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!
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.
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.
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, 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....
Barack is leaving religion behind, his current church maybe but he will join
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.
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.
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.
"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.Guaranteed.
For crying out loud people!It's not like it was a real church, anyway.
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
"Obama too lax with his faith"Leave it to a Utah neoconservative to start
demonizing somebody about their faith.
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.
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.
"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.
Obama.The best thing America has seen in years.Bye-bye Neocons.
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.
Freddie,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.He'll tell you Wright is a racist.Go ahead. Ask him.
Lamonte,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.
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?
Really 1:29 p.m.? Please quote and cite a source for Obama calling Wright a
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.
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.
Reverend Wright taken out of context is as bad as Brigham Young taken out of
hey Jack hp:Ask Obama.He'll tell you Wright is a racist.Obama say bye bye.
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
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.
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.
Freddie,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 - 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
"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.
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.
MEB,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.
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.
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!
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.
to: Birds 10:31You 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.
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."
"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.
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.
@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.
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.
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
Obama.A man of faith, conviction, style, integrity and principle.The
type people from Utah despise but wish they could be more like.
Is Rev. Wright a racist? Just because many people repeat the charge, that
doesn't make it true. Can someone please provide some evidence?
>>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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Anonymous | 9:22 a.m. June 4, 2008I 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 anonymousObama 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
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!
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"
These postings are mere flame-wars.It doesn't really matter.Neocons
get what they deserve.They get McBush.The majority of America gets
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
Religon and politics should be separate they are any place but Utah.
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.
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....
>>The reason??? Because he was NOT Offended!!! That's why! He liked it. It is
his own feelings.
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.
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.
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
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.
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 . . .
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
He walked away from his church, not his morals or beliefs. Even more kudos to
Another far-right wacko who mentally cannot let go of the fact that their boy
Mitt can't cut the mustard.