Anonymous
    June 4, 2008 10:23 a.m.

    Utahns are still miffed that Mitt Romney bailed on them.
    These letters are their only mode of expression and they are grinding their axes.
    How utterly childish these people are!

  • Gus Talwynd
    June 4, 2008 10:20 a.m.

    Such nonsense. When Barack Obama remained affiliated with his church, many critics pilloried him for staying. Now that more controversy has erupted and he decides to leave, he is castigated for leaving. This is a no-win situation.

    The wingnuts and extremist right-wing talking heads strategize how they can best attack the man depending on whatever he says or does. Damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

    Surely the same applies both ways on the political field of battle, only the Republicans are masters at these techniques. Developed by David Segretti under Nixon, honed by Lee Atwater with Reagan, and exploited by Karl Rove with Bush Jr., one must acknowledge the skill to attack and destroy the opposition to win the battle.

    Hillary Clinton unleashed a negative strategy which will undoubtedly by embellished upon and finely tuned to make Barack Obama appear to be "evil incarnate". West Virginia voters went for Clinton because they still think Obama is a muslim and he has a funny-sounding name.

    The focus on Obama's leaving his church to join another because of unsolicited negative publicity is irrelevant. Of course, his Kansas family will be minimized to focus attention on his "foreign" African roots.

  • Anonymous
    June 4, 2008 10:05 a.m.

    These postings are mere flame-wars.
    It doesn't really matter.
    Neocons get what they deserve.
    They get McBush.
    The majority of America gets Obama.

  • Mark B
    June 4, 2008 10:05 a.m.

    Put me down as disgusted with this type of letter, which we will evidently get to read until Election Day. First, Obama is attacked as a secret Muslim (printed in DN). Then he's a secret hater of whites as judged by not one word of his own, but selected bits of selected sermons of his pastor. NOW we have a letter saying he's proved himself as without morals because he left the church everyone thought was full of haters in the first place.

    Folks, get a grip. This is personal stuff. None of this determines how someone will function as president. Lincoln wasn't a member of ANY church, and Nixon was supposed to be a Quaker. It's OK to ask if a Christian could drop nuclear weapons, or if a Muslim could enforce laws against polygamy, or if a Quaker could support any war, but NOT to judge someone by their membership in one church or another. Don't let yourselves be led by goofy letters like this one.

  • MEB
    June 4, 2008 9:46 a.m.

    Furthermore, where are all of those people who agreed with Wright 2 months ago, and said that Obama was doing the right thing by standing by him? There were a number of people writing into these comments defending Wright. Their comments ranged from "I agree with Wright, he speaks the truth" to "He only said this one time." Now, all of a sudden, Wright is personna non grata?

    My, how things change when its convenient. Some of you are so enamored by Obama that you would defend any wrongdoing.

    Kind of like the Bush supporters that you deplore.

  • Dear re orion
    June 4, 2008 9:46 a.m.

    Should we assume that Obama agreed with everything his pastors said during his 20 years in his church? I don't think so.

    Obama was straight forward about his reasons for quitting his church. He said that the press will report anything a pastor says as if Obama's views matches that of the pastor. Nothing is further from the truth.

    If you believe everything that comes out of your bishop's mouth, I feel sorry for you.

  • MEB
    June 4, 2008 9:41 a.m.

    Whether or not Obama maintains his membership in TUCC is between him and the TUCC. I understand (and applaud) his decision. I don't think it affects his faith and morals.

    Here's where it becomes important. As voters, we have to choose who we will vote for without a real track record as president. In other words, if we knew today what Bush was like (both Republicans and Democrats), would we vote for him? Fact is, when he was running for office, we should have been looking for signs or personality flaws that would help us make a decision.

    In the case of Obama, what does it say about his belief system if this is where he chose to spend his free time for 20 years? More importantly, Obama has chosen to differentiate himself from other candidates by saying that he will have open dialog with our enemies (like Iran and Cuba). So, if he can't even maintain a relationship with the church he has belonged to, and his close friend as a minister, what will happen when he gets in a discussion with Castro or Ahmadinejad when they say things he doesn't agree with?

  • tough times for neocons
    June 4, 2008 9:38 a.m.

    This letter proves these are indeed tough times for the modern American conservative movement.
    I say give them all the time in the spotlight they want. They reveal themselves and their nasty ways daily. They use religion as a wedge and patriotism as a bludgeon.

  • ediddy
    June 4, 2008 9:36 a.m.

    Hey guys! The saliet question here is not about slamming each other over whether Obama is bad because he was associated with Wright then or bad because he left him now. The question (Lamont) is why it took him 20 years to leave this ministers mentorship. It seems convenient politically that he only left when the racist comments became public. If it was inconsistent with his personal core, why did he only leave when it became politically expedient to do so? I don't know his motives in every case, but when it is left to us to vote for someone we will never personally know, it is legitimate to judge as best we can by actions seen and the timing of those actions. The Wright issue is only one of the visible signs of who Obama is. another is his guns and bible comments in SF. In spite of what you FEEL about him on an emotional level, none of us will ever get close enough to this man who will so personally affect our lives to judge him correctly. Vote for whom you will, but don't go ballistic when someone suggests that actions don't reflect beliefs. Difficult election.

  • sorry Obama-boys
    June 4, 2008 9:23 a.m.

    you'll have to come up with a better excuse.

    we all get how other churches let you pick your preacher.

    the question is why did Obama stick with Wright 20 years and then dump him?

    is Obama a racist or a dupe or a turncoat?

  • Anonymous
    June 4, 2008 9:22 a.m.

    I commend anyone that walks away from any patriarchal, authoritarian system.
    It takes courage. Not much of that in Utah.
    They just do as they're told.

  • Dick
    June 4, 2008 9:13 a.m.

    Religon and politics should be separate they are any place but Utah.

  • wrz
    June 4, 2008 9:05 a.m.

    Bart, I think the lambasting is because he didn't get out 20 years ago. Since he didn't, that indicates he was either passive about Wright's tirades or agreed with them. Both not a good sign for the next leader of the free world.

  • R.C.Orme
    June 4, 2008 9:03 a.m.

    The way I see it it is, he left a congregration not his Church. I am sure he will find another to attend. He said nothing about leaving his beliefs or his faith. Moving from one building to another has nothing to do with giving up his ethics or morals. Yes I would have applauded Mitt for leaving the LDS fold if the LDS leadership had behaved as the infamous Rev. Wright. But lets get down to the real reason for your article. PANIC, Mr. Brush PANIC. You along with the rest of the McBush bunch have had your day. Its BARACK n ROLL time. By the way don't you think "Dominating the United States" is a little dramatic! Save the drama for Obama....

  • Samme
    June 4, 2008 8:54 a.m.

    >>The reason??? Because he was NOT Offended!!! That's why! He liked it. It is his own feelings.

  • Dutchman
    June 4, 2008 8:49 a.m.

    I don't have a problem with Obama doing what he did by walking away from his church but he took his kids there and sat with them. Did he really think this was a place to bring children to hear all the hate mongoring? I have to laugh when people criticize the LDS Church when all these other so called christian churches are nothing more that weekly politcal meetings. Do they ever preach Christ and him crucified at these churches? When I attend church I expect to hear the gospel of Christ, the atonement, and the reason for the creation.

  • Lew
    June 4, 2008 8:37 a.m.

    Anonymous: Hint: in the rest of the world people don't necessarily go to Church regularly. There is no public sanction if they choose to attend or not.

    Indiana: "Too bad people can't see the truly good out there (Mitt)." Is it "people" who can't value Mitt, or the Republicans who wouldn't vote for him in the primaries? Think hard now.

  • re orion
    June 4, 2008 8:15 a.m.

    the bottom line is Obama new for 20 years what was coming out of the mout of Wright. Only when it affected His goal of leading the free world did He find any problems with the hate talk taught in the reverends church

  • fr1nk
    June 4, 2008 8:13 a.m.

    I for one would prefer a president who doesnt attend any church. Our current president wears his religion on his sleeve and is the worst president ever. I hope he did attend this church for political reasons.

  • jackhp
    June 4, 2008 8:06 a.m.

    Not even close to the same thing. This would be like Mitty leaving his "ward" because he didn't like stuff the "bishop" said or did. Obama didn't leave his "faith" and morals behind, just the man and the Church who seemed to have gotten out of hand.

    Get a clue . . .

  • LDS Convert
    June 4, 2008 7:59 a.m.

    Resigning from his church is not the same as giving up his morals or beliefs. It is similar to an LDS member having a difference with the bishop so they start attending a different ward. This doesn't mean that you are no longer LDS or that you gave up your morals and beliefs. Not all churches dictate where and when you attend church as the LDS religion does. He is free to resign from one church (LDS Ward) and attend another that meets his and his family's needs.

  • Anonymous
    June 4, 2008 7:54 a.m.

    The LDS Church is hierarchical, believing in a single, restored gospel and line of priesthood authority. Most Christian denominations are not. Even within a particular denomination, some preachers (like Wright and Hagee)might teach beliefs not held by the majority of their co-religionists. When Obama resigned from his parish, that does not mean he resigned from Christianity.

    My guess is the letter writer knows this. If he doesn't, he shouldn't be writing about the issue. His letter is either intellectually dishonest or ignorant.

  • Kevin
    June 4, 2008 7:29 a.m.

    I bet the evangelical wackos would applaud it. Secular wackos like me would applaud it. I might reconsider voting for him. But friend, religion is not about morals and ethics. It tries to be, but isn't. It's about the belief of fluff.

  • Can It
    June 4, 2008 7:20 a.m.

    We step into the realm of the unnecessary and even stupid when we even ask if the candidates go to church. It only divides us, and presumes that morals and beliefs come only from a church. None of this is true, and shows the overhyped role religion plays on the public stage these days, especially of course in Utah. I'm voting for the candidate. I don't go to his church, and I don't know if he does either. Faith is a personal, not group experience.

  • Mr. Glass
    June 4, 2008 7:20 a.m.

    It's absurd to assume being a member of a religion is a requirement to be a moral and ethical person. Usually, religion is lacking in sound moral and ethical standards. Obedience to religious authority, for example, weakens our morliaty because it deprives us of our ability to use reason and common sense when making moral choices.

  • Bart
    June 4, 2008 7:11 a.m.

    This letter is so disgusting it almost makes one want to puke. First they attack Obama for staying in the church and now lambast him for leaving. Good grief!! Christian churches in general are completely different from our LDS church. Their memberships are not treated at all like they are in your ward or stake. Lighten up and get a grip.

  • jr
    June 4, 2008 7:02 a.m.

    Many a Mormon walks away from their faith too I guess especially when they realize it is not something they believe in. No people walk away from what they don't want to be associated with. Faith is not based on going to a building, faith is within your heart and soul, just as your morals are. I do not have less faith or moral because I choose to move away from a cultlike religion. Obama has his standards and since when should we judge his faith

  • lamonte
    June 4, 2008 6:32 a.m.

    I'm not sure what is more offensive, John Brush's insulting our intelligence or the fact that we live on the same planet with someone of such moronic mentality. Hasn't it been within the past month and certainly for weeks prior to that that those of Mr. Brush's ilk were criticizing Obama for his asscoiation with Pastor Jeremiah Wright. And so now that Obama breaks off that association the right wing finds another dark niche to criticize. If this is the biggest and best attack the Republican's have against Obama it should be a sweet and easy ride into the White House for Barack and Michelle Obama.

  • Rdub
    June 4, 2008 6:28 a.m.

    Obama walked away from his racially white hating faith only to be elected period. He knew that his personal radical belief system was/is out out of touch with mainstream America. All thinking Americans undestand this.

  • Grover
    June 4, 2008 6:23 a.m.

    The sad fact is John, that if Mitt Romney would abandon his religion he would be MORE acceptable to the Republican base. But Mitt still has one last gasp, he may be "saved" by McBush to be his running mate. Otherwise, he will have to do a reverse Reagan and become a Democrat to ever be widely acceptable candidate. Democrats want the trains to run on time and don't care about your religion (like Reagan).

  • Anonymous
    June 4, 2008 6:09 a.m.

    He walked away from his church when it was exposed and became uncomfortabel to him. Where was his judgement 5 or 10 or 15 years ago. He should remain who he is. If his church was ok then it should remain that way now. He is changing for the chance to win the election. I don't hate Obama and I will not vote for McCain but the facts are the facts.

  • Indiana
    June 4, 2008 5:56 a.m.

    The trouble here in my mind is he should have walked away a long time ago. The fact that he didn't just tells me that he was comfortable there until someone else told him that it was offensive. Why did it have to take him so long to find that out? Why couldn't he see it on his own? People may want to ask those very questions. Heaven help us if America is stupid enough to elect this wiley character.

    The reason??? Because he was NOT Offended!!! That's why! He liked it. It is his own feelings. I don't know why so many faint etc while he is speaking unless it is all that hot air coming out.

    Romney is a great man and would have done a great job for America and still would if given the chance. Too bad people can not see the truly good out there.

  • Agki
    June 4, 2008 5:36 a.m.

    It seems that LDS can't get used to the idea that Protestant churches are not a monolithic organization with essential specific dogmas that are required for all. In the LDS "faith", there is a central body that spells out belief tenets that are then transmitted down to the rank and file membership. Protestant churches are highly diverse and range in belief from the most fundamentalist down-to-earth-up-to-God-far-out-bible-beating backwoods (and I mean backwoods!) groups of farmers and bootleggers to Unitarian-Atheist Alliances located a block away from Ivy League universities.

    When a preacher's sermons offend the crowd, they can fire him/her, go to another church or stop going altogether and take their morality and opinions with them. No changes within the individual are implied.

  • orion
    June 4, 2008 5:06 a.m.

    Apples and oranges, John Brush.

    If the leader of the LDS Church spewed the hate and discord as did Reverend Wright and the priest, I would expect, that as a man of deep personal honor, Mitt Romney would do the same.

  • GWB
    June 4, 2008 5:06 a.m.

    The letter writer attacks Obama for leaving his church, but I dare bet he would cite Rev. Wright as a reason to vote against Obama if he continued his affiliation with Trinity United Church of Christ.

    The writer probably wouldn't vote for Obama under any circumstance and this letter is just a way to try to stir the pot.

  • It's All Bad
    June 4, 2008 1:53 a.m.

    Obama's relationship with the church he attended for 20 years raises very troubling questions about the Senator:

    Did he accept the racist hate that Wright (and others) spewed from the pulpit. If so, he is unfit to hold any office.

    Did he spend 20 years there and actually not pick up on what Wright represented, as he claim he does now that he has rejected Wright? If so he is a frighteningly poor judge of character.

    If he did not believe what the church taught why stay for 20 years? Was it a cynical use of church attendance to further his Chicago political fortunes? Not very sincere.

    And if he did believe what the church taught the fact that he has abandoned it now for political advantage speaks poorly of his convictions.

    No matter what version you accept, it speaks poorly of the man who wants to lead our nation.

  • anon
    June 4, 2008 12:59 a.m.

    He walked away from his church, not his morals or beliefs. Even more kudos to him.

  • Anonymous
    June 4, 2008 12:26 a.m.

    Another far-right wacko who mentally cannot let go of the fact that their boy Mitt can't cut the mustard.