Some Things just need to be Said….
In my office today, two of the guys were discussing the flap about Obama and his minister. They asked what I thought Obama should do about it.
I said, “Nothing. Obama isn’t responsible for his minister’s opinions. His minister is responsible for his own actions.” They both started to argue with me on this point.
Why, I wonder, is the culture of “taking responsibility for your actions” so selective on this crap?
So I said what needed to be said, namely, ‘Based on your logic, Ted Haggard’s congregation is responsible for his decision to hire a male prostitute.”
This was greeted with silence.
Oh, and if anybody is interested, since I’m Catholic, that same logic could be applied to the actions of far too many priests. Do you think I’m responsible for their actions?
Me either.
March 15th, 2008 at 10:47 am
isn’t the IRS suppose to pull the tax exempt status of churches that preach for a certain candidate. Aren’t they only suppose to support issues?
March 15th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Maybe he should do nothing. Now it all makes sense why we have to hide the fact his father is a Muslim,why he doesn’t wear a lapel pin and why his wife says the things she says. The sad part is that this is going on in black churches across the nation the same thing that is going on in Mosques. Imagine not being proud of the country that gave them the opportunites she had.
My only thing would be to see the media treat this the same had it been a republican’s church.
March 15th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Ditto on what Chris wrote.
March 16th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Jet’s right. Obama isn’t responsible for his pastor’s words. He’s responsible for joining a Church and remaining in a Church where the senior pastor preaches hate. He’s responsible for donations supporting a Church where the senior pastor preaches hate. He’s responsible for having a senior pastor who preaches hate marrying him. He’s responsible for taking the title of a sermon of a senior pastor who preaches hate as the title of his “Here I Am America, Elect Me!” book. He’s responsible for having a senior pastor who preaches hate as his spiritual adviser, not only personally but on his staff. He’s responsible for (in my opinion) pretending, until this hit the fan, that he had no idea that the guy who was responsible for his born again experience and 20 year spiritual influence was a hate-monger.
So no. Obama isn’t responsible for the pastors words. He’s just responsible for making a pastor who speaks like that such a long-term influence on his life, the life of his children, and upon his political career. That’s actually, in my opinion, quite enough for Obama to bear responsibility for.
Imagine, if you will, if McCain were a member of a Church whose pastor were a KKK, white supremacist for the last 20 years and tried to pretend that he had no idea his pastor was a white supremacist and that he didn’t leave the Church in disgust immediately as soon as he found out what sort of messages were being preached in that Church.
Now imagine what BIO! would do with THAT!
Craig R. Harmon
March 16th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
As for Haggard, correct me if I’m misremembering, but didn’t he quit the ministry roughly immediately upon being caught? Seems to me he did. Quit and apologized. Now, if (a) Haggard had remained pastor of the Church and (b) Haggard had not apologized but continued on as though hiring male prostitutes and taking illegal drugs were perfectly normal, Christian behavior and (c) the congregation not only let him remain pastor but heard him preaching that it was okay to do drugs and hire prostitutes, I’d say you have a point, Jet. But so far as I know, no one in Haggard’s congregation knew of his behavior and when they did, action was taken against Haggard. Haggard apologized and left the ministry. There’s simply no comparison between that — conducted in secret and dealt with immediately and decisively upon news of it becoming known — and a Congregation’s senior pastor preaching such hatred publicly to such a large Church.
Look. Everyone, by now, has viewed videos of those sermons. They weren’t preached in some hotel room in secrecy. They were preached to a congregation of roughly 6,000 to 8,000 people. Now, either those inflammatory bits were altogether the norm in his preaching, in which case, there’s just no way Obama didn’t know the pastor preached those things or those inflammatory bits were rare and seen as outrageous by the flock, in which case, said pastor would have been dealt with by the Church and that pastor would be gone in disgrace and we’d have all heard about it years ago. Either way, I simply do not believe it’s possible for a hate-filled person like that to contain such hatred for twenty years, preaching it so rarely that Obama could plausibly maintain that he had no idea what his main spiritual influence really believed.
March 16th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
And no, you aren’t responsible for pedophile priests. Again, pedophile priests don’t molest children in the middle of Mass in front of a congregation of 6k congregants and if they did, it would be known immediately because witnesses would talk about it, would move immediately to have the priest defrocked and arrested, tried and strung up by his balls. Again, Obama’s pastor’s hate was on public display. It was not conducted in secret, with no one around, hushed up by the hierarchy and the pastor shielded from the fallout of his words. Apparently his hate was so common, so pervasive within that congregation, that he could make such comments without anyone batting an eye. How else to explain that we’re just hearing, just now, about sermons preached over years to thousands of people?
March 16th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
To which I append, “…to thousands of people by someone who’s been intimately and officially tied to the campaign of a mainstream party’s potential candidate for President of the United States?”
Craig R. Harmon
March 16th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
According to this article in the New York Times, it seems hardly likely that Obama could pass his 20 year connection to Rev. Wright and his Church as too passing for him to have been familiar with Wright’s opinions. He listened to tapes of Wright’s sermons at college and of Obama and his wife, it’s written that “they treat Trinity as their spiritual home, attending services frequently.” But he never heard Rev. Wright say anything in the least divisive, derogatory of whites or of America as a nation?
I guess that’s easier for some to believe than it is for me.
March 16th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Drat. Forgot to link the above article. Here it is.
March 16th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Okay, it’s on FoxNews, so one can make of it what one will, but, to answer Christopher’s question in the first comment of this thread, Trinity Church’s tax status may, indeed, be in jeopardy.
March 16th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
The article, though, explains why the Church’s tax-exempt status will probably not be revoked:
March 16th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
he IRS has written dozens of letters warning churches against political advocacy from the pulpit. Yet it has revoked a church’s tax-exempt status only twice in the last half-century .
Walsh said it’s not typical for the IRS to enforce the rules.
“There’s a tension here between the desires of the religious leaders to say important things in the public marketplace and the IRS rules, and so most of the time, the IRS does not enforce these rules,” Walsh said.
That is a shame.
March 16th, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Christopher,
The first amendment, whether relating to the free-exercise of religion clause or the free speech, free assembly and association clauses are intended to be limits upon the power of the government, not limits on what people can and cannot say without the government pouncing on them and punishing them. I think the bar rightly should be set high before the government sics it’s dogs on the public, particularly when their speech is so intricately bound up with religious expression. Just as, in Jesus day, religious preaching could not avoid criticizing those exercising governmental power (think of John the Baptizer being thrown in a dungeon and beheaded for criticizing the actions of one Herod or as the Old Testament prophets were constantly criticizing the kings and their actions (think of the prophet Nathan pointing the finger at king David and accusing him of stealing the wife of another man and deliberately sending the husband to the front lines of battle to be killed with the words, “Thou art the man!”), so it is impossible to be at all relevant to todays world without criticizing governmental policies, laws, judicial rulings, cultural practices that intersect with politics, etc. These are not only political matters, they are often moral issues and religions are constantly making value judgments upon these things. It would probably be possible to read many sermons delivered by most pastors as containing statements that indirectly either favor the politics of one party or politician or disfavor the politics of another. I think we do more harm to both religion and politics by being heavy handed in punishing religious speech.
March 16th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
I have no problem with them criticizing government policy. I have a problem with endorsing candidates( which I thought I heard this minister do). besides It is not that they can’t say it. If they want to act like a PAC then they lose their tax exemptiom.
March 17th, 2008 at 1:05 am
Christopher,
Thought experiment: Pastor Armbruster, of an evangelical Church of unspecified denomination, in a sermon criticizing the Roe v. Wade decision and its progeny, quotes candidate Obarma [Note: all candidates names are deliberately modified because this is purely hypothetical, not referring to any current or past candidates] to the effect that he, Obarma, is pro-choice and calls this position evil, advocating murder. Then quotes Clanton’s oft-repeated “Abortions should be [unequivocally] available [to all without legal restriction], safe and [however acheived] rare” statement, calling it “rhetorically better but still permitting murder of the innocent unborn” at the discretion of the mother and, therefore, no less evil than Obarma’s position. Then he quotes McClain as allowing for abortions only for cases where a woman’s life is genuinely physically endangered but no other reason. Rev. Armbruster states that, in his reading of the Bible, abortions should never be allowed by law but that, clearly, of the three, McClain’s position is the most clearly in line with his, Armbruster’s, reading of the Scripture. He never tells them to vote for McClain or not to vote for either Obarma or Clanton; he’s engaging in a discussion of religious morality and illustrating it with current event quotes familiar to his congregation. Ostensively, he’s interpreting and applying the scripture for the flock, among the jobs pastors are legitimately hired to do. He doesn’t officially back one candidate over the others, in fact he still criticizes the candidate whose position he finds least unscriptural. He doesn’t condemn any of the candidates. He doesn’t condemn anyone for voting for any of the candidates.
So is he, in your opinion, acting like a PAC?
Craig R. Harmon
March 17th, 2008 at 1:21 am
Call that scenario A. If you think that too political, that such a sermon should be cause for the congregation losing it’s tax exempt status, consider scenario B: pastor Armbruster basically gives the same sermon as in scenario A but introduces it by telling the congregation that whom they vote for, or whether they vote at all in elections is a matter of individual conscience. That nothing he says in the sermon is to be taken as an explicit or implied endorsement of any candidate.
Does this change your opinion about whether pastor Armbruster has improperly abused his position to the point that his Church should lose its tax-exempt status?
March 17th, 2008 at 9:13 am
Scenario a is out and b if he is going to mention the candidates and their positions. The deal is government stays out of religion and religion stays out of politics. He/she can rant and rave about the issues but should not be quoting candidates. Fore instance you can say that abortion is wrong. That it is a major sin. You can not say that you will be excommunicated if you vote for a candidate that is pro choice.
March 17th, 2008 at 9:53 am
He’s responsible for (in my opinion) pretending, until this hit the fan, that he had no idea that the guy who was responsible for his born again experience and 20 year spiritual influence was a hate-monger.
I’d be interested to read the 20 years of sermons you obviously reviewed in order to come to the conclusion that this preacher has preached nothing but hate for that timespan. If you have no such evidence to back you up, I’d appreciate you being more objective. Thanks.
Sorry for the delay in responding, but I was tied up this weekend.
March 17th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Jet,
I did not say that he preached nothing but hate for that time span. I said that people that hate like this, who feel it their duty to pass on their hate to others, as this pastor seems to do, does not hide it. Someone willing to turn “God bless America” around to shouting “God Damn America” is not able to hide his contempt for our country. One who is willing to call his country the U. S. of KKKA, is not able to hide his hatred for whites. It will show up regularly. His every sermon probably did not contain such shocking examples of rhetoric but it doesn’t sound like his opinion of whites and of his country is something brand new (after all, the KKK is not nearly the force of hate that it was a few generations ago). I’m arguing from human nature; not objective evidence. Hence, I didn’t state it as fact but, rather, as my personal opinion.
See, I’ve been a preacher and not only in my own preaching but in others that I’ve heard in my many years as a regular Church attender at multiple Churches, but themes that are strongly felt by a preacher, show up over and over again in people’s preaching. Not every sermon but again and again. Not in the same words each time, but altered to fit each new sermonic context and the pastor’s mood of the moment. A regular Church goer could not avoid coming to some conclusion about the way a preacher feels about those themes. Either Obama WAS a regular at Wright’s Church, in which case I don’t believe Obama when he says that he was totally unaware of his Sr. Pastor’s opinions until those opinions hit the news — unless he slept through the sermons, which, given the style of preaching, I find impossible to believe — or he’s lying about how regular an attender he was and what an important an influence Wright was on him, in which case, he’s been using his connection to this Church cynically just to enhance his half-white image for political gain among the blacks of Illinois and in the nation because Church is so important to so many blacks. Neither option speaks well of Obama.
And another thing about human nature: people talk. If the Pastor says something unusual, outrageous, striking, they talk about it. Even people who were not in attendance during Wright’s ode to God-damned America, and the other outrages that we’ve now come to hear, so long after preached, would surely have heard of it IF it were at all out of character with Wright’s standard preaching fare. So I conclude that, either they were perfectly in sync with his regularly preached views, in which case Obama cannot credibly contend that he’d never heard anything like these outrages and, as a consequence to this, he is now lying about not knowing his pastor’s opinions OR he’d have heard of these things shortly after they were preached because he, Obama, is that congregation’s top banana. I find it incredible that word of such outrageous statements, if they were actually OUT of character with Wright’s regular preaching, would have never reached Obama’s ears.
Of course, for me, I would not vote for Obama because his political positions. I’m not one of those who thinks being a devout Christian is particularly important for the job of President of the United States, as my support of Fred Thompson for President shows. But this is an issue upon which I simply do not buy Obama’s explanations. They don’t coincide with my experiences with preaching and with people.
I hope you had a good week-end.
Craig R. Harmon
March 17th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Also, Obama is said to have canceled Wright’s appearance at his coming out (as a presidential candidate) party because (this may not be an exact quote but close) his “sermons can get a bit rough”. Well, assuming that is the case, and I’ve seen nothing from Obama’s campaign that leads me to believe it didn’t happen that way, then it all comes down to what the quintessentially polite and understated Obama meant by “rough”. Well, there’s nothing unpolished in any of the preaching of Wright’s that I’ve seen. He doesn’t stumble around with words so I don’t think Obama was saying that Wright just wasn’t a polished enough preacher. I think what Obama was saying is that he was fully aware of where Wright can go in his preaching and Obama simply could not take the chance that Wright would damn America or some other such thing that would have sunk his candidacy even more quickly than the Titanic or, at least, forced his campaign into damage control mode right from the start.
For all of these reasons, I believe that Obama was fully aware of his twenty year spiritual advisor’s opinions.
I do not know whether Obama agrees at all with any of Wright’s more odious opinions and I’m willing to take him at his word when he says that he doesn’t agree with everything Wright says. I don’t agree with anything MY pastor says, either. So to be clear, my contention is, these outrages were not inconsonant with Wrights preaching and that Obama was fully aware of his pastor’s opinions. He was willing to put up with those opinions so long as they did not become publicly known and thus drag his campaign down. They have and they are so Wrights been shown the place under the bus where he’s to throw himself.
My own personal opinion is this. I’d have never stuck around in a Church where the pastor had and preached such opinions or where the congregation found such opinions acceptable Christian expression. I’d have been out of there so quickly, the dust would not have had a chance to stick to my shoes. If I were an ambitious politician, I’d have found the least objectionable Church with the plainest of plain vanilla preaching and beliefs. I cannot account for Obama’s having stayed at this Church for so long. That Obama not only associated with but supported for so long and sent his kids to be taught by such a pastor is simply beyond my ability to explain other than to say that even very smart people do really stupid things. Choosing this Church and this pastor was a really stupid thing Obama did and it’s come back to bite his ass.
March 17th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Christopher,
You need to read more carefully. In neither scenario did pastor Armbruster say that you will be excommunicated if you vote for a candidate that is pro choice. In the second scenario, he explicitly said that whom they voted for was a matter of personal conscience, i. e., nothing that he or the Church had any business inquiring into or punishing if such a vote became known. And in both scenarios, he criticized all three candidates’ positions.
I guess I’ll just say that I disagree with you. That’s a principled and honorable position that you’ve got but it isn’t mine.
March 17th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Drat me! I meant to write, “I don’t agree with EVERything MY pastor says, either.” I do agree with most of what my pastor says so I don’t think this is a classical Freudian slip. Just a brain blip.
March 17th, 2008 at 3:10 pm
I read that and i knew what you said. I added it to further refine my position.
March 17th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
This is just funny:
I’m holding my breath. I’m sure that the resolution condemning Obama’s (now, finally, former) 20 year spiritual advisor and (his so-far-as-I-know current) Church. Heh!
See this is the sort of thing that brings politics rightly so into derision: President Bush makes a speech at a University and the University gets a push for a resolution of condemnation for himself and the University whereas the possible Democratic presidential nominee is a regular attender at a Church where his (now former) spiritual adviser has been shown to be at least as objectionable as anything from BJU and Democrats are tip-toeing around whether (or actually actively defending it as irrelevant) Obama’s 20 year membership in this Church and close relationship with its senior paster has anything to do with Obama.
At this rate, politics will never be anything but a sleazy institution into which no one worth electing would even consider entering.
March 18th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Craig,
When I have attempted to rationalize in the way you have in your response to me, you’ve basically called Bullshit on me. If you’ve invested any time to actually read some of this Pastor’s sermons I’d be interested in your opinion on that. Otherwise, your defense does not sway me.
I do think Obama’s speech today was brave, and in this day and age of micromanaged politics, bold. I guess his vision of equality and justice is not in line with your views, but he’s sure preaching to my choir. If anything, I’m more commited to funding and working for him.
March 18th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Jet,
Well, in my defense, I wasn’t attempting to sway you; I was giving what I thought and the reasons for that. I’m certainly not out to get anyone to not vote for Obama here. My criticisms were largely directed at your comparison of the Obama-Wright relationship to the relationship of parishioners of Hagee’s Church to Hagee’s drug and gay sex trists on the one hand and your own relationship to pedophile priests. As I noted, I think those comparisons are inapt.
Also, I was out until now so I missed the speech. I see that Dusty has it up so I’ll listen to it and I have an official, pre-delivery copy of the speech that I’d like to read.
Also, as I noted, I was not defending the proposition that Obama was responsible for the opinions of his pastor but only for those actions of his own over which he had total control. I don’t see anything that refutes his responsibility for those things that I mentioned. His speech may explain WHY he did what he did and everyone is free to make up their own mind as to how convincing that explanation may be or not be. As I said, I haven’t seen or read the speech so I have no opinion about it as yet.
Of course, I’m not in the same choir as you.
March 18th, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Hmmm. As a fellow Christian, you should be. I’ll keep working on you.
March 18th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
You may be interested to know that, although she is somewhat disillusioned by this, my wife, bless her soul, still plans to vote for Obama.
And I’m told I have a really good voice.