Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Unhinged Clinton supporter: Dems throwing election away for ‘an inadequate black male’ Previous entry: ALLEGEDLY

Obama resigns from church

It was simply time to cut his ties to the Trinity United Church of Christ. (AP):

Barack Obama has resigned his 20 year membership in the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago in the aftermath of inflammatory remarks by his longtime pastor the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and more recent fiery remarks at the church by another minister.

Obama campaign communications director Robert Gibbs said Obama had submitted a letter of resignation to the church and would discuss his decision in a session with reporters later Saturday.

It happened “over the last few days,” Gibbs said. Messages left for a church spokeswoman in Chicago were not immediately returned Saturday afternoon.

...On Thursday, Obama was again forced to reject another man of the cloth, this time Pfleger, who made racially charged comments mocking Clinton in a guest sermon at Trinity United Church of Christ, Obama’s church.

Obama made it clear he wasn’t happy with the comments — in which Pfleger pretended he was Clinton crying over “a black man stealing my show” — and said he was “deeply disappointed in Father Pfleger’s divisive, backward-looking rhetoric, which doesn’t reflect the country I see or the desire of people across America to come together in common cause.”

It’s an abject lesson that mixing church and politics can inevitably get any pol in an endless amount of trouble. From McCain sidling up to Hagee/Parsley or Obama and the latest remarks by Father Michael Pfleger, it’s a crap shoot to inject your faith into “your game” of political ambition.

In Obama’s case, and for the Democratic party generally, the courting of the faith based vote has been purposeful—to make inroads into these communities and voters. Wearing faith on one’s sleeve was thought to be the best way to counter the belief that the Democratic party is a bunch of heathens, atheists, paganists, Satanists, you name it - all trying to persecute “Christians.”

However, pastors aren’t beholden to any focus group or poll; they don’t have to guard what they say—it’s inevitable that blowback, explanations and apologies can’t outweigh the endless MSM bleating about all of it.

Quite frankly, with the economy crumbling, an endless military action, and corruption at the highest levels of government, focusing on religious clerics and their misguided, inflammatory remarks is a waste of air time.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Pam Spaulding on 08:01 PM • (32) Comments

Of course, part of the problem is that this church was just that—-his church.  No other candidate has reporters camping out at his church night and day trying to make a fuss over what the preachers say.  And invariably preachers are going to say shit.  It’s their job.  And of course, the lesson here is that most get even more eager when you stick a camera in their faces.

Comment #1: Amanda Marcotte  on  05/31  at  08:09 PM

A media that focuses on the issues is a media that runs the risk of anti-trust laws actually being put back to work. A media which has been unsubtly backing the horses that are running over the public interest is a media that would find it embarrassing to change tactics.

Comment #2: Samantha Vimes  on  05/31  at  08:39 PM

...so the moral is:

Develop a reputation for being religious (happens automatically for Republicans, virtually impossible for Democrats). But don’t actually attend church (except very sporadically) or actually follow religious dogma.

Say a lot of religious platitudes. But don’t act on them.

Promise all kinds of religiously-based political action.  But never actually deliver.

Make the religionists believe you are “one of them”.  But mock them behind their backs.

And the world will be your oyster…

See Nixon, Richard
Reagan, Ronald
Bush, George H.W.
Clinton, William Jefferson
Bush, George W.
McCain, John
...

Comment #3: MikeEss  on  05/31  at  08:42 PM

(Psst: The phrase is object lesson. /pedantry)

Religion is just more trouble than it’s worth, ain’t it?

Comment #4: Orange  on  05/31  at  09:13 PM

I’d note here that, on this very site, Auguste found nothing wrong with the parts of Fr Pfleger’s speech that have caused Senator Obama to resign from TUCC.

I’ve been a parishioner at various churches for decades, and when I moved, I never had to “resign” from a particular parish; I simply moved, and reregistered with the new parish.  The notion that Mr Obama would have to resighn from a church he seems not to have been particularly interested in attending in the first place is rather humorous.

Comment #5: Dana  on  05/31  at  09:21 PM

Amanda wrote:

And invariably preachers are going to say shit.

No, actually.  Were I a presidential candidate (like that’s ever going to happen), the media could camp outside of every church I ever attended, and they’d hear, for the very greatest part, homilies based upon the theme of the readings for the day.  I’ve never heard a priest either support or condemn a candidate from the pulpit, nor make very much at all of a political message.  I can remember one homily on abortion in the past decade (on Respect for Life Sunday in the mid 1990s) and, a few weekends ago, Fr Torpey made what was really a passing reference to the subject (maybe a paragraph), and that’s it.

Then again, few Catholic priests have the kinds of delivery that we saw in the famous YouTube of Fr Phleger.

Comment #6: Dana  on  05/31  at  09:28 PM

What I still want to know is this—why is Obama teh big bad evul for being a member of Trinity Church, but Dubya is still the president after it was revealed that one of his closest “spiritual advisers” was a meth-addict who repeatedly paid for the services of a gay prostitute?

Comment #7: The Opoponax  on  05/31  at  09:29 PM

At the same time, I wonder, if you’d been a member of a particular church for 20 years, and there were in fact reporters camped out hanging on every word the pastor uttered, how many pastors could resist the temptation top speak their minds on the “important” issues of the day - and, used to people not particularly listening in the first place, could pull off an issue-based homily that DIDN’T have some tasty sound-bites for a media intent on stirring up trouble.

Delivery aside, most of what both these clergymen have been reported as saying, was, in context, not all that far off the mark.

Comment #8: Lymis  on  05/31  at  09:32 PM

Obama is held accountable every time someone at his church opens his mouth. Yet a pastor of a republican candidate’s church can deliver a sermon wearing a KKK hood and the rules change all the sudden.  Don’t you just love double standards?

Comment #9: Nirrti  on  05/31  at  09:33 PM

Mr Ess wrote:

Develop a reputation for being religious (happens automatically for Republicans, virtually impossible for Democrats). But don’t actually attend church (except very sporadically) or actually follow religious dogma.

Say a lot of religious platitudes. But don’t act on them.

Promise all kinds of religiously-based political action.  But never actually deliver.

Make the religionists believe you are “one of them”.  But mock them behind their backs.

And the world will be your oyster…

See Nixon, Richard
Reagan, Ronald
Bush, George H.W.
Clinton, William Jefferson
Bush, George W.
McCain, John

Not a very accurate list.  The presidential candidate who wore his faith on his sleeve the most in the last half-century was Jimmy Carter.  Richard Nixon and the elder George Bush hardly ever mentioned it.  Bill Clinton was photographed leaving church many times, but he never really campaigned on it.  About the only one I’d concede your point on would be Ronald Reagan.

Comment #10: Dana  on  05/31  at  09:33 PM

Lymis suggested:

I wonder, if you’d been a member of a particular church for 20 years, and there were in fact reporters camped out hanging on every word the pastor uttered, how many pastors could resist the temptation top speak their minds on the “important” issues of the day - and, used to people not particularly listening in the first place, could pull off an issue-based homily that DIDN’T have some tasty sound-bites for a media intent on stirring up trouble.

Be hard to say.  Obviously the media were not camped outside of TUCC for twenty years; it’s only recently, thanks to Mr Obama’s campaign, that attention has been paid.  But at least at parishes of which I’ve been a member, I can’t picture it, simply because of the personalities of the priests there.

Comment #11: Dana  on  05/31  at  09:37 PM

Respect for Life Sunday

That Dana casually referred to such a thing gives the lie to his entire post.

Not to mention that I attended a Catholic school, also in the 90’s, that held at least one annual mass on Teh Evul Baby Murdering Feminazi Aborshinissss!!11!11111!!!!!!  And that was in a school, a school not affiliated with any particular church congregation, which was open to students of all backgrounds.  So, no, sorry, the idea that most mainstream churches just aren’t political at all, no way, nuh uh, never happens is bullshit. 

My own childhood denomination, the Episcopalians, who tend to be pretty apolitical in an everyday pulpit sense, are imploding over gay rights.  A political issue, as I’m sure Dana is aware.

Comment #12: The Opoponax  on  05/31  at  09:38 PM

the shittiest part of all this, to me, is that Father Phleger is a great guy. Anyone in the Chicago area knows him becos hes always turning up on the news trying to combat youth violence and tighten restrictions on guns in chicago since more and more children in chicago keep dying. not to mention that despite being a middle aged white guy, he seems to actually understand the ways racism infiltrates every aspect of our society. im the last person i would expect to see defending a catholic priest, but Father Phleger is good people.

Comment #13: jessilikewhoa  on  05/31  at  09:53 PM

Bonus points if he “resigns” from religion while he’s at it.

Comment #14: Mike  on  05/31  at  09:56 PM

(Psst: The phrase is object lesson. /pedantry)

No harm done. An abject lesson serves as a warning to others. (In some varieties of English ‘object lesson’ is used.)

Comment #15: Pam Spaulding  on  05/31  at  10:01 PM

Pam, my favorite language site, Language Log (which tends to be more descriptivist than hard-ass, old-school prescriptivist), had this to say about abject vs. object lesson. (I love Language Log. It endorses my reasoned use of “they” as a gender-neutral singular, and demonstrates that there is no earthly reason to avoid ending a sentence with a preposition if that’s what you want to end it with.)

Comment #16: Orange  on  05/31  at  10:17 PM

I think it was the politically smart thing for him to do. Otherwise this stupid crap would’ve followed him all the way to November.

BTW, I love the new site layout! One complaint—can the second black bar to the left of this box (and to the right of the red bar) be moved over to the far right of the screen? It would make things easier to read.

Comment #17: Ben D.  on  05/31  at  10:18 PM

This shit is is just an inevitable consequence of the fact that in the United States we incorporate into our political discourse–indeed elevate to the highest level of importance–the delusional views of wackaloon religious assholes and the relationships of political candidates to those assholes.

http://physioprof.wordpress.com/2008/05/02/obama-wright-wackaloon-religious-assholes/

Comment #18: PhysioProf  on  05/31  at  10:49 PM

“The presidential candidate who wore his faith on his sleeve the most in the last half-century was Jimmy Carter.”

...and his life and his work after the presidency prove to me he actually is a believer, and not merely a poseur using the beliefs of other for his own political gain. 

I’m not be a believer myself, but I can respect a man who follows through on his beliefs for the benefit of his fellow humans.

OTOH, a man who thinks casually invoking the name of Jesus as an answer for almost any question, but who lives his life in a way far more suited to the Devil’s tastes?  That man deserves scorn.  George W. Bush is a great example of that…

Comment #19: MikeEss  on  05/31  at  11:20 PM

PhysioProf, you are correct.

The French Revolution was at least as much about reducing the overbearing influence of the Catholic Church as getting rid of the French monarchy. 

Our revolution was purely political.  We never really had that reckoning needed to properly balance the relationship of our religionists to our politics…

Comment #20: MikeEss  on  05/31  at  11:30 PM

The Opoponax said:

Respect for Life Sunday

That Dana casually referred to such a thing gives the lie to his entire post.

Sorry, but no.  I can remember one such homily on that event in a decade; most of the time, in the parishes in which I’ve lived, the priests didn’t mention it.  I’ve moved around a bit ~ three parishes since the mid 1980s ~ and yeah, I actually do pay attention in church.

My own childhood denomination, the Episcopalians, who tend to be pretty apolitical in an everyday pulpit sense, are imploding over gay rights.  A political issue, as I’m sure Dana is aware.

If it were solely a political issue, the Episcopal Chirch wouldn’t be “imploding” over it.  The problem is that the Bible clearly states that homosexual activity is sinful, and some Episcopal congregants think that means a church which professes to believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God ought not to have openly homosexual clergy living with their sexual partners.  That’s a religious issue for them, not a political one.  Whether same-sex marriage is legalized ~ that would be a political issue ~ has nothing to do with the current debate amongst Episcopalians.

Comment #21: Dana  on  06/01  at  09:18 AM

Dana, Dana, Dana!  If only the lines between the political and the religious were as bright and clear as you seem to think…

In the real world, the political and the religious are usually separated by thin, diffuse, gray lines - when they’re separated at all.

It must also be nice to believe the bible only has a single, unified, set of “correct” interpretations.  However, the history of Christianity - which seems to have started developing serious theological rifts about 5-mins after Jesus death - puts the certainty of your claim in serious doubt.

One person’s unmistakable truth is another’s heresy. 
As it is now, as it will be, and as it has always been…

Comment #22: MikeEss  on  06/01  at  10:33 AM

Dana, I’ll give credit where credit is due because you’re probably not an Episcopalian, but actually if you look at the conflict, it’s very clear that it’s along purely political lines.  Congregations in liberal parts of the “developed” world (Coastal/Urban US, most of Britain, etc) are in favor of gay rights within the church.  Congregations in more conservative parts of the world, generally “developing” countries and the southern/midwestern US, are against.  It’s not really a matter of theological interpretation, since neither camp sees the bible as a “literal” set in stone God’s Word Transcribed By His Own Hand Down Into The 1611 Edition Of The King James Bible kind of thing. 

I don’t see that it’s so difficult to just admit to the fact that it’s hard to separate religion from politics, especially at the individual level.  And even mainstream Christian churches tend to do a piss-poor job of it.  Which is generally a good argument for, rather than asking religions to divorce themselves from politics (though a good idea), we should also be asking our political leaders not to associate too openly with religion.

Comment #23: The Opoponax  on  06/01  at  01:06 PM

Ugh, that last sentence is hopelessly garbled, but I think you all probably get my point.

Comment #24: The Opoponax  on  06/01  at  01:07 PM

Dana, you can lie like that because no one cares enough to camp out at your church.  But I’m not stupid.  I try to avoid church like the plague, but every time I get roped into lately—-weddings, for instance—-I’m impressed by how no occasion can fly without political grandstanding hiding behind Jesus talk ruining every occasion.  No wonder no one wants to get married at a church anymore.  Who wants their wedding spoiled with bloviating about the importance of keeping women in second class status or rants about abortion rights?

Comment #25: Amanda Marcotte  on  06/01  at  03:19 PM

Oh god I will never forget the sermon at my uncle’s wedding, circa 1990.  The minister actually planned the whole thing around the idea that women shouldn’t worry so much about trying to be “equal” with men.  It was probably my first contact with really blatant anti-feminist bloviating.  Blech.

Oh, and this was my uncle’s church, in a different city, which I only attended the one time (for his wedding)—the fact that I heard one sermon this guy ever preached, and it was specifically political, kind of implies that this sort of thing is not entirely unheard of within Christianity.

Comment #26: The Opoponax  on  06/01  at  03:59 PM

Dana, once again I must ask you to quit while you’re behind, before you make an even greater ass of yourself than you already have.  Your right-wing talking point parroting, combined with your subtle acceptance of outright hatred as long as it’s based in religion, is only making you look more and more like the trolling dipshit you are.

Comment #27: Damian  on  06/01  at  04:54 PM

I don’t see that it’s so difficult to just admit to the fact that it’s hard to separate religion from politics, especially at the individual level.

It seems to me that one of the principle purposes behind the Enlightenment was the explicit separation of religion and politics.  Prior to the original humanists, the very concept that religion was an entirely separate domain from politics did not exist in the Western world.  Fast forward a few very bloody centuries and the rhetoric of the gospels speaks more about politics to me than theology, but due to American religious exceptionalism we have to pretend the literal progressive politics promoted by the gospels are metaphors about spirituality while the metaphors about christology/theology are literal.

Comment #28: KL  on  06/01  at  06:59 PM

I’ve heard black males are actually quite adequate, if you catch my drift.

Comment #29: ohyeah75_4u  on  06/01  at  07:01 PM

Reverend Wright told a flamboyant repressed Truth of American society since the Theft of America from the Native Americans.  Secondarily Reverend Pfleger, was the Exclamation point, in another Pervasive mentality of entitlement and it can be purchased, American Politics and Governments of today’s arena?  In church shall not all truth be told?
Now Everyone…, Let go, Move Forward and Live.

Comment #30: Peter Frady  on  06/02  at  12:31 AM

GiVIA6 qyazeiiltbdg, treuharyiakj, [link=http://kbfojornbyfo.com/]kbfojornbyfo[/link], http://vgnzshuqrfry.com/

Comment #31: lbxnssyxy  on  06/25  at  05:58 PM

I glad too see this interest site, I tell my friends about it! They like sites like that: site
<a > mp </a><a > mp </a>
mp mp mp mp

Comment #32: Vasilios  on  06/27  at  07:56 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.