Some blacks are more valued than others

I am glad to see that their value system includes supporting families, getting an education, and cultivating a good work ethic. Those are the basis for any society to grow and flourish. The fact that they also choose to buy their pastor a big ole house is no worry to me.

THIS is what I've been trying to get at. Wright was never some suffering son of a sharecropper from Mississippi, forever scarred by the hurts of segregation. He's been a man on the make, and makes it through racial demagoguery. Unless he's a complete simpleton, there's no way Obama couldn't have noticed this of his spiritual mentor.

That is HI-larious Rod. Thanks for passing that along. I have no problem with his church providing him a home in his retirement. Humble parsonages have a long tradition. But a 10,000 sq ft mansion in a gated community seperate from the community in which the church serves? The irony slays me...

And Sally, it's not so much the the idea that the church would provide it, it's that Wright would except it. That's the ridiculous part.

Sally, the point is that Wright preaches against this sort of thing. He is highly critical of successful blacks who leave the inner city. He left the inner city for a tacky home in the 'burbs. Get it? This move leaves people with the feeling that he is a con artist.

Yes, I am disappointed, though not surprised, that Rev. Wright has followed the example of so many other religious leaders. But really, this is like shooting fish in a barrel. I could not conveniently find a photo of the Cardinal Archbishop's residence in Philadelphia, but if you go here you can see a snapshot of the Cardinal's residence in Chicago. I think it's pretty far from the inner city. And he doesn't even have the excuse of needing a good environment for his children.

www.homeandabroad.com/c/3/Site/43818_Residence_of_the_Roman_Catholic_Bishop_of_Chicago_visit.html

A better link sigaliris: http://www.archdiocese-chgo.org/about_us/archbishopsresid.shtm

Although there is no vow of poverty for diocesean priests and bishops, many of the large homes for heads of the large archdioceses are used for diplomatic, civic, and other functions. Many of them are homes in the same sense that the White House and Naval Observatory are homes of the President and Vice President respectively. In the case of Chicago, the private residence is confined to the 2nd and 3rd floors, not a life of poverty mind you, but a degree of difference from Rev. Wright.

SO !?!

As to substance, I think Wright is typical and wrong. As to Obama, the last I checked he was running for President and not Wright.

So what's your point Rod? What does this have to do with the presidential candidacy of one of his parishoners? The do as I say not as I do is not unique to pastors, politicians or anybody else. I'm not condoning it, but if the parishioners have determined that their pastor should live well and they pay his salary, then fine. There's no vow of poverty within the UCC. Check out the homes of Joyce Meyer, Paula White, Pastor Hagee, and the rest.

Why do you continue to attack this church and the people who worship there? No one demanded that Catholics leave their church because some of the priests molested children and some in the church hierarchy protected those priests.

The left can't win. Either we are perennially scrambling for our daily bread, which proves our beliefs are a failure, or we succeed financially, which proves we never really believed them in the first place. Hypocrisy is what we accuse anybody of when we don't know anything else bad about them.

That your views don't conform to the real world is hardly our problem.

At any rate, hypocrisy is hardly the worst of Wright's sins. There's plenty out there on him, you only need to open your eyes.

Yet we are talking about a candidate's minister.

We're talking about a candidate's mentor, a man who was on his campaign until caught. A man, Obama still refuses to deal with without resorting to the same lame tu quoques and bad moral equivalencies that all of you seem addicted to. If you're angry about this, blame your candidate, not the messengers.

Marian and Jules,

You miss the point. What makes this egregious is not the pastor's success or failure, but that he is telling others how they should live, but then doesn't do it himself. This type of ideological hypocisy is far more annoying than run of the mill hypocrisy. What I mean by that is that I may tell my young adult kids, don't drink too much, and when I tell them this, I mean it. If I then drink to much, does it mean I'm a hypocrit? Sure. But it doesn't mean I am wrong. And in fact, I still meant what I said. This is what Oscar Wilde meant when he said, "Hypocrisy is the compliment that vice pays to virtue."

Ideological hypocrisy is different in this way. The ideological hypocrit tells others what is good for them according to his worldview and uses power to enforce it on others when he himself does not want to live that way in a manner that indicates the benefits he wishes to bestow aren't real. The best example, I think, is politicians who fight public school reform, or vouchers, or home schooling, but then send their own kids to private schools.

And if you don't like looking at the hypocisy of Rev Wright, look at the candidate himself. Have you seen his tax returns? His charitable contributions, partuicularly before 2005, were pitiful. I otherwise don't care what anyone does with their money, that's their business. The rub is, that when questioned about it his spokesman said, they have two young daughters and many student loans. I have news for him. I have three high school and college aged kids (a lot more expensive to feed and school let me tell you) and my own student loans (plus theirs), a mortgage on a house that wasn't a sweetheart deal, and I gave more than twice as much to charity between 2000-2004 than he did, and even though I am under his definition one of "the rich" I made $20-50 thousand dollars less than he did a year. Under his tax plan, he will forcibly take about another $5 thousand from me a year when he said he couldn't afford less than half that voluntarily when he made 15-20% more than me!

The difference is that when Jimmy Swaggart was exposed as a hypocrit, I expect he knew he was a hypocrit. The Wrights and Obama's of the world's version of do as I say, not as I do, is different because they don't.

[4,000 soldiers dead in Iraq since the beginning of the war. Three times that permanently injured and maimed. Baghdad is devolved into utter chaos with bombing strike. The GOP candidate who spent time in a POW camp now supports torture, just like the president.

Yet we are talking about a candidate's minister.]

You know full well that Rod's interests largely run to issues of culture and religion and how they interact with politics, yet you still like to flag up this 'why aren't you talking about xyz?' Why? Because this is what Rod is interested in, this is usually what he writes about, and it is dishonest of you to pretend otherwise. It's even more dishonest to act like somehow every writer is duty bound to psychically read your mind first as to what are the 'really important' issues of the day before proceeding.

Fresh new material just added to the initial post -- David Kuo has criticized my style in it, and I responded. Check it out above.

In my comment above my first sentence should read: "If Obama can't deal his preacher and self-admitted 'mentor' with integrity, why should we trust him to the same with..."

My apologies.

You know full well that Rod's interests largely run to issues of culture and religion and how they interact with politics, yet you still like to flag up this 'why aren't you talking about xyz?' Why? Because this is what Rod is interested in, this is usually what he writes about, and it is dishonest of you to pretend otherwise.

I completely agree. And it's fair to judge and evaluate his priorities and his tone.

Rod, that's something I never understood. You were only in your mid-30's after 911, a lot younger than most of us. Why didn't you sign up then like so many other Americans with families did? There are moms in there 40's and 50's there now for goodness sake. Just curious.

James

Daniel: I'm sorry dead and wounded soldiers bore you, Rod.

What dishonest, sanctimonious garbage.

And James, what's your point? I would like us to get out of Iraq. I wish we hadn't gone there. I have a close family member who is now serving there, and I'd like him and all the rest of our troops back home.

Erin & Derek,

Both of you raise good and interesting points.

Erin, there is plenty of solid information on Obama and his record, things that go beyond his books and Web site policy papers. Obama is from Chicago, and both of our local papers have done an excellent job highlighting his accomplishments (as a politician, community organizer and teacher) and raising serious questions about some of his associations. I urge you to visit the Chicago Tribune and check out their stellar reporting.

Derek, once again, while I detest and disagree with the statements in question made by Wright, I still have trouble believing that these words are representative of the man's decades-long career as a pastor, or that he has somehow "indoctrinated" Obama into embracing those ideas. And if he did, I have trouble believing that a guy like that would want to be the leader of our country.

For better or for worse, Wright is radioactive. Whether or not you believe Obama's words, at the end of the day he's still retains the practicality of a politician. I am deeply skeptical that as he assembled his cabinet and doles out political jobs, his first (or any) phonecall is going to be to Wright. The fallout would be tremendous and would set a disasterous course for his presidency.

You also question his judgment is accepting Wright as a mentor, and what they could mean for dealings with shady foreign leaders. George W. Bush cited Jesus and Billy Graham as his favorite philosopher and an important mentor, respectively. And W. thought Putin was just great; devised a foriegn policy that turned Ahmadenijad's Iran into the major regional power; got Hamas elected as a governing power; and we won't even address China. With every president there is a measure of uncertainty regading how well their rhetoric translates into action. Should Obama (or Clinton or McCain, for that matter) be elected president, I would hope that Congress, the media and the public hold their leaders more accountable than they did with Bush.

Everyone's got an opinion regarding Obama's "Speech." I thought he addressed the issue and now we should move on to matter more pressing to the country. I understand your suspicion and anger; I just question how important (measured by length and volume) this issue really is when compared to the very serious problems our country is facing and will continue to face in the foreseeable future. Of course, you could argue that torture is more important than Iraq for debate, or Darfur is more important than Bear Stearns. But all of them are more important than Wright. All of those issues are attached to trillions of dollars and thousands (if not millions) of jobs and lives. The issue of state-sanctioned torture forces us to question who we are and what we represent as a nation. Huge issues and important questions with potentially uncomfortable answers. And we are continually crippled by a sensationalistic media and a disturbingly uninformed and apathetic citizenry that seems to get angry at all the wrong things.

Mind you, I do think that the "meaning" of Wright should be debated, but in a context proportional to the actual issue. And this is where my issue with this "scandal" rears its ugly head; I feel the issue has become much bigger than it actually is. (Kind of like the newscycle in the weeks prior to 9/11, when everyone apparently, was going to be eaten by sharks). In my mind, this issue is simply more fodder for the outrage machine, the newest in a long line of outrages.

You also question his judgment is accepting Wright as a mentor, and what they could mean for dealings with shady foreign leaders. George W. Bush cited Jesus and Billy Graham as his favorite philosopher and an important mentor, respectively.

So how did that work out?

Look, I may well support Obama's election despite the Wright fiasco, but it will only be because the GOP remains such an obviously undesirable choice. Even so, I think we all have a duty to hold Obama more accountable than he has been for his voluntary association and promotion of the Reverend Wright. This is really more true if you are an Obama supporter, because if you don't compel him to deal with this mess conclusively now, your man will pay for your indulgence come November.

But all of them are more important than Wright.

On it's fact that is quite true. However, Wright is indicative of how Obama will handle all these more important issues. We choose executives based on their past performance with smaller and less important challenges. On this issue, Obama has been a substantive failure, though he has bamboozled the sympathetic media.

Me: "You also question his judgment is accepting Wright as a mentor, and what they could mean for dealings with shady foreign leaders. George W. Bush cited Jesus and Billy Graham as his favorite philosopher and an important mentor, respectively."

Derek: "So how did that work out?"

That's exactly my point. No one would favorably compare Wright to Jesus or Billy Graham, in rhetoric or in measure of political influence or mainstream acceptance. Yet despite these rather conventional and inoffensive choices, the Bush presidency has turned out to be a total disaster. This does not reflect poorly on JC or BG; just on George W. Bush. His decisions were his own. (Unfortunatly, we have to live with them.) Just as Obama's decisions will be his to own, should he win the White House.

We are probably going to agree to disagree, Derek, but I do not believe that an association with one man is in any way indicative of Obama's qualities as a leader.

Finally: "We choose executives based on their past performance with smaller and less important challenges. On this issue, Obama has been a substantive failure, though he has bamboozled the sympathetic media."

Oh, I don't know. Actual accomplishments aside, Obama came to office as the unlikely winner in an election plagued with scandal; and shot to stardom with a tremendous keynote address in 2004. Since then, he's knocked both Clintons and their impressive machine to the canvas quite a few times; something the "VRWC" wasn't able to do in 8 years. And his Wright speech impressed even some hardened conservatives.

I plan to vote for the man, but I do not see him as a savior. I understand the risk in voting for such a fresh face. But I do admit that I do see the potential for something special.

"Does this post by David excoriating the charlatan Benny Hinn..." - Rod

I refuse to sit here while David and Rod tag-team in smacking down Britcom music-hall-and-saucy-seaside-postcard TV's answer to the new-wave laddish-domestic of Ian Dury and the Blockheads: when Benny slaps the top of little bald Jackie Wright's head with grin and sings "Wild Women", there's not an uncracked shell in the entire Peanut Gallery...

What? Benny *Hinn*? Never mind, Cheddar...

Rod,

It's perfectly fair to criticize Jeremiah Wright for acting in a manner unbefitting a minister of the Gospel, and accepting a 10,000 square foot home as a going-away present from your congregation certainly qualifies. Why bring race into the matter? Your "U.S. of KKK-A" comment echoes the odious view that every African-American who achieves some measure of success in America forefits his/her right to recall that his/her ancestors were brought here in chains and treated as subhuman for two or three centuries. I don't think you believe this, Rod; you shouldn't write as though you do. I would suggest that it was this part of your post, and not your criticism of Rev. Wright's lifestyle, that evoked David Kuo's criticism of you.

Peace.

1. My guess is that the house is going to be used as a piece of real estate with investment value. Wright will live in it. It's owned by the church. Criticizing this is something like criticizing microenterprise developers for creating small businesses. 2. The $10M loan was not used for the home. The home mortgage was $1.6M, which is still a heck of a lot, but for a 10,000 sq. ft. home, that's a pretty good cost per sq. ft, in Chicago. The line of credit was separate. And with the billionaire Oprah Winfrey attending, I'm sure they're good for the money. 3. The home is owned by the church. In my opinion, this was a smart real estate investment. 4. Those who criticize Wright ought to think twice - there is a difference between owning property for oneself and being a wise steward of one's investments. 5. The church is famous for ministries to the poor, and I think out of concern for equal time you ought to at least spend one or two blogs talking about the AIDS ministry, the alcohol and drug recovery ministry, the education and scholarship programs, or the church's impact in technical skills education in the south side of Chicago. This is "compassionate conservatism" at its best - people are the solution, not government.

>> And with the billionaire Oprah Winfrey attending, I'm sure they're good for the money.

I thought Oprah had left Jeremiah Wright's church long ago?

The whole issue with Wright and his mansion is not that the church is giving him one (after all, apparently every religious sect gives its pastors retirement homes), but *where* it is - in a 98% white community, backed onto a golf-course.

This despite the Black Value System of his church, which states that blacks must not be separated from each other (well, it says that "captives" must not be separated from each other) and think that they are better than other people who have less money.

Well, I'm sure Jeremiah Wright doesn't believe he's better than the lowliest member of his congregation. He just lives in a bigger and better house. But he'll be inviting his peeps to come to parties, I have no doubt.

xeNaNn hi! http://msn.com my site