Defending the Facts on Obama's Faith (by Jim Wallis)
I don't endorse political candidates, but I will defend them when it becomes necessary. On this, I agree with my friend, Richard Land, the conservative Southern Baptist leader who is often identified with the Religious Right. Richard and I agree that faith has a place in politics and, when we agree on fundamental moral questions, have worked together. Richard says, "I have defended various candidates from time to time when I've felt that they have been unfairly or inaccurately criticized. At other times, I have been asked by the media for my assessment of a particular candidate's chances or weaknesses and strengths. Neither defense nor assessment should be confused with endorsement. As a matter of policy, I have not endorsed, do not endorse and will not endorse candidates."
So I am going to defend my friend, Barack Obama, from an increasing number of ridiculous and scurrilous attacks on the Internet and in the media. The latest incident occurred when a loud-mouth radio talk show host in Cincinnati let loose with a barrage of disparaging remarks against Senator Obama and kept using his middle name—Barack HUSSEIN Obama—over and over, seemingly to tie into the Internet accusations that Obama is really a Muslim who, as a child, attended a Muslim "madrassa" school in Indonesia that taught Islamic fundamentalism, etc. As a Chicago Tribune blog piece commented, "Anyone who uses Obama's middle name repeatedly, like Cincinnati radio host Bill Cunningham the other day, knows what he or she is doing and what feelings they are trying to evoke. There's simply nothing innocent about it."
The occasion for the shock jock's diatribe was his introduction of Senator John McCain at a rally. To his great credit, McCain denounced the remarks when he heard about them, disassociated himself from this kind of attack, and reaffirmed that his campaign would be conducted on higher ground. Good for you, John McCain. So of course, the local loud-mouth, Bill Cunningham, quickly withdrew his support from McCain and now is denouncing him too; which, of course, was quickly picked up by his mentor, the national radio loud-mouth Rush Limbaugh (whom the local Cunningham seems to desperately "wannabe"). And, of course, Rush is now denouncing both Obama and McCain.
I watched last night as other cable news shows told this story and subtly tried to add more fuel to the fire. Lou Dobbs downplayed the Cincinnati outburst as unimportant and suggested it was no different that telling the world that John McCain's middle name is "Sydney." Sure Lou; and it was interesting that Dobbs followed with more innuendos and rolled eyes over the moment in the Tuesday Democratic debate when Obama was asked about Louis Farrakhan, about suspicions that Barack's home Trinity Church on the south side of Chicago was "black nationalist," and about why Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright, wouldn't come on Lou's show to discuss his alleged sympathies for Farrakhan, etc. It is certainly no mystery why Pastor Wright didn't cancel his retirement celebrations and drop everything to come on Lou's show. Would anyone?
An Associated Press story titled " Obama Fights False Links to Islam" commented on the new flare-up, "For Barack Obama, it is an ember that he has doused time and again, only to see it flicker anew: links to Islam fanned by false rumors, innuendo, and association."
During the Democratic debate, Obama again "denounced and rejected" the ugly anti-Semitic comments that Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan has often made, as he had done many times before. Farrakhan hadn't actually endorsed Obama, but recently said, "This young man is the hope of the entire world that America will change and be made better." Asked on Tuesday night about whether he would accept Farrakhan's support, Obama said: "I live in Chicago. He lives in Chicago. I've been very clear, in terms of me believing that what he has said is reprehensible and inappropriate. And I have consistently distanced myself from him."
So let's set the record straight. I have known Barack Obama for more than 10 years, and we have been talking about his Christian faith for a decade. Like me and many other Christians, he agrees with the need to reach out to Muslims around the world, especially if we are ever to defeat Islamic fundamentalism. But he is not a Muslim, never has been, never attended a Muslim madrassa, and does not attend a black "separatist" church. Rather, he has told me the story of his coming from an agnostic household, becoming a community organizer on Chicago's South Side who worked with the churches, and how he began attending one of them. Trinity Church is one of the most prominent and respected churches in Chicago and the nation, and its pastor, Jeremiah Wright, is one of the leading revival preachers in the black church. Ebony magazine once named him one of America's 15 best Black preachers. The church says it is "unashamedly black and unapologetically Christian," like any good black church would, but is decidedly not "separatist," as its white members and friends would attest.
And one Sunday, as Obama has related to me and written in his book The Audacity of Hope, the young community organizer walked down the aisle and gave his life to Christ in a very personal and very real Christian conversion experience. We have talked about our faith and its relationship to politics many times since. And after Obama gave his speech at a Sojourners/Call to Renewal conference in June 2006, E.J. Dionne said that it may have been "the most important pronouncement by a Democrat on faith and politics since John F. Kennedy's Houston speech in 1960 declaring his independence from the Vatican."
Like his politics or not, support his candidacy or not - but don't disparage Barack Obama's faith, his church, his minister, or his credibility as an eloquent Christian layman who feels a vocation in politics. Those falsehoods are simply vicious lies and should be denounced by people of faith from across the political spectrum.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Thank you, Jim, for this post. I wish all those who say disparaging things about Obama's character, faith and upbringing could read your remarks here. Well articulated and presented. Thank you.
Posted by: Kendra | February 28, 2008 3:47 PM
Thanks, Jim, for the insightful article. One thing your article didn't say is whether Richard Land, as a conservative Republican, denounced the ugly rumors about Obama. I certainly hope that, in the interest of fairness and setting a good Christian example, that some of the religious leaders on the right will follow McCain's example and set the record straight in the interest of fairness.
Posted by: I and I | February 28, 2008 4:00 PM
No thanks, Jim. By running to the defense of Obama, you have played your preferential political card again.
"I don't endorse political candidates, but..." is just the precursor to endorsing Obama. Quit faking it Jim.
That's like the racist who qualifies his statements by saying, "Some of my best friends are black/white."
If you're going to defend candidates or political personalities, then be fair and egalitarian. Where's your defense of all the others who have been attacked, and whose records have been distorted?
Enough of this. It would be better if you simply came out and publicly stated that you are voting for Obama.
Do fake it is to be disingenuous to your readers, and you end up playing politics with your readers.
What a shame.
Posted by: intuit | February 28, 2008 4:06 PM
While I sympathize with the main thrust of this article, there are a few points that need to be made:
Rush Limbaugh is not just now denouncing both Barack Obama and John McCain. Limbaugh has been sharply critical of McCain, especially on immigration and on campaign finance reform, for years. The intensity of the criticism may have intensified but it is hardly new. This does not mean Limbaugh is in the right, but if he is wrong at least give him credit for consistency.
Allegations that Obama is a closet muslim strain credibility, but the "distance" between him and Farrakhan may amount to little more than the length of one man: Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whom Obama picked out as his pastor. While Obama has condemned the Nation of Islam leader, Wright has been quite lavish in his praise towards Farrakhan. While this doesn't prove that Obama is insincere in his rejection of Farrakhan's support, it is a fact that Obama's defenders would be wise to at least acknowledge.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | February 28, 2008 4:14 PM
To any thoughtful individual Cunningham's comments were crass and sensationalist and are not worth a response.
Posted by: Scott | February 28, 2008 4:19 PM
re: Intuit;
I tend to agree. Perhaps it would be more authentic to simply say, "I will be voting for xxx because of the following:..., but I can sympathize with individuals voting for yyy in the interests of ... issues."
Posted by: Scott | February 28, 2008 4:22 PM
Watch your use of language here... "the Internet accusations that Obama is really a Muslim who, as a child, attended a Muslim "madrassa" school in Indonesia that taught Islamic fundamentalism, etc."
Accusation implies wrongdoing. Being Muslim isn't a form of wrongdoing. Neither is attending a madrassa or believing in Islamic fundamentalism.
Posted by: Sara | February 28, 2008 4:27 PM
intuit,
"Where's your defense of all the others who have been attacked, and whose records have been distorted?"
What other candidate's faith has been attacked? His article isn't about defense of attacks on a candidate's RECORD, but attacks on the candidate's FAITH.
Sara,
"Accusation implies wrongdoing. Being Muslim isn't a form of wrongdoing."
I agree, which is why the accusations are even more heinous. They are playing on the fears that some Americans have towards Islam, and linking Obama with Islamic terrorists. They promote prejudice, hate, and fear against Muslims and imply that all Muslims are Islamic terrorists.
Posted by: squeaky | February 28, 2008 4:40 PM
Thank you for this article. I plan to share it with several friends and family members. I am an undecided voter, but I greatly admire and respect Senator Obama (and his wife equally). I live in an area where efforts like those of Mr. Cunningham tend to be effective and it causes me regular grief. I appreciate your candid, intelligent support of your friend Senator Obama.
Thank You!
Posted by: Julia | February 28, 2008 4:44 PM
i am currently learning to speak and write arabic, and something interesting to note is that the word referenced here (and often in the media), "madrassa" , simply means school in arabic. there aren't any islamic fundamental ties to it, as far as i know/have been taught/have learned.
this case with senator obama's middle name/his heritage/origins is another example of how frightened the west is of the east, and another example of edward said's theory of orientalism being played/lived out.
thank you for defending senator obama in this article.
Posted by: liz clayton | February 28, 2008 4:52 PM
When I read about how "Christians" will slander poeople who disagree with them, it almost makes me ashasmed sto admit I am a Christian. If Barak Obama even is a Muslim (which he isn't) so what!!!
Is he qualified to be president? Isn't that supposed to be the thing we are considering? I would like to thank you, Pastor Wallis, for being an evangelical Christian and putting some sanity out there also.
Posted by: Charles N. King | February 28, 2008 4:56 PM
I think Cunningham's statements were ridiculous and I'm glad McCain rejected them, or was it denounced them... Either way, I think Jim's mostly spot on with his comments. Questioning Obama's religious faith or making allusions to his middle name are way out of line.
However, I do believe that questions about Rev. Wright and his philosophies is not out of bounds. If Obama calls him one of the people who's most influenced him he has to be prepared to be asked about him on the campaign trail.
Posted by: Eric | February 28, 2008 4:58 PM
"but the "distance" between him and Farrakhan may amount to little more than the length of one man"
Obama has forcefully and repeatedly denounced and renounced and deplored and damned Farrakhan's antisemitism. What more do you people want him to do, a blood oath? Trial by ordeal?
David Duke has said that, if forced to choose between McCain, Clinton, and Obama, he would pick Obama because McCain and Clinton are European Americans who have betrayed "their own." Shall Obama now call a press conference and buy time on all the major networks to denounce Duke?
Posted by: carl copas | February 28, 2008 5:01 PM
Thank you for the very well written article. I feel that many of the attacks on Mr. Obama are very petty and unfounded. I am glad that there is a person like you out there declaring the facts and dispelling the stupid rumors..now only if more Christians would pay attention.
Posted by: James McGrath | February 28, 2008 5:02 PM
I totaly agree some of the madia go too far.But when you are to know a CHRISTIN by their works. Set. Obama's works seen to be christian like. Not like Mr. Bush who seems to be in a world of his own. Who he only seems to go from one mess to another and has never been held accountable for any of the messes he has created. It will take YEARS to clean up the mess he will leave behind.
Posted by: Robert Markham | February 28, 2008 5:11 PM
Wolverine, I thought Obama dealt with the Farrakhan connection in the debate last Tuesday in Cleveland. Rev. Wallis mentioned that fact here. Why do you bring it up again? What is it that Obama needs to do to satisfy you? So far as I know, Jeremiah Wright has refused to get involved in Obama's campaign or publically endorse him, so why are Wright's attitudes toward Farrakhan relevant to Obama's campaign?
Liz clayton:
You are correct; madrassa simply means school in Arabic. However, the term is often used in non-Arabic-speaking Muslim countries, such as Indonesia or Pakistan, to refer to specifically religious Islamic schools where children are taught the Qur'an and other religious topics. Nothing wrong with that in itself, of course, but some of these non-Arabic madrassas do teach and promote forms of Islamic extremism. That's where the negative associations come from.
Editorial from today's Columbus Dispatch regarding Bill Cunningham:
"ARIZONA SEN. JOHN McCAIN adeptly defused a flare-up in his Ohio campaign when he apologized for provocative remarks about Illinois Sen. Barack Obama by radio talk-show host Bill Cunningham of WLW (700 AM).
"In a bid to fire up the Republican crowd before McCain spoke Tuesday in Cincinnati, Cunningham referred twice to the Democrat as Barack Hussein Obama and called him the 'great prophet from Chicago.'
"The linking of the candidate to Islam was clear enough, even though Cunningham made the absurd assertion that he meant 'no offense' in using Obama's middle name.
"The Republican front-runner said after the rally, 'I take responsibility, and I repudiate what he said.' Cunningham complained later that McCain 'threw me under the bus, under the Straight Talk Express.'
"Someone in the McCain camp wasn't thinking straight when the shock jock was invited to speak at the rally."
Peace,
Posted by: Don | February 28, 2008 5:19 PM
It would have been nice and non-partisan of Wallis if he had denounced the anti-Obama attacks coming from the Clinton camp, too. For ex., it was Clinton's campaign that released the picture of Obama in traditional middle eastern, "muslim-looking" attire. They also had a part in circulating questions about Obama's muslim past. While we're at it, I would have liked to see him address the racial overtones in Clinton's campaign in South Carolina, as well. I guess this goes against the anti-conservative/anti-republican narrative that runs through this blog. But you could have at least proved your honesty and fairness by bringing these points up.
The questions about Obama's pastor are not going away anytime soon. Those are the kind of issues that come up in anyone's political campaign. Personally, I could care less about what church Obama attends, but these things always make for news in the political world.
Posted by: jesse | February 28, 2008 5:20 PM
Where was Jim when Clinton supporters began this rhetoric?
Dec 07--Clinton supporter and former Senator Bob Kerrey uses Obama's middle name multiple times to "praise" his background.
Dec 07--Two Clinton campaign staffers are fired after forwarding e-mails suggesting that Obama is a Muslim.
Jan 08--BET president and Clinton supporter Bob Johnson, while introducing Clinton, "I am frankly insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Hillary and Bill Clinton who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues when Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood that I won't say what he was doing but he said it in his book."
Feb 08--Clinton staffers release pictures of Obama in African robes, a last ditch effort to drum up support for remaining primaries.
Jim, your issue seems to be the "who," not the "what." Why else would you have ignored these other attacks?
Posted by: Blake | February 28, 2008 5:28 PM
Jesse, I think part of the reason that the picture the Clinton campaign allegedly circulated is not addressed on equal footing is that it's a matter of allegations and speculations, whereas Cunningham made a public statement that Sen. McCain thought important to repudiate. That said, I have certainly been frustrated the mud-slinging that I think former President Clinton, especially, has engaged in. There's only so much you can cover in one blog post, though.
Posted by: Ingrid | February 28, 2008 5:28 PM
Jim is correct to speak out against such blatant language of inuendo against Barack. Hillary has experienced the same degree of slander. The Swift-Boaters will be out in full force after the nomination of either. Surely, people with Christian conviction will reject these not-so-suble devices.
RIchard
Posted by: richard Miller | February 28, 2008 5:33 PM
The religious-based attacks this political season have been against Romney (as a Mormon), Huckabee (as a conservative Christian), Obama (a 'closet Muslim'), and even somewhat against McCain (is he really a Baptist).
Any of these attacks, against whichever of these candidates, smacks of bigotry and ignorance. Thankfully, people of (all) faith(s) have stood up to renounce these attacks. Too bad it is considered a defense or endorsement of a particular candidate if you defend against these lies.
How shallow the discourse over faith and in public life has become if standing up for the religious rights of the other is just a back door to endorsement. That would be a weak endorsement.
However, standing up to the agents of ignorance who use religion as a weapon in the political arena is not a weakling's path. It is a sacred calling to which I am honored to see Jim Wallis continue.
Posted by: Ronald | February 28, 2008 5:42 PM
My father-in-law is the pastor of a conservative Baptist church. A couple of weeks ago one of the church members sent out a group Email that was a diatribe against Barak Obama. The gist of the Email was that Obama is a Muslim and that Muslims are not fit to be President of the U.S.
I sent a one sentence reply: “Please remove me from your Email list.”
Most of the Emails this person sends out are trite, inane chain letters that I spend about 2 seconds scanning before I delete them.
The argument that a Muslim is not fit to be the U.S. President, besides being completely unconstitutional, sounds to me like a variation of the criticisms leveled against Kennedy – that his allegiance would be to the Vatican and not the citizens of the U.S. (Frankly, I’d be much more comfortable with a Muslim President than I would with a creationist or a Mormon).
Someone else apparently sent the originator of the Email the Snopes page about Obama because she quickly sent out an apology. My father-in-law responded by telling her that the Email was offensive and that she was not to use the church Email list for anything but church business.
A few days ago my wife talked to her mother who told her that she was considering voting for Obama.
With that in mind, I don’t think Mr. Obama should worry too much about the false accusations being made against him.
PX
Posted by: neuro_nurse | February 28, 2008 5:46 PM
I think part of the reason that the picture the Clinton campaign allegedly circulated is not addressed on equal footing is that it's a matter of allegations and speculations, whereas Cunningham made a public statement that Sen. McCain thought important to repudiate.
It could be that it's not coming at all from the Clinton camp. The Washington Times ran the original story last year that Obama attended a "radical Muslim seminary" in Indonesia and said it got the info from the Clinton camp -- neither of which turned out to be true. Note: The Washington Times was a part of the "vast right-wing conspiracy" that she complained about nearly 10 years ago; those media regularly published allegations that were either false or unproven, and it wouldn't surprise me were that the case.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 28, 2008 5:47 PM
Jim,
Are you going to write up something on the outrageous SEXISM that Senator Hillary Clinton has had to deal with along with all women on a regular and daily basis... Here we have the MOST QUALIFIED AND BEST CHOICE FOR PRESIDENT OF THE USA of and happens to be the most prepared and SHE IS constantly rudely addressed, called all kinds of names in the book, made fun of disrespected by SO MANY and even what she does do is called into question especially her work as the FIRST LADY-so what are they saying about all First Ladies they are irrelevant?? SHE WAS THE FIRST FIRST LADY to be treated by her husband as an equal not a co-president but as an adept person who happened to be his wife and FIRST LADY yet Barack Obama dismsises her 80 trips to foreign countries as meaningless or as if she was on a vacation... THE WOMAN is an amazing person who is brillant and CAPABLE to be commander in chief and has been endorsed by the great miltary folks and yet to tooooo many she is "a girl and girls don't win" WRITE something about the SEXISM that is SIN and plaques our CHURCHES and OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM... if only this many folks would go to HILLARY's defense mmm wonder what a different world for our mothers, daughters, sisters, aunts, grandmothers, great aunts cousins, neices and granddaughters it would be.
Marie
for herstory
Posted by: Marie D-Naples | February 28, 2008 5:48 PM
Mathew spoke:
Either make the tree good, and its fruit good; or make the tree bad, and its fruit bad; for the tree is known by its fruit. You brood of vipers! How can you speak good things, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.
- Matthew 12:33
Where are their hearts? Jesus told us, love God, LOVE one another, and I and so many other wonder why there is so much mistrust among those who have not found their way to the Lord yet.
Posted by: Michael Hansen | February 28, 2008 5:53 PM
Rick, any defense for Bob Kerrey? Or Bob Johnson?
Posted by: Blake | February 28, 2008 5:53 PM
Obama has forcefully and repeatedly denounced and renounced and deplored and damned Farrakhan's antisemitism. What more do you people want him to do, a blood oath? Trial by ordeal?
No, none of that will be necessary, although it might help if he were to find another church, one where the minister did not go out of his way to lionize the toxic Louis Farrakhan.
But my point wasn't directed at Obama as much as Wallis. Believe it or not, I'm trying to do you guys a favor here.
When you say Candidate O cannot be a muslim because he is associated with Christian minister A, and then say O should not be associated with the noxious views of bigot B either because O has publicly condemned B, but fail to acknowledge the well-known fact that A has gone to great lengths to praise B, well, you're really leaving a lot of questions unanswered.
Let me put it another way: the "Barack's a Muslim" charge is something that most conservatives don't give much creedence to. There's a few hotheads, but no "there" there. This charge, and the folks who insist on repeating it, are already tiresome and well on their way to becoming an embarassment.
The ties to Farrakhan are more substantial -- not beyond-the-shadow-of-a-doubt proof of antisemitism, but enough to give a reasonable man pause in spite of Barack's protests.
As the campaign goes on the closet muslim accusation charge should collapse under its own weight. I would be surprised if anyone in the McCain camp even brings it up. The ties linking Obama to Wright to Farrakhan are at a minimum embarassing, and based on verifiable facts.
At a minimum it would be prudent for Obabma's supporters to avoid bringing up Wright in order to flog the dead horse of Obama's supposedly being a muslim. Every time you do you're not convincing anyone that Obama is not a muslim -- anyone who takes that seriously is liable to be wearing a tin-foil hat before too long. What you are doing is reminding us that Obama's minister -- the man Obama chose to bring him into the Christian faith -- is an admirer of Farrakhan. Is that really something you want to emphasize?
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | February 28, 2008 5:54 PM
Thanks for article. Separating fact from fiction is difficult with info coming from all directions. A local conservative radio host here in Memphis will not refer to Obama without using his middle name. He is well aware of the feelings he is trying to arouse.
However, I am still hung up on Jeremiah Wright. Would Christ approve of such language as "unashamedly black." Sounds like the 1060's to me. I'm bothered by this and some of the things I have heard from his pulpit.
Posted by: Richard | February 28, 2008 5:58 PM
ALL WELL AND GOOD!! OBAMA IS A GOOD AND DECENT CHRISTIAN.
SO WHY DOES HE APPROVE OF ABORTION UP UNTIL THE NINTH MONTH???
SHAME ON YOU!!
Posted by: Elizabeth | February 28, 2008 6:03 PM
I fully agree with Jim in clearly saying "Obama=Muslim=Bad" as a bad equation--and a lie.
We have covered this territory before on this blog with some (e.g. Wolverine) making same points about The Jeremiah Wright "issue;and then we trek down the whole UCC issue, making silly charges and defenses of the UCC; blah, blah, blah. which I continue to find disgusting.
Jim, "the respectable mud slingers", use Jeremiah Wright as the underhanded attack--not "Obama is a Muslim" strategy.
I actually find that more obnoxious because they are not listening to and understanding Dr Wright; let alone making any legitimate rationale as to what Dr Wright has to do with Obama's candidacy.
But Jim, in denouncing lies, you also must be true about the lies. Cunningham's use of Hussein was not a lie. You can infer it was intended to communicate something. That is your inference. Our inferences, Jim, often cast more light on ourselves than that which we are making inference about.
I simply don't know his intent. My inference is that he was belittling--which I hear pundits/talkers do frequently--i.e. use people's full formal names in patronizing, sarcastic tones. But that is my inference.
In setting the record straight--all you can go on is the record. When you take it past the record, then another agenda is suggested.
I don't appreciate the tone and come-back of some of the commenters here; but they pick up on that you are going beyond truth-telling.
I don't really mind if you are not an equal-opportunity truth-teller (e.g. having equal indignation for the never-ending ridicule of Bush's faith; or continued quizzing of Republican candidates on questions of theological dogma); because you can't do these posts every 10 seconds.
Any contribution to truth-telling is a contribution to truth-telling; and we all ought to heed Jim's appeal. And of course our preaching often needs to be heeded first by the speaker---including Jim, including me.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | February 28, 2008 6:07 PM
Hoo-boy! Wait until some astute observer notes that Barak Obama's first name has a ring to it like that of a recent prime minister of Israel! Or that our current president's name is the same as the despised English king at the time of our revolution! Many thanks, Jim Wallis, for raising the tone of our discussion!
Posted by: Dave | February 28, 2008 6:08 PM
All you have to do is look at the website of Obama's church to see how far to the left it is. The UCC has been endorsing abortion and has been ordaining sexually active homosexuals for years now, just for starters. So if Obama is such a strong Christian, how do we put this all together? I have thoughtfully listened to Jim Wallis for years, but his blindness on this issue and his ignorance on the heretical state of the UCC. Obama's denimination has caused me to loose all confidence in his viewpoint.
Posted by: Coleen | February 28, 2008 6:08 PM
"...as Obama has ... written in his book, The Audacity of Hope, the young community organizer walked down the aisle and gave his life to Christ in a very personal and very real Christian conversion experience. "
At this very moment, we have a President who based his campaign on being "born again". I truly wonder what being "born again" in his case means. Which part of "thou shalt not kill" doesn't he understand? Why does he not follow Christian principles? Doesn't he realize he can't serve 2 Masters?
I truly hope that Mr. Obama will set a truly Christian example that will reunite this Nation.
Posted by: Claudia | February 28, 2008 6:13 PM
Pure and simple, the biggest sin for Christians to be wary of (besides any of the traditional seven deadlies) is that of Bearing False Witness in reference to politics.
Posted by: Jeff Carpenter | February 28, 2008 6:19 PM
Adding to the observation that our current president's name is the same as that of the despised English king's at the time of our revolution: Not only is the name the same, he is also a George III. We have had a George I (Washington) and a George II (Daddy Bush) - which makes him George III. And as far as I know, it is historical fact that George III (1n 1776) was ... well, he didn't have all his marbles. Hmmmm... :-)
Posted by: Claudia | February 28, 2008 6:23 PM
You're simply adding your own "fuel to the fire" in order to advance your and Obama's platforms.
Posted by: judithod | February 28, 2008 6:28 PM
Thanks Jim,
Thanks for your insights into Barack Obama and for setting the record straight on the facts. Unfortunately the mis-information is mistaken for the truth and can be very difficult to correct. I have a work colleague who is adamant that Obama did attend a Madras School. I will certainly be informing him of the facts. I am an Australian,so cannot vote in the Election,but still believe i have a responsibility to spread the Truth. I hope and Pray that the next President will leed the Country in a far better direction than it is currently headed.
Posted by: Mark Prentice | February 28, 2008 6:33 PM
I appreciate your addressing these issues, because those who are devoid of any and all spritual decency are trying to use Senator Obama's Christian faith as a weapon against him. I would think that ALL people of faith would feel the sting of injustice, and its accompaniment of moral indignation, against such scurrilous and false accusations. I believe that the beginning of all hate crimes is hate speech, and it should be denounced whenever--and whereever--it rears its ugly head.
Posted by: Justin | February 28, 2008 6:35 PM
I am not nearly as concerned about what religion he believes in as I am concerned about what kind of an America he believes in. There are plenty of Christian Bible thumpers in Congress that dont even come close to practicing the Christianity these claim to believe in. The America we have been turning into since 1980 does not meet the Christian Biblical definition of a society as described some 2000 places in the Bible. A change is long overdue and Obama is a new generation with the fewest ties to lobbyists of any of the candidates. Its is long past time to throw the moneychangers (lobbyists) out of Washington.
Posted by: Dennis | February 28, 2008 6:37 PM
Thank you for clarifying the issue of Senator Obama's faith. Could you do the same on his stand on abortion. I understand he is anti-life. Is this true?
As a believing Christian, I understand Jesus to be life affirming. Is Senator Obama life affirming?
Posted by: Mark Snyder | February 28, 2008 6:39 PM
Thank you for your insightful comments. We know these innuendos and smear tactics are going to be used against Senator Obama as he seeks the presidency. Shame on those people who twist the truth, and shame on those who use this technique because they know that to call someone a Muslim will foment fear. Our faithful Muslim brothers must wonder what, exactly, it means to be an American or a Christian. A special thanks to Senator McCain for distancing himself from both Cunningham and Limbaugh, hatemongers extraordinaire.
The UCC is a welcoming, wonderful church, and it has a place at the table with all the activist churches in our history.
Posted by: Leah Ogden | February 28, 2008 6:41 PM
"Allegations that Obama is a closet muslim strain credibility, but the "distance" between him and Farrakhan may amount to little more than the length of one man: Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whom Obama picked out as his pastor. While Obama has condemned the Nation of Islam leader, Wright has been quite lavish in his praise towards Farrakhan."
Wolvie, I don't know what your denomination is like, but the UCC does not require that every member of a congregation blindly follow his pastor. Quite the contrary: we believe that spirited disagreement is a healthy thing :) If Obama rejects and denounces Farrakhan, he is speaking for himself. Guilt by association doesn't cut it.
Posted by: Hali | February 28, 2008 6:43 PM
While it is reasonable to defend Obama as a reaction to all of the distortions about him in the media and email circulations, we should be aware that the truth does not matter to those who are determined to slander him, those who see him as a threat to their political biases- racial, political, religious, cultural, or all of these plus other unidentified biases.
I have responded/reacted to numerous emails with clarification of the charges and was told by one that "as far as I am concerned he is a Muslim." I have invited others to send the truth versions as a correction to the distortions they endorsed by sending them. Not one has had the integrity to take that step.
It is disturbing that many "professing Christians" continue the attack after knowing the truth. Farrakhan then becomes another reason for questioning the integrity of Obama? Seems to me that Farrakhan has the personal right to endorse or support anyone he chooses. And Obama is not responsible for what he says or does. But there will always be the issue of being clean and spotless (politically correct), and that requires rejection of such voices. Obama was clear enough without being pressed to voice rejection.
Posted by: Earl Troglin | February 28, 2008 6:47 PM
Thanks Jim for this article. I would encourage everyone to read Barak Obama's books. His conversion experience told in "Dreams of Fathers" clearly describes someone who is "Born again."
Barak Obama is heavily criticized from the political left for having a nuanced position on abortion. Elizabeth got it very wrong. Listen again to the Call to Renewal Speech he gave for a more accurate perspective.
As for the UCC. Like all our denominations it is not monolithic. Some lay people and clergy may not hold orthodox views of theology, but the majority of the people in the pews do. The UCC as a denomination with it's affirmation of the historic creeds and statement of faith is clearly orthodox. I don't recall any theology courses in seminary where ethical views on abortion or sexuality disqualified a Christian group from orthodoxy.
I am an Orthodox Baptist woman, ordained preacher, evangelical liberal, mainline Protestant, and proud of being a precinct captain in Iowa for Barak Obama!
Posted by: Cheryl Thomas | February 28, 2008 6:48 PM
That evil man Cunninghame knew exactly what he was doing, Yet, he is being defended by all of the right-wing nuts. I don't agree with what Cunningham did, but at least he didn't call Obama "evil" or Obama's supporters "nuts." So, what's your excuse, John Gill? Just defending decency in civil discourse by engaging in a bit of indecent incivility yourself? You fit right in here.
Regarding decency, can anyone explain how any Christian, whether pro-abortion or not, could speak and vote against a law like the 2001 Illinois Born-Alive Infant Protection Act, a measure designed to prevent the deliberate murder of infants who survive abortion? Maybe Wallis could ask his good friend Barack.
Posted by: Mark | February 28, 2008 6:49 PM
Jim, Some of your comments are relevant, but when it comes to Christian principles, Mr. Obama has rejected any restrictions on abortion. He has noted in speeches to Planned Parenthood gathers and others that he supports a woman's right to choose--essentially an euphemism for the right to kill a kid. In sincerity, until you and all the faith and politico crowd deal with this one overwhelming injustice, this great Land cannot see any peace, let along social justice. Jim, speak out on subject, speak truthfully and without political motivation but in truth, and many of the other injustices will work themselves out. Anything less is simple politics and there will be no change. God will hear the cry of the innocent for the monstrous crime of killing the small ones and their spilled blood for political power. John.
Posted by: John | February 28, 2008 6:49 PM
I want to apologize to Mr. Obama, and to the nation, for the filth and slander from Bill Cunningham. He is very popular here in Cincinnati, but anyone who listens to his views can easily tell that his main objective is to shock and belittle anyone he possibly can from his pulpit on WLW. His views are certainly not the views of the majority of people here in Cincinnati, and I, for one, am ashamed to have the name of this city associated with him.
John McCain properly distanced himself from these remarks, and I would hope more apologies are forthcoming from the Ohio Republican Party and particularly Senator DeWine, who apparently had a hand in scheduling this appearance.
Posted by: Dave McGowan | February 28, 2008 6:50 PM
Good for you. Thanks for the details. This will help a lot of us be prepared to counter this kind of attack on a good man who probably will become the next leader of the Free World and begin to restore America's respect among other peoples which the current administration has frittered away.
Posted by: Joe Parker | February 28, 2008 6:51 PM
Chum, I think the biggest problem in this campaign is people like yourself trying to instill false fears of the candidates. For me, I can only be responsible for my own decisions and I am backing Obama as a good Christian man seeking the presidency.
I thank you, Jim, for at least getting down to the truth of so much unjust slander directed towards Obama, his church, his race, his wife, etc...........grow up Americans!
Posted by: Gail McIntosh | February 28, 2008 6:52 PM
First, let me say that over the last 8 years, I have stepped away from all things "religious" because of hypocritical Christians who decry abortion, but advocate war (mass murder for profit - as we well know it is) as a solution to anything; 'bootstrappers' who advocate reduced spending for public education, then call for the withholding of desperately needed social services (well-fare, health care) as a punishment for being poor. I have never understood people who staunchly defend elected officials even though they have betrayed their constituents, have sold the earth that sustains us all to the highest bidder; TORTURED human beings - and a list of crimes against humanity as long as my arm. The things that this government has done are UN-Christian, but, thankfully, Sojourners rejects them outright as being UN-Christian.
And I can't tell you how much I appreciate Jim Wallis' rejection of the stupid and dangerous criticisms of Barack Obama's faith. Not that I've decided to vote for him, yet, but someone has to take on the lies that are essentially hate propaganda.
People need to be able to quickly recognize when they are hearing hate propaganda - as easily as they recognize marketers of consumer products. I love George Lakoff's (Rockridge Institute) description of "framing." It sure helped me understand the tactics of people who want to tell you me what to believe and who to hate.
That being said, I have heard Rev. Jim Wallis in person and told hundreds of people about Sojourners, one of the few voices of sanity in the religious community. I have posted the Sojo website on blogs, and sent Sojo articles to my large email lists -- just to give people HOPE that perhaps radicalized Jesus' followers are not going to cause the end of civilization, as we know it.
I often fear that America has become a nation of "good Germans": giving in to the fear mongering and hate baiting of the Bush mis-administration. But you all give me hope!
Thank you.
Posted by: Always Ask WHY | February 28, 2008 6:55 PM
There is an additional aspect to the discussions about Obama's religious affiliation that should be brought into the discussion. The IRS is threatening to remove the tax-exempt status of the United Church of Christ because Obama was one of the many speakers at last summer's General Synod meeting. If my memory serves me correctly, any number of political figures have addressed the Southern Baptist Convention and the national gatherings of other denominations even if they were not members of the particular denomination.
Posted by: Dorothy | February 28, 2008 6:57 PM
Hello Jim,
Thanks for this post. The attacks of the past week have been reminiscent of the worst kind of right wing smear campaigns. It's a great reminder of why the country is making an abrupt about face from politics as usual.
On thing though - I'm wondering why I haven't seen Sojo jump to the defense of another of your friends, Hillary Clinton. The buzz about Hillary's faith is even more deeply entrenched than Obama's and comes from the same source - the Religious Right. Most Sojo readers would laugh at comments questioning Obama's faith, but they might openly question Hillary's. This is evidence of the insidious effectiveness of 1990s far right whisper campaigns. So, how about standing up for your more deeply wounded sister in Christ? Tony Campolo did.
In a personal interview with me last year, Campolo said he knew for a fact that Hillary's faith is deep and absolutely genuine. He personally counseled her through the travails of her husband's second term and he knows it was her faith that got her through it. So, in the interest of equity, could you throw a sister some rope, too? At least help "set the record straight" for her as well. She is a sister, who's faith reputation has been even more damaged by religious right whisper campaigns. Many of your readers, even have been affected by the lies. You could help.
Thanks for considering it. Your friend,
Lisa
Posted by: Lisa Sharon Harper | February 28, 2008 7:09 PM
What do you expect from a guy from Cincinatti?
"Obama has forcefully and repeatedly denounced and renounced and deplored and damned Farrakhan's antisemitism. What more do you people want him to do, a blood oath? Trial by ordeal?"
How about calling on his church to sever ties between its leadership and Farrakhan? Given that Wright is now retired, Obama could call on the church to erase such a blemish once and for all. Obama has tacitly rejected Wright's support behind the scenes, in hopes of avoiding alienating Wright's supporters. If you want to eat the cake you have, expect to get crumbs on your mouth... Or something.
Honestly, though, all of this is an enormous boon to Obama. Anytime some nutjob makes fun of him or questions his faith, his supporters have the opportunity to rally to his defense. All of which takes distracts the focus from Obama's ghastly, unelectable policy platform. Most conservatives would MUCH rather discuss that, I assure you.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 28, 2008 7:13 PM
Wow! Mr Wallace's article about the wrongness of linking Barack Hussein Obama to Muslim extremist factions evoking all this virulent discourse about the abortion issue (Yes, I recommend people read or listen to Barack Obama's "Call to Renewal" speech whole heartedly) and even the one remark inferring a quote from Mr. Wallace's article which is just not there ... (ooh! hey! don't you have enough sense to know about the find text function?)
Hello People!!!
- The abortion issue is a "Political Football" and in a context such as this can only be brought up to stir division, not to dialogue about the pertinent issues at hand. What does that say about our so-called respect for life? It's reprehensible in the same manner as a quarrelling couple who each carries on about how they truly have the best interest of their child at heart, and how the other parent is terrible because they don't parent in the same manner as the one parent.
The abortion issue in this context is as abusive to all lives impacted by abortion as a divorce is abusive to the children of the marriage when both parents claim to look after their child as a show to prove to people how that parent is "right" and the other is "wrong"....
Is that the best you people can come up with in the debate about whether Mr. Cunningham meant to imply Mr. Obama is a closet Muslim?
Posted by: Marion | February 28, 2008 7:13 PM
I was holding out some real hope that this ridiculous distortion couldn't possibly gain any ground with the American people. Once again I have been disappointed. I actually had the audacity to hope that a person whose middle name happens to be Hussein and whose last name sounds a little too much like "Osama" could be taken seriously for the decent, hard-working American he is. I wonder what would happen if a real, live, actual Muslim ran for office in this country? The sky would surely fall down at long last.
Posted by: Joy Lawler | February 28, 2008 7:14 PM
Hali,
I'm an Episcopalian, if you must know, and if my priest didn't vote Democratic last time around I'm an OSU grad.
Nobody is saying that Obama should follow anyone blindly, but there are things that gentlemen disagree over as gentlemen, and there are things that are beyond the pale. Minister Farakhan's combination of antisemitism and paranoia is beyond the pale for an avowed Christian. (Much less a minister)
Now the fact that Obama attends a church run by an acknowledged admirer of Farrakhan doesn't by itself prove that Obama shares any of Farrakhan's world view, but the old saying goes "you are known by the company you keep". Farrakhan is a nasty piece of work -- nasty enough that associating with one of his associates is likely to be controversial. Fair or not, that's how it is.
You think I'm disparaging Obama's character. I'm actually pointing out a tactical mistake on your part. It's hilarious how every time you respond to the "Obama's a muslim" red herring, you can't help but remind us of the link between Obama and Farrakhan.
Could it be that there's some method to Cunningham's madness?
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | February 28, 2008 7:14 PM
Would that Americans were intelligent and knowledgable enough to rise above such thoughts as to being afraid of Obama's middle name,etc. We are a crisis in this country; we are in debt, we are in an insane war with no end, education for our children is poor, healthcare is poor, our natural resources are diminishing rapidly, the world will soon be out of water, etc, etc, etc, and people continue to listen to trash on the TV and radio which has nothing to do with what is important to our continued existance. Wake up AMerica! Please! Look carefully at who is advising the candidates. This will give you an indication as to the future if that candidate is elected. John McCain unfortunately lives in the illusion that a strong military keeps us safe. It hasn't. We have seen this present administration spit on our Constitution, deny or civil rights, spy on us without cause. In other words we have nearly lost our Democracy. Hillary's husband worked with the Republicans and signed NAFTA which has been a disaster to the American worker, but has gained great profits for corporations thru low waged workers in other countries, so in spite of the fact that a woman president would be nice, Hillary is not the one. I am looking for a PEACE MAKER FOR PRESIDENT. Dennis Kucinich was that candidate and the Democratic Party found his ideas to threatening to their share of the spoils. Would Obama be a good president? I have no idea. But I have doubts about any candidate that is willing to attack another country and doesn't show respect for other cultures and religions. Peace to all.
Posted by: Pat | February 28, 2008 7:17 PM
I was holding out some real hope that this ridiculous distortion couldn't possibly gain any ground with the American people. Once again I have been disappointed. I actually had the audacity to hope that a person whose middle name happens to be Hussein and whose last name sounds a little too much like "Osama" could be taken seriously for the decent, hard-working American he is. I wonder what would happen if a real, live, actual Muslim ran for office in this country? The sky would surely fall down at long last.
Posted by: Joy Lawler | February 28, 2008 7:17 PM
". Quite the contrary: we believe that spirited disagreement is a healthy thing :) "
Heck, they welcome everyone EXCEPT Jews :)
Yeah, that's gonna get deleted.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 28, 2008 7:17 PM
Thanks For NOT endorsing a candidate. Religion's place in politics is to promote its ideals and philosophy- NOT CANDIDATES!
The United States has own its share of fundamentalist, religious extremists.
When churches become political entities, they need to start paying taxes.
Feeling the pain of a conservative majority,
Russ Pugh
Posted by: Russ Pugh | February 28, 2008 7:29 PM
We've also got to get the media to denounce these scurrilous attacks, or it will be a losing game. When was the last time you saw a TV network's news show point out that such attacks are based on lies? A newspaper? A radio show? Let's write to them every time we see such a smear, and insist that it the smear and its perpetrators be covered critically for what they are.
If Sen. Obama must respond time and time again to these "He might be a radical Islamist" smears, lest they be assumed to be true, shouldn't the NEWS media? We should do the same for any candidate who gets smeared in this manner. A suggestion: get on FactCheck.org's mailing list, and when they report a smear, copy it to your local media outlets. I like to open with "Don't take my word for it, ..."
Posted by: Charles Quinn | February 28, 2008 7:30 PM
I'm curious as to how so many people can claim to be Evangelical Christians who want social justice but get behind a pro-choice candidate? People are so worried about our reputation as a nation overseas and yet support politicians who vote for abortions to occur in our own back yard! What is more of a social injustice than ending the lives of babies before they even have a chance to experience what life is all about?
Posted by: Eric | February 28, 2008 7:37 PM
Sadly, the same whisper campaign is going as full speed as a Swift Boat in the Jewish community. It seems like those emails with the multiple forwarding marks and the huge font come daily, bringing new "evidence" that Barack is a secret Muslim, a jihadist Trojan Horse.
This is not surprising: our current administration was elected by a mob, whipped into a frenzy of fear and race hatred against Muslims. Whether you think that Islam is a great faith or that Israel defends herself justly from her enemies, fear and hatred are just what every demagogue needs in order to cause the majority to vote against its own self-interest.
The Jewish community in America is concerned for Israel's survival. Unfortunately, a percentage of them (fortunately, still only around 20%) believe that letting Israel's Hawks do whatever they want is the best way to secure that survival. Obama challenges that assumption not because he is a secret Muslim, but because he is a realist who (like a large number of Israelis) believe the only way to break the stalemate in Palestine is to once again become the Honest Broker in negotiations going forward.
Let's hope that the majority is tired of being manipulated by people whose main interest is bleeding the treasury dry while trashing the environment and America's image. Maybe we have learned something after being fooled twice--let's hope and pray!
Posted by: Lori L | February 28, 2008 7:40 PM
I gave up religion many years ago because I saw so many un-Christian Christians. Only recently have I begun attending. I can only support Obama in his quest. The last time the country was in a very similar situation was in the Hoover years and FDR worked out the difficulties. I believe Obama has the same qualities.
Posted by: Bill Jaworski | February 28, 2008 7:42 PM
Thank you Jim for setting the record straight, again. It's so sad that ignorance keeps rearing it's ugly head over and over and over again.
Posted by: Amy M. | February 28, 2008 7:42 PM
I almost became a UCC pastor until I did some in depth research. I have also researched Barack's church and do not agree with your biased conclusions. I have read your books but prefer N. T. Wright for a balanced well-researched historical perspective. Read his "Suprised by Hope" if you want real hope.
I won't vote for Obama because:
1. The amount of money he is spending on his campaign is obscene.
2. His one-line or cue-card answers are not substantive.
3. His soft feminine brand and high-hype brings people very close to idolatry.
4. He comes across as arrogant, self-serving, power-hungry, ego-driven and control-seeking.
5. His premature run has split the Democratic party.
6. His campaign is a media myth creation, and it is contributing to an American meltdown.
7. Shame on you for this endorsement!
Posted by: aware | February 28, 2008 7:44 PM
Marie : for herstory
I agree with you completely!!
Notice that even the rest of the commentators won't even address this issue. It is outrageous that Jim has not even addressed this issue.....but then again if it doesn't affect men it's not important. When will women wake up to that fact.
It's the same thing over and over. The good old boys want to give the job to the young man and have the woman who knows the job inside and out train him.
Posted by: Charlene | February 28, 2008 7:49 PM
Thank you for article on US Senator Barack Obama. I am praying for him and his family.
I have followed your ministry since your Post American magazine days. My brother the late Tom Skinner once told me that the African American Church will have to make a radical change, if we are going to reach this generation. Well the whole Christian Church will have to make a radical change, if we agoing to reach this generation.
Why can't we have different perspectives on issues as followers of Christ without being angry with one another. Both Senators Clinton and Obama are Christians and they will have to ask for forgiveness for some of the things that they may have said or done during the campaign. I hope that they will do as Christians.
We need to strengthen our witness as Christians.
Keep the faith.
Johnnie William Skinner,Pastor
Mount Zion Baptist Church
Knoxville,TN
Posted by: Johnnie William skinner | February 28, 2008 7:49 PM
Obama needs to take a stronger stand against both Farakkhan and his pastor's support of Farakkhan if he doesn't want to risk losing the Jewish vote. I personally know some older Jews who are considering voting Republican for president for the first time in their LIVES because of the Farakkhan link. Somehow I doubt they are the only Jews who feel this way. That could swing a key state or two.
Posted by: Mara | February 28, 2008 7:52 PM
I lived in the same neighborhood as Barack Obama when I attended theological school in the Eighties. While I did not attend Trinity UCC, I did study church history with Dr. Martin Marty. Doctor Marty has attended Trinity and felt welcomed. Anyone who has ever met Martin Marty or read any of his many books cannot question his status as a Christian. Doctor Marty was heavily involved in the uniting of most of the Lutheran denominations in this country during the time I knew him.
During the time I studied at the Divinity School of the University of Chicano, Reverend Wright was leading it, Hyde Park was one of the most liberal areas in the county. If there had been a Black Separatist church in the area it would have been one of the hottest subject at the Divinity School.
Posted by: John Harvey | February 28, 2008 7:52 PM
Thank you. Those "shock jocks" are very sick people. It is sad that people make a living trying to slander others. You are to be commended for standing up for Obama. More Christians should follow the golden rules.
May God bless you (whatever faith or gender God is).
Posted by: Ettamarie Peterson | February 28, 2008 7:55 PM
Thanks, Jim. There is a strong need for responsible citizens to counteract the voices of extremeism no matter where they come from in America today. We must not just overlook talk show hosts and media that present distortions and inaccurate information or whip up fear and anger.
Posted by: Marilyn Lund | February 28, 2008 8:00 PM
Eric, I suggest you read Obama's speech that Jim is referring to (www.barackobama.com/2006/06/28/call_to_renewal_keynote_address.php) as well as his recent interview with Christianity Today (www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/januaryweb-only/104-32.0.html) that touches on this subject.
Yes, I am pro-life and 100% against abortion. But what I want to see is realistic action. Our pro-life president has not done much to actually reduce abortions in the way we all want to see it happen. I am more concerned about how we can actually make some progress here. It's not enough to be ideologically pro-life; you have to be able to pass laws. Consider South Dakota, where currently, if some pro-life lawmakers were willing to compromise and include exceptions, about 95% less abortions would be currently performed in that state today. But because they were more concerned with the ideal (which I do fully understand and sympathize with), they lost the opportunity to dramatically reduce abortions. Think of all the lives that could have been saved. The fact is that voters were largely against abortion in general but did not want to vote to make it illegal if there were no exceptions for some cases.
The fact is that we have to work with what we have, and I think Obama has demonstrated an understanding of this and a personal desire to make that happen. We need to combat abortion with greater education for women/girls making the choice--this is incredibly effective. If we spend all our time fighting big power groups like PP and NARAL by trying to overturn Roe V Wade, we'll lose the smaller but more effective battles. The fact is that we're just in too deep to keep fighting the same battle over and over and hope to win. All this to say, I want a president who can actually get something done instead of increasing the gridlock we have been in for so long. And lastly, I don't see how we can say that the right wing is pro-life if they are so pro-war and pro-death penalty, etc.
God forgive us for making abortion such the politicized issue it is today...we might have accomplished more on behalf of the unborn if we hadn't been so hateful and obnoxious.
Posted by: erin | February 28, 2008 8:01 PM
Thank you Jim for your denouncement and rejection (smile) of Bill Cunningham's attacks upon Barack Obama,one of the most decent human beings that I have seen in politics in a long, long time. I am 59 years old and the first time I encountered the name Hussein was when I read about King Hussein of Jordan. I believe he was Jewish. Although he is not alive today, if I remember correctly, he was highly respected in the world community and a great leader.
"A foolish tongue wags like a dog, and much to the fools chagrin goes nowhere."
Posted by: Elaine D. Fennell | February 28, 2008 8:11 PM
"God forgive us for making abortion such the politicized issue it is today...we might have accomplished more on behalf of the unborn if we hadn't been so hateful and obnoxious."
Erin, You might have accomplished more on behalf of the unborn if you had eradicated sexism.
Posted by: Jim | February 28, 2008 8:12 PM
Thank you Jim, As usual you position on Obama is articulate, clear,powerful, fair and accurate.It is sad that free speech in America is interpreted by a few pathological zealots to be the liberty to create rumours, slander hate an despicable lies about anyone or anything they do not agree with . May God soften their hard hearts and invoke reason to their muddled thinking.
Please pray in earnest for the likes of the Cunninghams, Limbaughs and O'Reillys. Thank you for your continuing brave voice and Christian commitment.
Posted by: Don Beggs | February 28, 2008 8:13 PM
Thank you, Jim! Obama is the kind of Christian we see too little of—tolerant, kind, open-minded and respectful of all opinions. When people call members of the UCC heretics for supporting gays and lesbians and abortions, it gets my blood up. I'm not UCC, but I think they've been an island of compassion and right-thinking that other denominations would be wise to emulate.
Oddly, the kinds of things some supposedly Christian people fault Obama for are the very characteristics that recommend him to our allies around the world. You don't have to vote for him to treat him with decency and respect.
Yesterday, I went into a shop in my neighborhood that had this huge "nutcracker" in the shape of Hillary Clinton and told them that I wouldn't buy anything there until they removed it from the display window. I'd hope anyone who sees these things would do the same.
It's odd that very conservative people feel license to trash people with whom they disagree, and I thank you for setting the bar considerably higher.
Posted by: Carolyn | February 28, 2008 8:19 PM
If people actually practiced what the Constitution says, it would be unacceptable to even ask about a person's religion, let alone comment on it. Jefferson was a non-believer. John Adams was a Christian. Churches ought to pay taxes as a significant number of them have become blatantly political. I am reminded of a quote by some one that says, "if you require a candidate to talk about his religion, you are asking to be lied to."
Posted by: Veronica Caley | February 28, 2008 8:24 PM
Really? Half of the entire email-ezine defending Barack Obama? Isn't this whole Sojourners thing by nature supposed to be non-partisan? Why wouldn't you put a more general piece about campaigning and faith, comparing Obama, Romney, and others? This is disappointing. Clearly you have endorsed a candidate.
Posted by: Katie | February 28, 2008 8:31 PM
This entire issue is so insulting on at least two levels and to many of us.
#1. To imply that being a Muslim is somehow undesirable is to insult the Muslim faith and its believers.
2. It is insulting to me and those who believe as I do that we would be so bigoted as to believe that being a Muslim is a bad thing and somehow something to be ashamed of and hidden.
Posted by: Pat Kramer | February 28, 2008 8:35 PM
While I agree with your comments, it is disingenuous to say you are not supporting a candidate. I don't think you can just defend one candidate and ignore the other inappropriate statements made about other candidates. I attended last nights get together in Sacramento and I do like listening to what you have to say, but coming out like this in defense of Obama really shows who you support. Of course the fact that I am a strong supporter of Hillary does not help, but then again I don't profess not to support any candidate.
Posted by: Maureen | February 28, 2008 8:38 PM
Jim-
I wish you had addressed the fact that Obama speaks very favorably about Israel and it's need to defend itself but has nothing to say in defense of the Palestinians who have been occupied and virtually destroyed by the Israeli government and it's military for the past 40 years. The Palestinians who once threw rocks are now firing primitive rockets that have killed maybe 3 Israelis while the Palestinians are assaulted, tortured and killed on a daily basis by one of the worlds most modern armies. Where is the outrage here? In his most recent speech Obama chastised the Lebanese for abducting a couple of Israeli soldiers but said nothing about the past 20 years of Israeli incursions into Lebanon and the subsequent assassinations and ritual killings of civilians. His total ignorance or practiced avoidance of the truth of the matter is most disconcerting and frankly shameful. Israel is run by a right-wing racist government who's propaganda machine is second to none, and who give not one whit for the Palestinians or a peaceable solution.
Please address this issue.
Respectfully,
Ken Winston
Sonoma California
Posted by: Ken Winston | February 28, 2008 8:38 PM
I agree that chruches should stay out of politics. I just finished a great book by Randall Balmer, called "God in the White House". Balmer says that Throughout history whenever religion and politics mix it makes for bad politics and worse religion.
My own thought is; religion is the pursuit of God, while politics is the pursuit of power.
Posted by: Paul Binkley | February 28, 2008 8:41 PM
Salaam, Shalom, Peace,
As an American Muslim, I am sadly disappointed that in your defense of Barak Obama, you still seem to believe that insinuating that he is a Muslim is a "scurrilous attack". He is a Christian and not a Muslim so the claim is incorrect, why is it "scurrilous"? Is it an insult to be called a Muslim? Should all American Muslims be ashamed of their religion?
God bless,
Sheila Musaji, Editor
The American Muslim www.theamericanmuslim.org
Posted by: Sheila Musaji | February 28, 2008 8:45 PM
Jim:
To be fair, you need to write something about the hateful and wrongful things being said about Hillary Clinton, a good Christian and United Methodist.
Your comment about TUCC being unashamedly black, "something that any good black would say", might not be a good analogy. Suppose a white church said it was unashamedly white. Might that not be considered racist. I would like for you to check something for me. Obama's book,"The Audacity Of Hope" for which he recently received a Globe award. Does it not contain a direct quote by him, saying, "If the political winds change...then I will stand with the Muslims".
Posted by: Charles Jennings | February 28, 2008 8:56 PM
Jim,
Thanks for the good article and for being willing to tackle the pressing issues of our day.
It is important to understand that Muslim, Christians and Jews are all members of Abraham's broken family.
I've been working in Indonesia for the last 11 years seeking to heal the wounds and connect people.
It is important to understand that:
1. The time when Obama lived in Indonesia was a time when radical Islam was not allowed. Therefore, the existence of a Wahabi school (Madrasa) would be highly suspect. It would have to be an obscure institution far away in the country side. There have been several investigations to his schooling in Jakarta and they all point to very normal schools and indeed to a Catholic school.
2. To attend such school TODAY, his parents would have to be very conservative Muslims. A mixed marriage, would be extremely suspect. Back during the 60's-70's only very liberal Muslims would be willing to marry a Westerner.
3. Obama has emphatically said that he is a Christian, to a Muslim, such a declaration would mean death.
4. In conclusion, the statements that say that Obama is a Muslim, show total ignorance of who Muslims are and how one becomes a Muslim. A person who understand Islam, would never be able to make such a statement.
While I'm a registered Republican and since becoming a US citizen have voted Republican, I personally like the idea of Obama for president and most likely will vote for him. He is young enough not to be part of political cliques of Washington DC. His background would make him be a US president that would be able to relate to a globalized culture and deal afresh with the critical problems our nation faces.
Posted by: Wolfgang Fernandez | February 28, 2008 8:57 PM
Yes, Obama is willing to meet with muslim leaders and other world leaders the United States has been hostile toward in the past, but he was not willing to be photgraphed with Gavin Newsom, Mayor of San Francisco after Mator Newsom granted marriage licenses to same sex couples. Where's the love there? No thank you...
Posted by: christine kinavey | February 28, 2008 8:57 PM
I hold Omaba accountable for his pro-abortion views, which are militant and subChristian. He supports Roe v. Wade, which opened the door to about 45 million legal abortions in the US. How does he square this with:
1. The biblical mandate to defend the least of these?
2. The biblical truth that human live begins at conception?
3. The biblical mandate to pursue justice for all?
He cannot. He is a leftwing ideologue whose faith means little where it matters most.
Posted by: Doug Groothuis | February 28, 2008 9:15 PM
Jim's thoughts on this matter are very well-put except for his comment about Rush Limbaugh. Jim makes it sound as if Limbaugh's dislike for McCain is a recent result of McCain's rejection of Cunningham's rhetoric, but this is a mischaracterization of the facts.
Limbaugh has been consistently critical of both McCain's and Obama's politics for years. Nor is there anything wrong or hateful in that. If there were then Jim himself would be a hater since he's not been shy about criticizing the politics of those he disagrees with.
Posted by: Dick | February 28, 2008 9:16 PM
Please excuse my misspelling of Obama.
Posted by: Doug Groothuis | February 28, 2008 9:16 PM
I posted earlier as an undedided voter, but an admirer of Senator Obama and his wife.
I am undecided because I am torn between an incredible woman candidate and an impressive man, with an incredible wife supporting him.
For the feminists posting here...just wanted to let you know that is a big factor for me personally in this election!
I do believe there has been some unwarranted pressure on Senator Clinton during debates that has not also been applied to Senator Obama, but I have not seen the blatant attacks to her person that have been directed at Senator Obama. Please enlighten me.
For the pro-lifer's out there...Please read the former Pope's views of the life issues in the Vatican 2 writings. He speaks of a "Culture of Life", where all issues of life are respected, including abortion, the death penalty, euthanasia, war and how we treat one another. Please remember that God can forgive and heal women who have had abortions. As people who have such strong opinions about abortion, I hope that you spend more time supporting and nurturing scared pregnant women as you do focusing election decisions on one issue - which is not the issue that was even addressed in Mr. Wallis's article.
Your pro-life friend and gentle critic.
Julia
Posted by: Julia | February 28, 2008 9:19 PM
I feel that this article is a breath of fresh air. I am tired of hearing so many people around me say that they are supporting Hillary because they can not bring themselves to vote for a Muslim. The first time I heard this I laughed, of course, because I had never heard of this before and I had always known him to be a strong participant in the Christian community. Yet, the ignorance of many often leads people astray no matter the intentions. However, to me the first thing that comes to mind is, "Why not?" Why do so many people believe that all Muslims are bad? I think there is much ignorance in such assumptions. I do see how people can fear such implications, with our country's relations between so many that claim to do horrible acts in the name of Allah, yet I don't see how anyone could accept such information without further investigation. First of all the Islamic religion does not suggest that in the name of Allah people should attack others? On the contrary the Islamic religion suggests a more defensive stance. No matter what religion Barack Obama participates in, if he said the same things in all of the same places that he has then I would still vote for him, Muslim or Christian, Black or White, what he brings to the table is a plan that I have never seen before. His plan is to use the inspiration and the good of the people to bring our country above and beyond where it has ever been, out of ruin and into a new age where we can foster our ideas and the ideas of our children and build upon the inventions that we create time and again, to once again make the American dream worth dreaming!
Posted by: Sophia | February 28, 2008 9:19 PM
Thanks, Jim, for your comments which should clear
up some questions for a number of people who have rather weird ideas about people and, without any
attempt to get all the facts, make their judgments. I would just comment that I am more
concerned about Obama's stance on the issue of
"Life"....He seems to speak strongly about one type of attack on life which is war and I strongly agree with him on that. But ALL LIFE IS
SACRED and I understand that he does not recognize the sanctity and dignity of the life of the innocent unborn. I believe when Illinois was struggling with the "Born alive Infant protection Act" a few years ago, he voted against it. His stance on LIFE, in all stages, disturbs me. I believe Clinton's stance is the same as his and I
don't like that either. Thanks for your efforts
to get the truth out! God bless you!
Posted by: Stella Rosenhamer | February 28, 2008 9:23 PM
As a Canadian expatriate living in Hong Kong I have been barely able to follow what's going on in my own country, much less the US.
However, I find it odd that my impression was that Mr. Barack was either a liberal muslim or a man of very ethereal beliefs. Perhaps he could make himself more clearly understood when these mixups occur? I have not followed this campaign closely, but in the last two years I have not heard him speak it out publicly.
Posted by: J | February 28, 2008 9:24 PM
I am amazed by how many "right wing" christians, despise people who are not like them. Bill Cunningham and Rush Limbaugh always promote hated of people, who are different or disagree with them. And people like Joe Allen; who in his post, states that Jesus wants us to feed the hungry and cloth the naked. Just don't ask him to help.
Posted by: Rand | February 28, 2008 9:36 PM
Jim,
I have great respect for the work that you have
been doing, and was planning to become a
contributor. However, I feel that you are
showing partiality to the male candidate for
the democratic nomination, and have failed to
speak out when you should have in defense of
the female candidate. Senator Clinton has been
treated cruelly by the mainstream media
consistently for many months. You never said a
word in her defense.
Whether Obama is a Christian or not is known only
to God and him. The same can be said for any
person claiming to be a Christian. Only God
knows the heart.
Is it possible that the reason that you have failed to speak up (against the terrible treatment
that Senator Clinton has received) is because
your Baptist denomination believes that a woman
should be subordinate to a man?
If that is the way that you feel, I think that
you have just lost credibility as a spiritual
leader. That is sad.
I have two degrees in Theology, and I believe
that the Bible teaches that all, regardless of
race or gender, are created equal. Since you
know the Bible, you must know that a woman, Deborah, was the leader of Israel in Old Testament
days. A modern leader of Israel was also a woman.
Other countries today have women leaders, and
Senator Clinton is well qualified to be the leader
of this country.
Posted by: Margaret A. | February 28, 2008 9:37 PM
"Funny" but Barak Obama's middle name is also the name of one our the USA's biggest supporters and allies, King of Jordan. Pretty said that the right wing nuts can only think in a very narrow way.
Posted by: lorraine | February 28, 2008 9:48 PM
Marie: for herstory nd Charlene,
Believing as I do that sexism is a faith issue I wholeheartedly agree with your comments. John McCain who became so outraged at Mr. Cunningham's comments merely laughed last fall when a woman asked him how he was going to get rid of the "bitch." And this is just one of the many examples of how she has continued to be denigrated with no one naming the sexism involved or speaking out against it.
While I appreciate Jim Wallis' article and agree with him, I also think this is not quite so simple a matter. As several people have said there is the clear implication that to be called a Muslim is an insult. Yes, I believe that's what Mr. Cunningham intended to do, and I received the inflammatory e-mail making the rounds. And, I believe Barak Obama is not Muslim but a faithful Christian. But let's not defend his Christian faith at the expense of the faithful who are Muslims, Jews and many others.
Posted by: Rev. Beth | February 28, 2008 9:50 PM
As a minister, I find that I must agree with Wolverine and Kevin. It is not enough that Obama repudiate Farrakhan directly. That is certainly admirable, and he has done so in strong and unequivocal terms.
However, Rev. Wright said Farrakhan "epitomized greatness," and has not only not repudiated any of Farrakhan's words, but gave Farrakhan an award only months after making his infamous speech on the Jews.
It is therefore incumbent upon Obama to distance himself as much from Wright - in an strong and unequivocal terms - as he has from Farrakhan. Yet Obama speaks glowingly of Wright, and still considers him an important mentor and friend (though he admittedly disinvited Wright from introducing him at a speaking engagement).
If I found out that the pastor of the church that I attended - a person in whom I entrusted any portion of my spiritual life and knowledge, and particularly one whom I felt strongly connected to - openly supported an anti-Semite, I would not remain in that church. And if I were the pastor of a church, and I would not repudiate a known anti-Semite with whom I had significant ties, I would not be surprised if members of the church left as a result of my views.
Yet there is another aspect to this issue which has not been raised. When Tim Russert asked the question, he specifically asked about BOTH Farrakhan AND Wright. Yet Obama ONLY responded re Farrakhan, and sidestepped addressing Wright's complicity. To me, this showed not only an unwillingness to repudiate Wright, but a dishonesty in deliberately evading answering the question fully.
Where is Obama's vaunted "principle" in all this?
Peace.
Posted by: Maani | February 28, 2008 9:53 PM
Thank you, Jim, for giving me an "ammunition article" not from a campaign source or a politician!
Linda B.
Posted by: Celtic Diva | February 28, 2008 9:56 PM
Having taught witha public school comprising Muslim and Christian children discuss each others' faith, I am just sharing a perspective as one who voted for Obama. I worked with children who had arrived from countries, where some had lost a father or/and witnessed their family shot due to the ongoing 'polarity betweem Muslims and Christians ( Bosnia, in this case). They were taught ' zero dialog' skills early - and with much trauma.
Years of hearing, " Ms. P, 'So-n-so' doesn't believe in Jesus." was not uncommon. I would say faith is not a ' simple equation'. We actually aligned with World Relief to work with post trauma, and be restoring simple real childhood experiences.
I say, from being in the ' trenches',this generation needs to see healing dialogue, and whatever that means. As an educator with faith,
(dorothy day-ish), I would hope if Obama is ' a person of faith' and he is to able to create dialogue, that is great. Our country is too 'know it all'. Someone needs to model our willingness to bring our concerns so that the extremists are no longer the 'educators'.
He might be willing to work for the bridge- where persons of faith, embrace this vision of less ' either-ors'. Maybe this is the wrong forum, but I can hope too.
Let's get rid of the 'either-ors', and get the 'both-ands'. Having read some of Palmer's book, The Courage to Teach, helped me. His thoughts that 'there are no opposite truths, but opposite statements' rings true. He says there are profound truths that can co-exist, ( God is love. Jesus is with our providing, trusting healing,etc)-Good Muslims can live and breathe, not all are extremists. There are also fanactical 'Christians'- look at Wako, Tx.
Thanks and hope okay to trust the ' adults', pastors, of all faith know that teachers are the filters of the culture. I, for one, only filter, making peace, working together and practicing more and politicizing less.
Posted by: susan | February 28, 2008 10:18 PM
correction-
Having taught ..with children "who" discuss their faith..
May you forgive all my writing errors, but i am pooped.
Thanks
Posted by: susan | February 28, 2008 10:26 PM
I remember reading somewhere that Martin Luther made the comment that he would rather be ruled by a competent Turk than an incompetent Christian. We must always remember that we are not electing a theologian but a President; and the eventual winner in this current election will not be, probably cannot be, the perfect choice for any of us.
Posted by: George De Vries, Jr. | February 28, 2008 10:32 PM
Sheila, Good point. It shows how ingrained the negativity has become by all these innuendos that have mostly gone unchallneged.
Since there are so many gullible Christians ( and others) easily swayed by the fear-mongering and appeals to prejudice by the likes of this Cunningham, it is up to those who know better to speak the truth. And those who do know better and fail to speak the truth bear a large burden for the ills of the world. That goes double for Christian leaders who lead the flock astray.
Marie -- I agree -- where is the outrage over the sexist treatment of Hillary? If the things said about her were said about Barack there would be a lot of so-called commentators out of work.
Wolverine -- If my good friend from whom I sometimes take advise admires someone who I consider dispicable, should I end the friendship, hope my friend "sees the light" with some imput from me, stop taking advise even though it has nothing to do with that issue, what? This is not an uncommon dilemna for those of us who do not limit our relationships to clones of ourselves.
Posted by: c kitty | February 28, 2008 10:32 PM
Thank you for standing up for honesty in campaigning. We are free to vote for whomever we chose. But if we chose to spread lies against people, we harm our country, our political party and ourselves.
Posted by: Pat Rudolph | February 28, 2008 10:33 PM
You forgot to say that you are friends with Oprah too! Stick with issues in the church and not politics... as Oprah should stick to her TV show!
Obama's campaign has said that he is muslim however... not a practicing muslim.
Posted by: Shawn | February 28, 2008 10:42 PM
I am an ordained minister of the United Church of Christ - the same denomination as Trinity Church. I happen to be white and a woman. I have had the blessing of leading worship with Rev. Wright on serval occassions and personally praying with Senator Obama. They are both men of faith and character!
Posted by: PL | February 28, 2008 10:53 PM
Thank you for this clarification. I'm a born-again Christian of Muslim background, or as they call us MBBs. It is a shame that some "professing christians" or "christians by heritage" can dare to slander their fellow bretheren in Christ. However, as Jesus said, if they (his bretheren) insulted and delivered him to be crucified, can we really hope that we don't be treated in the same way? Aren't they the ones who advocate bringing the Gospel to Muslims? Is their tactic is the way to win Muslims to Christ? What would encourage a Muslim to open up to Christianity? By the way, did they EVER realized that Jesus is by race a middleastern (not a white with blue eyes and blond hair)? I am not an Obama supporter, but I really find if very offencive, unchristian and unethical to slunder the man and accuse him of being something that he totally rejected. Those right-wing extrimists are hurting Christians and even putting mudd on Jesus' face. They are causing us more damage that the extreme liberal. As Jesus said, beware of wolves in sheep clothing... those who scatter rather than gather.
Posted by: Al | February 28, 2008 11:00 PM
Your comments are right on the mark, clearly written, and as with all of your writings: sincere. Scanning down some of posts, I sense the all-too-common responses that demonstrate how many readers either cannot really read with comprehension and/or cannot read without responding to their personal biases.
Posted by: John Wm "Bill" Sutton | February 28, 2008 11:06 PM
Thank you, Jim for honest, truthful, and faith-based commentary. I recently had to set the record straight with a young man sitting next to me on an airplane who had been misled that Sen. Obama was a Muslim.
Shame on those who think they are hiding their racism and push their so-called" faith" when bashing Trinity United Church of Christ and especially the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. as being a 'black nationalist." If these people cared to step inside and worship at our church they might learn, feel the presence of the Holy Spirit, and become enlightened in a way they may have not previously experienced.
Thanks again, Jim, for being the man of faith and words that you are. God bless you!
Posted by: Kecia | February 28, 2008 11:15 PM
Thanks, Jim, for this straightforward and honest writing about Mr. Obama....I read his book, Dreams From My Father, and am reading The Audacity of Hope now. His words are winsome as well as informative and have a "ring of truth" about them. I have continued to seek information about him and his policies and recently decided to support him. However, I am appalled at some of the repeated false statements against him. I force myself to listen to some of the conservative talk show hosts and am shocked by their outlandish and deliberately deceptive statements. I have read Sojourners for many years and it was like a breath of fresh air to read your piece tonight on on line. I appreciate your writing from the viewpoint of the personal history you have with Obama as well as your "stand up" attitude in stating the facts as you know them.
Joy Neece-Fors
Posted by: Joy Fors | February 28, 2008 11:28 PM
Norm Lowry, 55 year old Republican...says...
Slander is always sin but, any true follower of our precious Jesus will be persecuted.
If you have read the Koran, you (like me) would probably not have a problem with a man (or woman) of Islam running for, or holding, any public office...including President.
I used to be an Ultra-Conservative (today's Neocon?). It is my personal opinion that we were (or are) the dangerous ones. Today, I am politically 'dissident'.
It would be nice to see all who are called by the matchless Name of Jesus, lay down our arms, become honest "bond servants" (as with James, one who is not counted in a census) of all humanity, invite all to immigrate into our space, quit thinking ourselves better than others (racism); freely dying that others might live (rather than freely killing that we might have a better life).
If we are already "dead, in Christ", who can hurt us?
Blessings... Norm
Posted by: Norm Lowry | February 28, 2008 11:28 PM
I think this is crying "wolf" a little too ingeniously:
"...Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whom Obama picked out as his pastor."
Well, it's nice to know that all good Christians don't decide to attend church, they "pick" a pastor to march in lockstep with. I've never actually encountered this, though.
Jerry Falwell once supported segregation. Does this mean that everyone who attended Liberty Baptist or defended Falwell's legacy zealously (as lots have done here) are all damned by association with a pastor (I guess they "picked" him) who once expressed a now-unpopular opinion?
I mean, even Bill Buckley once opposed voting rights for southern blacks, back in '55. Yet I notice plenty of paens to his contributions in the eulogies for him. If you consider yourself conservative, or even read National Review, does that mean you "picked" Buckley as your fuhrer and you march in goosestep to his once-upon-a-time youthful rhetoric? Are the liberals who admire him similarly damned by now having attended a "madrassa" of conservatism?
I think some of those opposing Obama would be happy to see him sidelined - by fair means or foul. "Whatever it takes," in the mantra of our day. Even if it involves slander and false witness, just as Bush supporters, including putative Christian Ralph Reed, did against McCain in Soiuth Carolina in 200, accusing McCain of having had an illegitimate black child.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | February 28, 2008 11:32 PM
Senator Obama not only has fools like Bill Cunningham using smear tactics; A man who should know better, but chooses to be a bigger fool is Congressman Jack Kingston of Georgia who emphasized Obama's middle name several times on 'Real Time with Bill Maher' last week. He also pointed out that Obama didn't hold his hand over his heart in a photo while perpetuating the falsehood that he was reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, when in reality he was standing for the National Anthem. If a U.S. Congressman is so ready to spread lies on a live national TV program, then is it any wonder that a nobody talk show host uses the lies to his own advantage?
They are truly afraid of Obama & try to frighten us, but they're not afraid of him being a one-man Muslim sleeper-cell (which is stupid), it's so obvious that Obama being head & shoulders above his rivals is what is freaking them out. Ya gotta give Obama his due on that count - this guy is the real deal.
Senator Clinton has taken undeserved hits from David Shuster & Chris Matthews, among others, but she has also run a poor campaign & is deserving of some criticism in that she never planned for a challenge after Super Tuesday & didn't think she'd have to earn the nomination in the long run. Then along came Obama, who thouroughly out-organized her campaign. Senator Clinton had a big advantage over all her rivals at the start & received favorable media coverage when she was the clear front-runner & presumed nominee. Her greatest asset & biggest negative is her last name. If she was just a run-of-the-mill politician, she'd have had to drop out of the race after losing 10 consecutive primaries & caucuses. That said - she is certainly qualified to be President based on her experience, but she squandered her initial advantage.
If Obama defeats the Clinton Machine & the Republican/McCain Machine, then he should be in fine form to hit the Presidential ground running from Inauguration Day.
Posted by: Tony | February 28, 2008 11:37 PM
Mr. Wallis, Your thoughtful comments regarding Senator Obama and his faith are powerful and emblematic of how the spirit of God is made manifest in our lives everyday. As people of faith, we must not stand silent as other would try to demagogue and highjack the Christian faith for their own political agendas. We are better than that as a people, as a nation. Thank you again for your column, I wish I could publish it for all the world to see.
Posted by: Rona | February 28, 2008 11:54 PM
Eric, I have never been able to figure out how the Right to Lifers are not on the front lines against the Bush Administration because of the millions killed in Iraq and Afghanistan? Isn't a Life a Life?
Posted by: Pat | February 29, 2008 12:12 AM
Education can take away a lot of fear. Give a man a fish and he can eat for a day. Educate him in how to catch his own and he can feed himself for a lifetime, so the old adage goes. It is so today. Each voter needs to educate him/herself about the what needs to be done here in America and in the world arena. Like it or not, we need to learn how to be players, not intimidaters, if our way of life is to continue. Today we fear so much in America. As our populatin grows denser the divide between our various cultures and religions grows greater. Read everything about every candidate. Listen to what they say, but look at their lives as well. How have they lived them? I have seen how the Bush's live. I have read a lot about junior. Even Pres. Reagan called him a ne're do well and groused about having to deal with him one afternoon. The Clinton's have had their eight years in the White House and did a decent job, even most Republicans concede to that, but we have a law about more than eight years and I wonder if we can stand another eight years of them being under a microscope. John McCain is a loose cannon. He seems to belt out opinions and judgements without thinking about consequesnce. He seems to be an agent for the status quo and frankly his views are as outdated as he is. A new day is here. We have the opportunity to elect/hire a man who has high ideals and and a work ethic that can't be ignored. He has been tested in ways we cannot imagine. Read his bio called Dreams from My Father. I challenge you to read it and not be impressed. He is young and vibrant with intellegence that is far superior to anyone vying for the job. He has a wonderful understanding of our inner cities and what they need. We certainly must start to consider our cities and rebuild them. He will be respected by the leaders in the rest of the world, because they see, in him, a person who is more tolerant and yet a strong leader. He will not waver. He has a wife who is intelligent and articulate who will stand by his side and enhance his leadership. We have a chance today to take America into the twenty first century where she can compete along side the rest of the world's population. A population that is more diverse than at any time during our existance. A vote for Senator Obama is a vote for a new future. I have so much more I could say, but I have faith in him as a person and our next leader. We will not be sorry, of that I am sure.
Posted by: Carol | February 29, 2008 12:13 AM
PS About my statements on Obama: I think you need to know I am a 63 year old professional woman who is a wife and mother. I state that so you will know a little about the writer.
Posted by: Carol | February 29, 2008 12:27 AM
I appreciate Mr. Wallis' comments. But in my experience, people who seek to manipulate crowds start these kinds of wild stories because there is a certain type of person who will latch onto such a thought and refuse to give it up.
Anyone knows that I don't happen to think George Bush was a very good president - but wow, the wild stories I've read the past few years! Even I was aghast.
Try these on for size - there was a picture of George and Laura Bush watching the inaugural parade as the Texas A & M marching band strode by. And so....the band flashed the longhorn hand symbol at the president and his wife. And the Bushes flashed it back.
This got circulated as some Satanic ritual sacrifice symbol! The devil's horns. Don't ask me why...when I see Texas A & M flash "horns" - the immediate thing that comes to mind is the Longhorns sports team. But some people just kept on insisting those were the devil's horns.
Or there's this whole Skull and Bones stuff. I dunno...maybe it's because I live in a college town - but a lot of that Skull and Bones stuff strikes me as a bunch of merry, high-spirited college youths looking for a good thrill.
But on these kinds of things go...
Anyway, my take is that no matter how many times you say that Barrack Obama is a Christian - there are a lot of people you will never convince. They will still be there honestly believing that Obama does not pledge the flag and got sworn in on the Qurran.
Nice, sincere try, though.
Posted by: Ama | February 29, 2008 12:33 AM
Sorry, my name didn't come through. That one up above was by Amazon Creek.
Posted by: Amazon Creek | February 29, 2008 12:35 AM
I find some of the insistence that there is any relavence of Dr. Jeremiah Wright's recognition of Farakhan to the candidacy of Barak Obama very disheartening.
To me, it is this kind of gross, willing misunderstanding and perversion of reality for the purpose of damaging the advance of an African American that opens the door for voices like Louis Farakhan.
Let me just say this. I am a conservative white guy, who among other things, served a very 'progressive' pastor of a large African American church (in many ways having alot of parallels to Dr. Wright's church).
There are Black folks who have loved, cared for, and nurtured the babies of their own rapists in this country; of the same people who ripped their families apart and murdered members of their own family.
I say this because I don't think most white folk have the slightest comprehension of the depth and breadth of the kind of people leaders like Dr. Wright have embraced in the course of their life and ministry.
If you can't put together why Dr. Wright would give Farakhan the slightest bit of recognition (I'm not arguing you need to agree)--you have not even begun to listen or comprehend.
This is why there are few Black folks like Rick and P on this blog who take the time to answer questions, share and dialogue. Most just give up.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | February 29, 2008 12:43 AM
Jim, I agree totally with your excellent article.What was done to Senator Obama in Cincinnati was a disgrace. John McCain absolutely did the right thing in denouncing both the messenger and his hateful message. I felt badly for much of the same type of rhetoric which Mitt Romney had to endure. As a Catholic convert from the Episcopal Church, I wonder if some of the more extreme voices on the religious right have ever read the Gospels ? They don't appear to understand much about Jesus or his message. As a registered independent, I will be voting for Obama, because as closer to my beliefs. Both he and McCain are outstanding and honorable men with inspiring life stories.
Posted by: Jim | February 29, 2008 1:27 AM
"If you can't put together why Dr. Wright would give Farakhan (sic) the slightest bit of recognition (I'm not arguing you need to agree)--you have not even begun to listen or comprehend."
I understand it, but I also think this country has been absurdly tolerant of anti-Semitism. There are many, many civil rights pioneers for whom we don't have to take the good with the bad. Obama fully recognizes why Wright is a problem, so I refuse to believe I am in the wrong for recognizing the same attributes.
"Its is long past time to throw the moneychangers (lobbyists) out of Washington."
Obama has listened to plenty of lobbyists. He might be your guy, but don't throw reality out the window.
"And I can't tell you how much I appreciate Jim Wallis' rejection of the stupid and dangerous criticisms of Barack Obama's faith. Not that I've decided to vote for him, yet,"
But you have decided that you will decide to vote for him, which is the same thing.
"Our pro-life president has not done much to actually reduce abortions in the way we all want to see it happen."
No, he has not done it in the way YOU want to see it happen. I want to see it banned, which requires a reversal of Roe v. Wade, and this president has done more than any in history to see that to fruition.
"were all of you good conservatives as outraged that Reagan would be supported by such a man?"
I was 1 when Reagan was elected, but if I was rolling with the racists this election cycle, I'd go for Ron Paul. Either way, you don't speak to the substance of my statement.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 29, 2008 1:29 AM
Why is this post so popular when there is a thread on HIV, and AIDS in Africa that should get more attention?
p
Posted by: Payshun | February 29, 2008 1:33 AM
Mr. Wallis lost me in his second paragraph when he
implied that Bill Cunningham's Muslim implication about Obama reflect Rush Limbaugh's words and thinking on the matter. It's liberal misinformation such as this that caused Rush to say the following on his 2/28 show:
"I've never said he's a Muslim. Other kooks out there are doing that. I'm not wasting my time with that. Only an idiot would insinuate I'm out there trying to make a connection between Obama and some radical Islamic faction. As I say, this is either laziness or malice when these people include me in all of these rantings of some people out there who are attempting to make that connection. We don't do it here."
So, Mr. Wallis, how was your grouping of Cunningham and Limbaugh together any different than the wrongful grouping that certain conservatives have done when they compare Obama to his pastor?
Posted by: Cads | February 29, 2008 2:24 AM
Kevin,
I think if you 'got it' you would understand Dr. Wright has the capacity to honor Farakhan AND reject certain elements of his behavior and rhetoric. And do so with integrity without confusing the two.
And if he has that clarity there is nothing for Obama to distance himself from. And if he doesn't have that clarity there is nothing for Obama to distance himself from. Obama belongs to a large church in Chicago. He does not work for or belong to Dr. Jeremiah Wright or act as his overseer.
There are many forces in this society that will punish Obama, and demand he withdraw or apologize from anything that appears 'too Black.' And what that means specifically is anything that offends someone's whiteness. If he submits to the whiteness of the culture he can be accepted as President.
I am not sure you grasp the nature of the hammer you are trying to hold over him.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | February 29, 2008 3:15 AM
In the tradition of "I am Spartacus" (though with the audacity to hope for a different outcome this time), I suggest that each of us adopt "Hussein" as our middle name from now until Election Day.
Posted by: Theodore Gill | February 29, 2008 3:18 AM
Hi all,
I am in East Africa, where we know little about Louis Farrakhan and Obama's retired pastor but follow Obama a little.
And, in Kenya, we witnessed Christians spreading lies about Obama's relative, Raila Odinga, as if his opponents (none too devout themselves) were chosen by God to be President! One of the most pitiful - but effective - nonsense being spread was that he, Raila, had signed a secret pact with Muslims to hand ovr the country to them. Never mind that Muslims number less than 8% of the population.
Anyway,
I find it strange that Obama can be criticised for having a pastor/friend who is close to antiSemite or whatever here.
Many on this page have no hesitation in showing their anti-Palestinian/anti-Arab bias, for example.
The fact is, however, that if good Christian judgement means not associating with people who associate with people who associate with Farrakhan, as Wolverine would have us believe, then he, surely, is not showing much of it by associating with the likes of Jim Wallis and me on these pages.
God only knows who we associate with. Right?
- Alu
Posted by: Alu | February 29, 2008 3:52 AM
Posted by: erin | February 28, 2008 8:01 PM
Beautifully said, Erin...I think there are lots of ways we can reduce abortions without overturning RvW.
However, it's disappointing how this thread got off track. Why does Jim need to address Obama's stand on abortion? It's a matter of record, and not one that has repeatedly been lied about. If you don't like his platform, good for you, but it's a category mistake to say that because Jim addressed the "Obama as Muslim" issue, he has to address the "Obama as pro-choice" issue.
I'm interested, though, in why several feminist posters claim Jim should have run to Hillary's rescue. You say she's been unfairly attacked, but don't name a particular issue that rises to the standard of "demonstrably false campaign of lies" that Jim could have addressed.
I'm willing to entertain the idea that Hillary's received a bum rap because of her gender (the "bitch" comment was WAY out of line), but am wary of attributing the normal hazing that comes with being a front-running candidate to misogyny.
Personally, I think she has generally come across as whiny in debates when she takes this tack, most recently complaining that she always gets the first question (which could just as easily be an acknowledgement of her importance as a candidate than some underhanded misogynistic attack).
Posted by: sangerinde | February 29, 2008 4:48 AM
I firmly believe that Obama should be veying to become a pastor , not a politician....
He has given inspiratioanl messaage usually advocated and enforced by men of the cloth...
People like Jesse jackson, Al Sharton are the policians...Here again, Obama will be one of the wasted Americans following a false path fo a vocation...
Remember, recordar :
Living as we do in a world that suffers so much, two opposing possibilities can easily tempt us: either to turn our backs and live oblivious to the pain or to allow the pain to overwhelm us and despair to take up residence in our hearts. The truly faithful option is to face the pain and live joyfully in the midst of it. Those who suffer most remind us of how tragic and arrogant it would be for us to lose hope on behalf of people who have not lost theirs. They are teachers of joy. - Joyce Hollyday
Then Your Light Shall Rise
“The notion of an “independent idea” mirrors the notion of God and the soul , this, the notion of a “self-sufficient “ substance” requiring nothing but itself to exist. Howver, if we cannot seek the “ origin of ideas and logic “ in our culture , we are blocked from “understanding” the process in other cultures , indeed, of understanding other cultures at all…”
S. Jim Rodriguez – Eclecticist Spirit Seeker.
Posted by: ECLECTICIST, S JIM RODRIGUEZ | February 29, 2008 7:05 AM
"Either way, you don't speak to the substance of my statement." Posted by: kevin s.
I did speak to the substance of your statement. I called it what it was- hypocrisy.
Posted by: JamesMartin | February 29, 2008 7:05 AM
Why is this post so popular when there is a thread on HIV, and AIDS in Africa that should get more attention?
Good question, Payshun.
And I say, so what if this post is Rev. Wallis' de facto endorsement of Obama? It's his forum, after all.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | February 29, 2008 7:57 AM
Jim, I wish you would have given the full name of Senator Obama's church - Trinity United Church of Christ ... and that our denomination is now being investigated by the IRS because Senator Obama spoke at our General Synod in June.
Posted by: Rev. Deb Davis | February 29, 2008 8:29 AM
And your endorsement of Barack Obama a Democrat for President is duly noted. And of course, since you are a 100% declared Democrat, comes as no surprise. So then, there is no seperation of Church and State in Democrat and Black Christian politics . . . only white and Republican politics. We always got that. Now, how does B. Hussein Obama's secular humanism fit into Christianity? That would be a neat trick for you to try to make happen.
Posted by: Wake up! | February 29, 2008 8:32 AM
Barak Hussein Obama should speak out about his Muslim heritage and explain how he feels about it.
Just as a young Cassius Clay did in the 60's when he converted to Islam and concientiously objected to the war.
If Barak is not proud of his heritage, he should say so, and maybe change his name.
He should also speak out about the UCC and how they are made up of a wide range of faiths.
Why is he hiding it? Why can't we ask the question? Why can't we peel away the bark as Mr. Cunningham said?
Posted by: Paul Jamieson | February 29, 2008 8:46 AM
Some say He was a poet
That He'd stand upon the hill
And His voice could calm an angry crowd
Or make the waves stand still
That He spoke in many parables
That few could understand
But the people sat for hours
Just to listen to that man
Some say He was a sorcerer,
A man of mystery.
He could walk upon the water.
He could make a blind man see.
That He conjured wine at weddings,
And did tricks with fish and bread.
That He talked of being born again
And raised people from the dead.
Some say a politician
Who spoke of being free.
He was followed by the masses
On the shores of Galilee.
He spoke out against corruption,
He bowed to no decree.
And they feared His strength and power,
So they nailed Him to a tree.
-- from "The Outlaw," by Larry Norman (RIP)
Amazing that we continually do to others what was done to Christ.
Posted by: mrk | February 29, 2008 8:53 AM
Barak Hussein Obama should speak out about his Muslim heritage and explain how he feels about it.
He does not have a "Muslim heritage!" That's the point! And in fact, he is Barack Hussein Obama Jr., named for his dad!
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | February 29, 2008 9:00 AM
Thank you, Jim, for this informed defense of Obama's faith. It is exhausting and maddening to hear fear mongers who happen to have a microphone or a pen try to scare Americans away from a candidate for any reason - but especially on such ridiculous premises. I am grateful for your willingness to set the record straight. Regardless of our political views - we all need to stand for integrity in reporting - they have shown none.
Posted by: Amy Derrick | February 29, 2008 9:11 AM
Thank you, Jim, for this informed defense of Obama's faith. It is exhausting and maddening to hear fear mongers who happen to have a microphone or a pen try to scare Americans away from a candidate for any reason - but especially on such ridiculous premises. I am grateful for your willingness to set the record straight. Regardless of our political views - we all need to stand for integrity in reporting - they have shown none.
Posted by: Amy Derrick | February 29, 2008 9:12 AM
"He does not have a "Muslim heritage!" That's the point! And in fact, he is Barack Hussein Obama Jr., named for his dad!"
So you don't consider his DAD part of his heritage?
You must be joking.
"Amazing that we continually do to others what was done to Christ."
There is a slight difference - Christ is with us.
He would smite the Islamo-fascists.
Posted by: Paul Jamieson | February 29, 2008 9:14 AM
>
Right -- that's real Christlike. The red ink in your Bible must be very different from the red ink in mine.
Posted by: mrk | February 29, 2008 9:21 AM
c kitty wrote:
Wolverine -- If my good friend from whom I sometimes take advise admires someone who I consider dispicable, should I end the friendship, hope my friend "sees the light" with some imput from me, stop taking advise even though it has nothing to do with that issue, what? This is not an uncommon dilemna for those of us who do not limit our relationships to clones of ourselves.
C Kitty raises a fair point here: life and people are complicated and messy. When I was young my folks made compromises with bigots too -- a huge blunder on their part for a number of reasons -- but I never disowned them and don't intend to.
HOWEVER: I'm not saying that Obama is a follower of Farrakhan, nor am I saying that Obama must sever all contact with Trinity UCC. What I am saying is that Jeremiah Wright has serious flaws that have absolutely nothing to do with the UCC and everything to do with his public admiration for Louis Farrakhan.
The bottom line is Jeremiah Wright is not someone I'd be calling attention to as evidence of Barack Obama's character.
NM Rod wrote:
Well, it's nice to know that all good Christians don't decide to attend church, they "pick" a pastor to march in lockstep with. I've never actually encountered this, though.
Whoever this guy is who claims that Obama must be "in lockstep" with Wright (and therefore with Farrakhan) he must be a total moron. But it ain't me. I believe I mentioned before: I attend an Episcopal church. My priest is almost certainly a Democrat. We are not, to say the least, "in lockstep."
What I have encountered, and I'm pretty sure you've encountered this too, is that Americans do have a wide variety of churches -- even within the same denomination -- from which to choose and tend to find a congregation that is reasonably compatible with their outlook and temperament.
And churches, over time, tend to reflect their pastors. I have no reason to believe that Trinity UCC is any exception to that rule.
I've visited Chicago, Obama's hometown, several times. You are probably aware Chicago is a largish city with a lot of churches. It might be oversimplifying things to say that Barack Obama "picked" Wright, but as a practical matter Obama could have joined any of several congregations. He settled on Trinity UCC, pastored by Jeremiah Wright. It is an interesting choice to say the least.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | February 29, 2008 9:23 AM
It would seem that Obama is Jim's choice in 2008 and he should just say so. As an evangelical christian i have no problem with Obama's church or his upbringing at all. I have a problem with his desire to "bump up" defense spending and his support of the death peanalty and his opposition to gay marriage.
Posted by: S. Mackenzie King | February 29, 2008 9:25 AM
Wolverine, do you have a dictionary? If you want your points to be taken seriously, you might consider using it.
Posted by: mrk | February 29, 2008 9:29 AM
Oops -- sorry about that, wolverine. Those were c kitty's misspellings. Still don't take your points all that seriously, though.... ;)
Posted by: mrk | February 29, 2008 9:32 AM
I am very uneasy with the link of Obama,his pastor Wright and Farrahkan. We have all heard about the plan by Islam's plan to destroy the USA from the inside (well-I have read that anyway).
Posted by: Dan | February 29, 2008 9:41 AM
You know that old joke? My mind's made up; don't confuse me with the facts.
But it just doesn't seem so funny when I read some of these posts...
Posted by: Janee | February 29, 2008 9:59 AM
No one should be surprised about Republican political tactics of fear and divisiveness.
This is what Republican operatives do.
Get used to it folks. There will be a lot more of this to come in the days and weeks ahead. The only way Republicans can win elections in America is to lie, cheat and steal.
Keep your eye on the ball and don't get suckered again.
Posted by: justintime | February 29, 2008 10:05 AM
"Right -- that's real Christlike. The red ink in your Bible must be very different from the red ink in mine."
who said anything about being Christlike?
And "Red Letter Christian" is a left wing propaganda slogan.
This is a political Blog
Not a Christian blog.
Posted by: The Patriot | February 29, 2008 10:16 AM
thank you for bringing this issue squarely and quickly to the forefront. Obama's candidacy is forcing all of us to look at our prejudices squarely in the eye. The American public seems to have had enough of the hate-mongers attempt to scare us and drive their ratings up. Obama's message of one America resonates with hope, justice and God's benevolence.
Posted by: ellen harley | February 29, 2008 10:20 AM
Oh, I apologize... um... Patriot. Didn't know you made the rules here. You might want to post them so others who come to the Sojourners page will realize, too, that this isn't about faith and politics. Jim, looks like you need to get on the same page with ... um... Patriot here...
Posted by: mrk | February 29, 2008 10:25 AM
Wolverine--You persist. You give not one iota of evidence that either Obama or Jeremiah Wright hold to any of the viewpoints of Farrakhan which are contrary to the love of Jesus. You give not one hint of appreciation why the publishers of a magazine (loosely linked to Dr. Wright) would award Farrakhan.
Conservatives like to beat the Black community over the head about standing up and taking care of their business; until someone stands up to take care of their business like the Nation of Islam. The door is open to the Nation in prisons and poor communities because of the idolatry and racism within Christianity and particularly the white church.
I am staunchly Evangelical and am repulsed by Farrakhan. I do not embrace some of Dr. Wright's approach.
But you must understand their practical theologies (how to put faith onto the streets of a culture) are shaped by how to theologize in a context devastated by racism.
Hence, we really need to be discerning in gauging our reactions to their teachings, as to what is not consistent with the Love of Jesus and what is just bumping up againast a latent pervasive racism in our society.
And again, what is your evidence that the magazine editors (I believe Wright's daughters) hold to Farrakhan's objectionable teachings; or that Jeremiah Wright does; or that Obama does.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | February 29, 2008 10:37 AM
Amen, Jim. As always, you eloquently discussed Obama and his "heritage". He's a Black American of Kenyan heritage and he is most definitely not a Muslim! It is a scurriluous sham, which is meant to play to the "fears" against those of Muslim faith. I am an unabashed Obama supporter, but I am afraid that most "evangelicals" will "fall for" this. Not all, but certainly many will. What Cunningham did at McCain's rally (Barack HUSSEIN Obama, over and over) was just "playing to the crowd". Yeah, McCain disavowed it, but then again why did he have a Rush "wanna be" do his introduction anyway? Perhaps he doesn't agree with this, but he certainly was going to use it to get everyone "fired up". Is the evangelical base really changed Jim, will this really not resonate with them? I certainly hope so!
Posted by: Debbie Lackowitz | February 29, 2008 10:40 AM
I don't think Barack's middle name should necessarily be used against him, but if there are ties to an individual like Farakhan, then they should be exposed. Anyone using Hussein as a label for Barack is not basing their argument on reason, but rather grasping at straws. Obama's positions can be squashed in the arena of ideas; childish name calling is not necessary.
Posted by: Steve S | February 29, 2008 10:41 AM
Hello!
I heard on a really legit radio show last night some things about Obama that really concerned me. The reason I'm writing is to ask - are these things true???? The show was saying that Obama's cousin is the "guy" in Kenya that is very well known (can't remember his name right now). This guy is trying to become the president of Kenya. He is a radical muslim and says that if he is president, he will make it law that all students will be taught the radical form of muslim. He says he will not allow anyone to worship Jesus, that there will be no bibles allowed, that crusades telling Kenyans about Jesus will be out lawed, and just a host of other things. Oh yeah, and that (Sherina) law will be set up everywhere in Kenya. It was also said that the Obama camp confirmed that this cousin of Obama spoke with Obama I think this past tuesday. I am in no way trying to start rumors!!! I just figured that if I am to get straight answers it would be here. I'm concerned that if these things are true, that some of our brothers and sisters in Kenya may be in grave danger!!! I am not a right wing NUT!! I am just a concerned citizen wanting to know the truth. I don't know who I am going to vote for and I hope these things are NOT true. The reason being is that I feel that if they are that they have serious implications if Obama is elected as the president of the United States. BUT I can also see, that if they are true and if Obama is elected president or even if not, that he could use his influence to speak some reason to his supposed cousin that is trying to invoke these troublesome things in Kenya. Please if anyone knows anything about this stuff, I hope you will correct the junk or confirm it for myself, and those that may have heard the same program that I did. Again I will say that I heard this stuff on a radio program and I just want to know the truth!!! Thank You!
Posted by: kim | February 29, 2008 10:45 AM
Who cares? I thought this was a website that would give me objective information about all the candidates. I've felt for the last several weeks that I've been getting the daily bulletins that you were really backing Obama. This pretty much seals it.
No thanks. I guess your site isn't what I'm looking for.
Talk about what he's really going to change and how he has the goods to do it, and I'll read -- but you'd need to do that for all the candidates. Tell me how his healthcare plan will work (or not).
Just an average American, trying to make an informed decision.
Posted by: Nancy | February 29, 2008 10:49 AM
"It is certainly no mystery why Pastor Wright didn't cancel his retirement celebrations and drop everything to come on Lou's show. Would anyone?"
I would, if I was being accused of something as serious as antisemitism. Most people, if accused of such a thing when it wasn't true, would leap to their own defense.
But Wright sits back and lets the accusations sit, which makes me think the accusations are accurate.
Associations with anti-Semites and people who tried to blow up the Pentagon in the 60s. These are two reasons I will NEVER help vote this man into office.
Posted by: Bob | February 29, 2008 10:51 AM
Jim, This is intellectual christain apologetic analysis at its best. Thank you for bringing sanity in chaotic minds.
Posted by: Michael Miyittah | February 29, 2008 11:02 AM
It has been said to me by a Tennessean supporter of Hilary Clinton that the majority of voters in the USA will not vote in a woman or a black president. She is quite sure they are not free enough to do either at this time in history.
Hmmm ... will she be right?
Looks like the culprits are already at work to make this so.
Posted by: Wendy | February 29, 2008 11:03 AM
So you don't consider his DAD part of his heritage?
His dad was not a practicing Muslim. Senator Obama says in his book that his dad was essentially an atheist. And his dad died when Barack Jr was young. Senator Obama grew up in a nonreligious household. He came to Christ on his own as an adult.
That is the essence the heritage Barack Obama received from his father. You can read all about this in his book.
Any questions?
[Jesus] would smite the Islamo-fascists.
No, he would probably ask them to share dinner with Him, just like he did the "sinners" that the Pharisees so despised.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | February 29, 2008 11:05 AM
Thank you Jim for the insightful article. I have been an ardent fan of Sojourners since the ea rly 80's when I was stationed at Holy Redeemer Center in Oaklnad Ca. I continue to read it to this day as it is surely in line with my Christian beliefs. Fear Mongering is to my mind not a Chrisian quality and those who choose to use fear instead of faith are missing a large point of the Christian ethic.
Posted by: judith harvey | February 29, 2008 11:07 AM
Looks like the culprits are already at work to make this so.
Great line, Wendy. Emphasis on the word "culprit."
:-)
D
Posted by: Don | February 29, 2008 11:07 AM
Look, this is a very messy subject. There's a lot of folks playing fast and loose with topics of race and religion, and some of them, I'm sorry to say, are conservatives and Republicans. I'm going to make some final comments and then walk away from this particular thread.
There are two seperate questions that have gotten dragged together, both of which concern Barack Obama's character.
One of them is totally illegitimate. There's no evidence that Barack Obama is a Muslim. To the extent that conservative talk radio or the Tennessee GOP has insinuated that he has, Obama's supporters have a legitimate beef with them. The fact that Obama's middle name is "Hussein" no more makes him a Muslim than my middle name, which is also associated with a character from Norse mythology, makes me a Germanic pagan.
The other is fair game: the pastor of Obama's church (up until a couple of weeks ago) was Jeremiah Wright, an open admirer of Louis Farakhan. Farrakhan is an open and unabashed antisemite and conspiracy theorist. While by itself it doesn't prove that Obama is a devotee of Farrakhan, it is a troubling connection.
Now let me very quickly dismiss some excuses that have been made for Farrakhan and Wright.
Whatever good Farrakhan has done is greatly diminished by the extent to which Farrakhan has poisoned race relations in this country.
The fact that African Americans have been sorely mistreated in this country does not absolve Farrakhan or his supporters of responsiblity for their teachings.
I have yet to see how overt racism helps a minister to "theologize in a context devastated by racism."
There are ministers who have done most of the sort of positive work that is attributed to Farrakhan. Being free of the baggage of racism, they are without a doubt more worthy of honor.
Are conservatives making too much of the Obama-Wright-Farrakhan connection? Possibly, but if Obama's supporters cannot understand why this connection is a problem for many people, and continue react with indignation, rather than reason and logic, when it is brought up, they will be harming their own cause.
Wolverine
Posted by: Wolverine | February 29, 2008 11:49 AM
Amendment to earlier post: Wolverine, you actually do make good, fair and reasonable points. You know, all politicians find themselves in this dilemma at some point -- an association, however tenuous, with an unsavory character. Would that we all were able to say we've never crossed paths with any sort of negativity whatsoever. So far, Obama has handled this one with the honesty and integrity he's known for. I'm sure he will continue to do so.
Posted by: mrk | February 29, 2008 12:00 PM
By the way, once again, how could Obama possibly make his positions on Trumpet Magazine's Farrakhan honor or on his own feelings about Minister Farrakhan clearer than he did with the statement below (my emphasis on key words)?
Obama: "I decry racism and anti-Semitism in every form and STRONGLY CONDEMN the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan. I assume that Trumpet Magazine made its own decision to honor Farrakhan based on his efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders, but it is NOT a decision with which I agree."
Posted by: mrk | February 29, 2008 12:16 PM
My goodness this topic has caused a great deal of passion and vitriol to be spilled.
I'm sure we will be having the abortion debate until the end times, but as far as I can recall, how one feels about abortion is not one of the tenets of the Faith. While one may not agree with Mr. Obama regarding his support of pro-choice laws, it does not disqualify one from being a Christian. When I became a Christian, I was not pro-life. It took a few years and the help of the Holy Spirit while reading Pro 139:13-16 before I changed my views on abortion. I am deeply troubled by the taking of life because we are all deeply flawed. As Christians we are on a journey and some of us are further along and learned in our journey. I caution you about judging others along that journey.
At my early church, my pastor was a very loving man of God who was avidly pro-life. I knew my pastor not to be bigoted in any way but I was rather disappointed that he chose to have Jesse Helms speak at our church on pro-life issues. I didn't turn away from the pastor nor the church because of Mr. Helm's attendance even though I believe Mr. Helm's to be a racist.
My aunt (who is black) has attended Rev. Falwell's church for years in spite of his segregationist past. I don't understand it but I know the woman to be a committed Christian. I say all of this to say that we are all imperfect and our relationships with some people are more nuanced and complex than it is apparent to others unfamiliar with all the principals involved.
Mr. Obama is not hardly in league with Farrakhan. Considering Obama's relationship with AIPAC, I hardly think Obama and Farrakhan are running buddies. There are many black Christian ministers who don't share the same views as Minister Farrakhan regarding Jews but respect his work in the black community. I am as virulently anti anti-Semitic as anyone (I lived in Jewish neighborhoods when another white neighborhood burned a cross on the lawn of the house my parents bought in the mid 60's on Long Island, NY), but even I have begrudging respect for Farrakhan's work to move young black men out of gangs and violence in Chicago.
I was greatly inspired by the life and words of Malcolm X and Angela Davis even though I have never been drawn to Islam or Marxist doctrine. I believe one can respect others even though they disagree with the philosophy or path that helped that person arrive at their position. (I'm sorry if I'm not stating this clearly enough.) And finally, for the individual who said that Obama needs to direct or push Jeremiah Wright away from Farrakhan, I believe that idea is incredibly arrogant. Unless Mr. Obama is a deacon, elder or trustee of his church, he has no right to call on his pastor to disassociate with anyone. Most people who are commenting on Pastor Wright's relationship with Minister Farrakhan are speculating. Unless they have intimate knowledge and have been in attendance in meetings between the two men, they are projecting and speculating.
Posted by: Nuttshell | February 29, 2008 12:27 PM
Jim, I didn't need your defense of Obama's membership in a Christian church, or defense of that church or its pastor. But you disappoint me when you assert absolutely that Obama "gave his life to Christ in a very real Christian conversion experience." You can't know that. As an earlier responder said, only God knows the heart. To believe one can judge the sincerity of such a deep spiritual event as a conversion experience from outward signs only suggests a shallow spiritual judgment.
Posted by: Leroy | February 29, 2008 12:38 PM
Beautiful, Nuttshell. It's really nice to see someone who truly understands the concept of "nuanced and complex" in this era of FOX news-like black-and-white positions. I particularly identify with the way you came to your own personal feelings about abortion and your non-judgment of those who haven't gotten there yet, or who may never get there. Life is nuanced and complex and we humans are hardly in the position to judge and demonize those who are on an honest journey. We so haven't made it to the status of God. Bless you, Nuttshell. Unfortunately, the extremists on both sides probably can't hear it over the noise of their own rock-solid opinions. (Caveat: just because I cited FOX News doesn't mean I don't realize that extremism comes from both sides of the aisle.) Now, much as I'm enjoying following this thread, I have a deadline to meet! I'm going to have to pull myself away from here...
Posted by: mrk | February 29, 2008 12:46 PM
Leroy,
I agree with you that only God knows the heart of his people. My question to you is...are you accepting others as Christians but excluding Mr. Obama based upon that criteria? How do we know that you or anyone else is a Christian?
Posted by: Nuttshell | February 29, 2008 1:11 PM
Thank you for this article. I am a HUGE Obama supporter and am so sick of the ugly smears, not that we didn't all expect them. One of the reasons I like Obama is because of his speech on reconciling faith and politics that he gave at a Sojourners event. I don't think Jim Webb is being insincere when saying he doesn't endorse a candidate, he is a man of faith who is saying it is wrong to assault someone's faith. If Clinton or McCain were being attacked on their faith, I am sure Jim would stick up for them as well!
Posted by: Jennifer | February 29, 2008 1:19 PM
But you disappoint me when you assert absolutely that Obama "gave his life to Christ in a very real Christian conversion experience." You can't know that.
Then, Leroy, how would my pastor know whether to baptize anyone who came to him saying he or she has become a Christian? How could any pastor know when to baptize? Rev. Wallis wrote: "And one Sunday, as Obama has related to me and written in his book The Audacity of Hope, the young community organizer walked down the aisle and gave his life to Christ in a very personal and very real Christian conversion experience. We have talked about our faith and its relationship to politics many times since."
Would any other pastor in a similar situation write differently? I think you ask too much here. You seem to be saying that Obama's conversion experience couldn't be sincere because we can never know for sure. I have to reject that understanding of "only God knows someone's heart."
Without evidence to the contrary (a life not lived in accordance to the Gospel), we are bound to take Obama's--or any convert's--own word for it. And in Obama's case, I don't see any evidence to the contrary. What do you see that gives you doubts, Leroy?
Nuttshell--thanks so much for your comments.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | February 29, 2008 1:23 PM
To the woman who asked where people were to stick up for Hillary against the sexism - what sexism? If there was blatant sexism I think people would say something, but the only time I hear about sexism is from the Hillary camp any time her opponents are tough on her. Wouldn't it be sexist if they treated her with kid gloves because she's a woman? Wouldn't it be sexist if they made excuses for her or didn't hold her to the same standard because she's a woman? What I think is sexist is when she chokes up and cries on national tv and people say its ok, because she's a woman, to do - but you know if a man did that he'd instantly be attacked as being weak! Lastly Obama specifically said in the last debate that he doesn't discredit her experience as first lady, but that if she's going to run on that experience - then we have a right to know just what the heck it was she DID! Unless she can be open about what she did I don't think it should count, I sure wouldn't want my surgeon's spouse operating on me - I don't care how many surgeries that person watched!
Posted by: Jennifer | February 29, 2008 1:32 PM
"The other is fair game: the pastor of Obama's church (up until a couple of weeks ago) was Jeremiah Wright, an open admirer of Louis Farakhan. Farrakhan is an open and unabashed antisemite and conspiracy theorist. While by itself it doesn't prove that Obama is a devotee of Farrakhan, it is a troubling connection"
Wolverine
Wolverine (and others who post oblivious to any questions, counter points, request for evidence) continues the "troubling connection" allegation.
In his "Final Word" on the matter he again fails to give "one iota of evidence that either Obama or Jeremiah Wright hold to any of the viewpoints of Farrakhan which are contrary to the love of Jesus."
Slinging mud, Wolverine, is not a complex situation. It is slinging mud. In your mind you think there is a troubling connection. But if the facts provide no troubling connection--and you continue to say there is a troubling connection--it is slinging mud. And wrong. And damaging beyond one more piece of political mud being tossed around. Please stop.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | February 29, 2008 1:34 PM
As always, you don't step aside when Christian values are at stake. Thanks for defending Obama - also John McCain! It's good to know that we have some ethical people running for president on both sides. God Is Still Speaking - sometimes through us! Richard
Posted by: Richard | February 29, 2008 1:36 PM
Great article Jim.
I normally don't like to input here as all I see is one person critizing another and not really focusing on the subject at hand. I just hope, even through all this bantering back and forth we have a sense of loving each other regardless of our differences.
Paul
Posted by: Paul | February 29, 2008 1:40 PM
Well, Gary, enjoy playing God. I'm so glad that He's given you such insight into His mind!
D
Posted by: Don | February 29, 2008 1:41 PM
Hmm...a couple of changes to your statement, Gary, would yeild this:
Given Jesus' open and total support for tax collectors and prostitutes, and other sexual perverts, I think it is very reasonable and appropriate to question whether Jesus is really the Son of God, and I certainly do. Acutally, I do more than question the reality of his "faith", I deny that he has any.
Posted by: squeaky | February 29, 2008 1:44 PM
"Why is this post so popular when there is a thread on HIV, and AIDS in Africa that should get more attention?" p
I have a gut feeling from reading some of the posts here that there are a lot of people who are afraid that Obama stands a good chance of winning.
PX
Posted by: neuro_nurse | February 29, 2008 1:50 PM
"And if he has that clarity there is nothing for Obama to distance himself from. "
Then why is he distancing himself? If I associated with a pastor who was vocal in his hatred of black people, would you even begin to think about the issue of whether I had the "clarity" to pick and choose amongst his beliefs? Of course not, and I wouldn't expect you to do so.
"Wolverine, do you have a dictionary? If you want your points to be taken seriously, you might consider using it."
So that he can offer crude remarks such as this? Where did this come from?
"Wolverine--You persist."
As do you. This is what we call voicing disagreements. You have reached an impasse where you and Wolverine do not share a like mind on the extent to which one can associate with a bigot without standing up to the bigotry. That Wolvering does not necessarily believe that you can does not make him a bad person.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 29, 2008 1:51 PM
So that he can offer crude remarks such as this? Where did this come from?
You need to read a bit further, Kevin. The writer of this comment later apologized to Wolverine. The misspellings attributed to Wolverine were from another post.
D
Posted by: Don | February 29, 2008 1:58 PM
I don't have much trouble with what Wolverine has said. In fact, I appreciate what he has said about the straw horse that is being used to demonize Sen. Obama's middle name. I do disagree that Pastor Wright's affection for Minister Farrakhan has anything to do with Sen. Obama's character. One does not naturally flow from another.
My in-laws are very humble, simple, God-fearing people who happen to revere Oliver North, Rush Limbaugh, George Bush, John Hagee, Pat Robertson and any number of Christian "hucksters" (my word). I consider my in-laws to be quality people of real character. They are (IMHO) very naive but I don't question their character. Why? Because, they overcame the prejudices (I'm black and they are not) they were brought up in to accept me into the family. They have been good to me and good to our daughter. While I am usually in violent disagreement with my husband's entire family regarding politics, they have warmly accepted me and my entire extended family. Again, people are so much more complex and nuanced than the cartoonish views of them in the media.
If Trinity United Church of Christ was such a bigoted and racist church, I doubt Barack Obama (being bi-racial) would be accepted or acceptable to the church. Would he really attend a church that was hostile to the bulk of his family? Most people want to focus on his Kenyan roots but frankly the man was raised almost exclusively by his white family. Just because his skin is brown doesn't mean that he is divorced from his white family. As the mother of a bi-racial child, that's one of the reasons I admire the man. He is comfortable in his own skin and relates to all kinds of people. He is not ashamed of either side of his family. I'm sure his entire life has required him to straddle many different sides and viewpoints. That's why he can study under a pastor who may have associations with people he may not want to associate himself with. Can we all say that we are so pure that everyone we associate with isn't associated with someone we object to?
Posted by: Nuttshell | February 29, 2008 2:00 PM
Oh, well. I can't pry myself away. (Keep returning here between work stuff.) I'm so glad Nuttshell joined this discussion because she, so far, makes more sense than anyone here. What she says is simple and clear, mostly beyond debate. So why doesn't it resonate with everyone? Ah, because almost everyone else here doesn't really seem to be reading. Like those conversations that aren't really conversations at all -- just people waiting to respond with whatever inflexible position they already hold. Keep writing, Nutshell. You have so much to say, from so much experience. Your kid's gonna be great!
Posted by: mrk | February 29, 2008 2:13 PM
Definitions from Dictionary.com
Dictionary.com Unabridged
en·dorse /ɛnˈdɔrs/
–verb (used with object) 1. to approve, support, or sustain: to endorse a political candidate.
de·fend /dɪˈfɛnd/ -
–verb (used with object)
to support (an argument, theory, etc.) in the face of criticism; prove the validity of (a dissertation, thesis, or the like) by answering arguments and questions put by a committee of specialists.
Interesting. Both words mean "to support."
It would be much easier to seriously consider the points made in the article if you were honest about your motives.
Posted by: Lori P | February 29, 2008 2:20 PM
Personally, I'm kinda like Groucho Marx, who said he wouldn't want to join a club that had such low standards as to admit him.
I associate with a person of low character all the time and have no choice in the matter. The apostle Paul revealed to us that he too "was the chiefest among sinners."
I personally like John McCain. I've corresponded with him and commended him more than a year ago when his popularity was at a low ebb due to his uncompromising stand against the use of torture, which he himself unjustly endured. I sure was proud of him then.
The people slyly attacking Obama are doing it in just the same underhanded way that people like Cunningham did. They can't bring themselves to openly say what they nurse in their shrivelled hearts, but what they do say is highly indicative of just what they do mean. As for Rush, I hope he's condemned Cunningham, but from what I hear that's not the case - he's more mad at McCain than ever for rebuking Cunningham and the Tennessee Republican Party's disingenuous Muslim-baiting.
Now it will be a travesty if I can't end up voting for John McCain because I can no longer trust his political party to behave and govern decently. Sirs, have you no shame?
Posted by: N.M. Rod | February 29, 2008 2:22 PM
Wow, that's incredible illogic -- almost Orwellian. Lori, it depends on what one is endorsing or defending. It's clear in Jim's article that he's 1) not endorsing Obama's candidacy; and 2) he is defending Obama's faith. You've taken a mighty big leap!
Posted by: mrk | February 29, 2008 2:24 PM
I'm hoping that somebody can help me understand this. I read Barack Obama's book about a year ago and at the very end of the the chapter titled "Faith" he recounts a story about his daughter Sasha telling him about how she did not want to die. Mr Obama tells he that she won't die for a long time then proceeds to state "I wonder whether I should have told her the truth, that I wasn't sure of where the soul resides or what existed before the Big Bang." This seemed like an odd statement coming from a person that is a Christian. It has eaten away at me for some time in understanding what he meant. Any thoughts?
Posted by: Travis | February 29, 2008 2:31 PM
Travis:
Try these--
Where the soul resided = consciously in God's presence, or asleep until the Last Day. An old Christian debate.
What existed before the Big Bang = What existed before Creation began.
Odd statement for a Christian? Not really.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | February 29, 2008 2:38 PM
Travis, it seems like a statement from a thoughtful, intelligent Christian concerned about the spiritual and intellectual growth of his child. There are several folks high up in the Christian world who have had doubts and questions. There's Mother Teresa. Not many reasonable people doubt her Christianity or faith. And then there's Jesus himself. While he was hanging on the cross. But Travis, you've never had any doubts, any questions at all. You are absolutely sure about all of the big cosmic issues of life. Impressive.
Posted by: mrk | February 29, 2008 2:47 PM
Thank you to the few who actually pointed out the continued lack of balance in the defense of Obama compared to that of Hillary Clinton.
I believe that most of the sexism towards Hillary has not been overt in the language sense--it has more to do with the severe bias of media (majority male) in favor of Obama's candidacy and the fact that, up until now, Obama has not been challenged. I also think that his wife's comments have not received anywhere near the scrutiny that Bill Clinton's did.
It's unfortunate that more women have not acknowledged the bias that has occurred, for it impacts all women.
I think the timing of the Muslim gossip shows that it is coming from the right wing more than the Hillary-backers, because the Republicans now see him as the likely Democratic candidate. If it was the Hillary-backers leaking it, then why would they have waited?
Why anyone would be at all surprised that this is happening, I cannot imagine. Certainly we could have predicted that the "swiftboating" would take place upon Obama's full name being known by the public. The question is, if Obama is indeed the nominee, will he deal with it more successfully than John Kerry was able to?
Posted by: Mary | February 29, 2008 2:50 PM
Kevin, I only ask persistent innuendo after the facts of the innnuendos have been addressed stop; unless there are counter-facts. I
Has Obama adequately clarified for you now that he is not Louis Farrakhan? Or is there some evidence you have that indicates he holds to any of Farrakhan's unethical views?
This line of comments is very depressing because, in complete disregard to the original post, to subsequent dialogue, to facts, new voices pop up that basically say, "I don't care. There is a problem. I'm not going to specify what it is. I am not going to give any evidence for it. There is just a problem."
That typically indicates the issue at hand is not the issue. One usual candidate for unstated issues--is bigotry. That is why persistence in innuendo feels like bigotry and feeds long-term brokenness in relationships. It is not the way of peacemaking.
It is persistent innuendo I ask be stopped.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | February 29, 2008 2:51 PM
mrk, thanks for addressing Travis' concerns the way you did. I think you did a better job than I.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | February 29, 2008 2:56 PM
Mrk,
Thanks for your support. I stopped posting awhile ago because of personal attacks.
I won't vote for Obama because:
1. The amount of money he is spending on his campaign is obscene.
2. His one-line or cue-card answers are not substantive.
3. His soft feminine brand and high-hype brings people very close to idolatry.
4. He comes across as arrogant, self-serving, power-hungry, ego-driven and control-seeking.
5. His premature run has split the Democratic party.
6. His campaign is a media myth creation, and it is contributing to an American meltdown.
7. Shame on you for this endorsement!
Posted by: aware | February 28, 2008 7:44 PM
Aware,
Wow! I have no problem with your desire not to vote for Sen. Obama but I just can't help commenting on some of your reasons.
1. The amount of money he is spending on his campaign is obscene. If his supporters (me included) are sending him donations, the intention is to help him win. We are entitled and allowed by law to help a candidate get elected. We're not sending money to him to enrich him personally.
2. His one-line or cue-card answers are not substantive. Doesn't work for you, but it works for others.
3. 3. His soft feminine brand and high-hype brings people very close to idolatry. Feminine brand and high-hype...I haven't the faintest idea what you are saying. Idolatry is wrong. I haven't seen anyone claiming him as their personal Lord & Savior but who knows. Do you mean to tell me that there's not a single person in your entire life that you've been enamored of (sports figure, preacher, musician, school friend, teacher, etc.).
4. He comes across as arrogant, self-serving, power-hungry, ego-driven and control-seeking. As opposed to Hillary or Bill Clinton? How about Mitt Romney, Ralph Nader, Ross Perot? Or any politican who runs for president.
5. His premature run has split the Democratic party. How? Because Hillary was the presumptive nominee? Was there a memo telling the other candidates not to bother trying to win the nomination? Hillary's win-at-all-costs, change-the-rules tactics are much more likely to split the party.
6. His campaign is a media myth creation, and it is contributing to an American meltdown. The media is following the fact that record numbers of people are voting, which btw is an obligation in a democratic society. Do you think it's wrong that people are excited about voting and participating in the process?
7. Shame on you for this endorsement! Did Rev. Wallis do something that is illegal, illicit or immoral? If not, where's the shame? You know what is shameful? Lying about a linkage between Saddam Hussien and al Queda and scaring people into believing that Iraq had missiles capable of reaching the US mainland and that they would produce mushroom clouds over our country. That's SHAMEFUL!!
Posted by: Nuttshell | February 29, 2008 3:03 PM
Personally, I don't care whether Barack Obama is a muslim or not, and therefore I am somewhat perplexed that someone would attempt to defame him by "accusing" him of being a muslim.
Jesus Christ is quoted as saying that it doesn't matter which group you join or religion you espouse, or what written word you claim to adhere to, it is what is in your heart and mind that matters. Its not what scripture you read, its how you interpret it. Its not which prophet or deity you defend, its how you defend them.
Posted by: eldon rollins | February 29, 2008 3:21 PM
It's telling that all the talk has nothing to do with actual candidate positions on governing, but everything to do with ethnic/religious squabbles and intolerance or accusations of the same.
The "southern strategy" redux?
Posted by: N.M. Rod | February 29, 2008 3:29 PM
Nuttshell, thanks for taking the time. I've liked your posts here.
I backed Obama and Huckabee. I still like Huckabee. I always find a way to end up backing the loser.
The amount of support for Obama scares me. My attitude is very dysfunctional. If people see so much in him I figure something's wrong.
Frankly I backed him because I do believe a spirit of hope is fundamental in an age given to skeptical, cynical, divisive, despair. But the amount of "hope in hope" scares me. I want him to incarnate hope--but I don't want a nation looking for hope in him.
I just want someone to sit in the Oval office and fulfill their duties as CEO of the US's administrative branch of a Federal government. Nothing grand is needed.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | February 29, 2008 3:31 PM
Dear Jim Wallis,
I have been a frequent reader of SojoMail, and been very pleased to see your publication’s many balanced articles, based on reasoned analysis with a view to human and civil rights.
It was, therefore, quite shocking to realize your position towards Muslims, when reading your piece under Hearts & Minds by Jim Wallis: Defending the Facts on Obama’s Faith.
In particular, I read the following passages in disbelief:
"I am going to defend my friend, Barack Obama, from an increasing number of ridiculous and scurrilous attacks…The latest … a barrage of disparaging remarks against Senator Obama … using his middle name—Barack HUSSEIN Obama—… seemingly to tie into the Internet accusations that Obama is really a Muslim who, as a child, attended a Muslim 'madrassa' school in Indonesia that taught Islamic fundamentalism."
"Like his politics or not, support his candidacy or not - but don't disparage Barack Obama's faith, his church, his minister, or his credibility as an articulate Christian layman who feels a vocation in politics. Those falsehoods are simply vicious lies and should be denounced by people of faith from across the political spectrum."
"So let's set the record straight. I have known Barack Obama for more than 10 years, and we have been talking about his Christian faith for a decade. Like me and many other Christians, he agrees with the need to reach out to Muslims around the world, especially if we are ever to defeat Islamic fundamentalism. But he is not a Muslim, never has been, never attended a Muslim madrassa."
Mr. Wallis, I believe that the above has clarified your own position towards Muslims and Islam.
Please note that Madrassa means “school.”
I agree that anyone who uses Obama's middle name repeatedly knows what he or she is doing and what feelings they are trying to evoke. But I note that your offense did not seem to stem from the supposed link to Saddam Hussein. Instead, it appears that the offense lay in the implication that Obama was Muslim.
You also cited an Associated Press story entitled "Obama Fights False Links to Islam," which was quoted to have commented that "For Barack Obama, it is an ember that he has doused time and again, only to see it flicker anew: links to Islam fanned by false rumors, innuendo, and association."
Compare the above to the following statements:
“I am going to defend my friend, John Doe, from an increasing number of ridiculous and scurrilous attacks…The latest … a barrage of disparaging remarks against Mr. Doe … using his middle name—Christian—… seemingly to tie into the Internet accusations that Mr. Doe is really a Christian who, as a child, attended a Christian "school" school in England that taught Christian fundamentalism.”
"Mr. Doe Fights False Links to Christianity."
"For John Doe, it is an ember that he has doused time and again, only to see it flicker anew: links to Christianity fanned by false rumors, innuendo, and association."
Does this analysis sound the same to you?
Sincerely,
Nadia Ezzelarab
Posted by: Nadia Ezzelarab | February 29, 2008 3:41 PM
I hear your concern Nadia.
The stereotypes/prejudices about varying religions do provide the subtext for any such lies/accusations.
e.g. "Mitt Romney is a Morman"
"Gasp."
"Huckabee believes in Creation."
"Gasp."
Guiliani is a Catholic and is governed by the Pope.
"Gasp."
Obama is a Muslim.
"Gasp."
The underlying stereotypes need to be addressed. But Jim was trying to address the basic, simple, point that the "Obama is a Muslim" assertion is a lie.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | February 29, 2008 4:03 PM
Nutshell,
I'm not questioning Obama's Christianity. My comment questions Jim Wallis' making unverifiable assertions about it. The title of his piece is "Defending the FACTS of Obama's Faith." First, I would prefer him to say, "religion," or "religious preference" instead of "faith."
He makes his case for me with evidence that Obama is not a Muslim (which I never suspected anyway), but the practicing member of a Christian church. But to me Wallis goes beyond fact when he makes assertions about the inner reality of Obama's--or anyone else's--spiritual state. Here's where the ambiguity of "Faith" in his title comes in: he doesn't want only to show that Obama is a Christian, but that he is a sincere one. That seems to claim a power of insight no human can have; if the case needs to be made at all (and I don't think it does) it's better left to Obama himself.
I don't think we can judge certainly anyone's spiritual state from any observable signs. Who could have guessed that Mother Theresa lived in a state of religious doubt?
But I'm not an evangelical, as you may have guessed, and perhaps have no business critiquing Jim Wallis.
Posted by: Leroy | February 29, 2008 4:06 PM
This is an open and honest question:
Without referring to abortion or homosexuality, tell me why I should vote for John McCain.
Before you mention Obama’s lack of experience, let me remind you the g w bush’s political experience prior to becoming president was one and a half terms as governor of Texas.
What does McCain have going for him? Why should I vote for him instead of Obama?
PX
Posted by: neuro_nurse | February 29, 2008 4:09 PM
Actually, mrk,
While the first part of your post to Travis was very good, I think the sarcasm in this sentence was a little uncalled for:
"But Travis, you've never had any doubts, any questions at all. You are absolutely sure about all of the big cosmic issues of life. Impressive."
Travis expressed his questions respectfully and seemed to show a sincere misunderstanding of where Obama was coming from. They seemed like honest questions to me from someone trying to understand, and I don't think he meant to imply what you wrote above.
Travis, I'd have to say the easiest way (for me, anyway) to address your questions are to understand them better. What is it about Obama's statements make you uncomfortable? I think the statements themselves can be taken a number of ways, and the best way to start the discussion with you is to know how you interpreted them.
Posted by: squeaky | February 29, 2008 4:09 PM
To those who keep raising the issue of abortion here, please go and read both Barack Obama's book and Jim Wallis's book. Neither one believes abortion is anything but a tragedy, but neither wants to add to the tragedy by criminalizing women who get themselves into trouble. They are both seeking a more consistent ethic for life over a lop-sided, single issue ethic for life.
Posted by: Paul | February 29, 2008 4:11 PM
One running for national public office must talk the Christian talk and at least pretend to walk the Christian walk to have the slightest chance of winning a national election in today's America; which is why it matters so much to be falsely accused of being Muslim. Kind of a shame, isn't it?
Posted by: Cads | February 29, 2008 4:11 PM
Neuro-nurse:
"Before you mention Obama’s lack of experience, let me remind you the g w bush’s political experience prior to becoming president was one and a half terms as governor of Texas."
My response to that point is "yeah, look at the mess our inexperienced president got us in." ;>
Posted by: squeaky | February 29, 2008 4:13 PM
Neuro--
what does PX mean?
Posted by: squeaky | February 29, 2008 4:14 PM
A couple of people have asked why some of us have raised the issue of sexism in all of this discussion.
I raise it because I believe in general that when a woman in power, be it in politics, the church, the corporate world or anywhere else, speaks with authority she is often called whiny, bitchy, mean spirited and on and on. A man speaking with that same authority is called strong and firm in his beliefs and assure of himself.
That to me is the inherent sexism of it all. I'm not saying that Hillary Clinton doesn't get a little strident or defensive at times. What I'm saying is that her words are seen in one light because she's a woman of power. Her words would be considered signs of strength if she were a man.
Posted by: Rev. Beth | February 29, 2008 4:24 PM
"They are both seeking a more consistent ethic for life over a lop-sided, single issue ethic for life."
"One running for national public office must talk the Christian talk and at least pretend to walk the Christian walk..."
That is the point of my question. I've already confessed to being a single-issue voter (Iraq).
Squeaky,
PX means "Pax Christi." I started reading "Come Be My Light." Mother Theresa ended some of her letters that way. I didn't think she'd mind if I borrowed it from her.
Posted by: neuro_nurse | February 29, 2008 4:30 PM
I am having trouble forgiving Obama's machine for the use of negative and manipulative campaign tactics -- including the use of the race-baiting card. Lord help me. Holy Spirit please convict Obama that pretending to be pure and above the fray does not make it so. Anyway, perhaps just a blind spot? Whatever--very sad testimony.
Posted by: relaxedintensity | February 29, 2008 4:32 PM
Nuttshell
Thanks for your comments and perspective!
Julia
Posted by: Julia | February 29, 2008 4:34 PM
"I just want someone to sit in the Oval office and fulfill their duties as CEO of the US's administrative branch of a Federal government. Nothing grand is needed."
Now that is disheartening. Another MBA president who sees the USA as a corporate extension and himself as the super-CEO for all the corporate shareholders.
Prepare to be further offshored and outsourced. Right now
Wall Street and the bankers are being bailed out of their massive debt and losses by the stagflater Bernanke, helping them pay off their losses in increasingly cheap dollars.
This same inflation also serves the CEO aim of levelling the domestic labor costs of the average American worker towards competitivity with those in their low-wage offshore manufacturing centers.
It's not palatable politically to actually reduce workers' incomes in dollar terms, so it's a happy circumstance to lower the actual value of their incomes in respect to skyrocketing living costs, while bailing out CEO liabilities at the same time via inflation.
This time, a bird in the hand really was worth two Bushes in the White House.
Posted by: N.M Rod | February 29, 2008 4:39 PM
NM--Don't take my CEO reference too literally. I am just referencing this is one branch of a federal government--i.e. "Executive". We aren't hiring the head of the world, the head of the society, savior, national chaplain or King. Stewarding the Executive Branch, Presidency of this nation is a vast job. If the person would just do that, I would be more than happy. Hence, I'm not looking for them to expand their responsibility
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | February 29, 2008 4:57 PM
There is universal agreement Louis Farrakhan is a racist with anti-semitic views, as Barack maintains.
Does Trinity United and Jeremiah Wright's praise of Farrakhan, pertain only to those occasions when Farrakhan is not extolling racist, anti- semitic views ?
Does Jim's praise of Rev. Wright pertain only to those occasions when he and Trinity United are not extolling the greatness of Farrakhan ?
Rationally, how can Jim praise Rev. Wright, who praises Louis Farrakhan, without, implicitly praising Farrakhan himself ?
Posted by: Rand | February 29, 2008 5:19 PM
NM--Don't take my CEO reference too literally. I am just referencing this is one branch of a federal government--i.e. "Executive". We aren't hiring the head of the world, the head of the society, savior, national chaplain or King. Stewarding the Executive Branch & Presidency of this nation is a vast job. If the person would just do that, I would be more than happy. Hence, I'm not looking for them to expand their responsibility.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | February 29, 2008 5:23 PM
"Hmm...a couple of changes to your statement, Gary, would yeild this:
Given Jesus' open and total support for tax collectors and prostitutes, and other sexual perverts, I think it is very reasonable and appropriate to question whether Jesus is really the Son of God, and I certainly do. Acutally, I do more than question the reality of his "faith", I deny that he has any."
Great post, in what is otherwise a most depressing and dreary discussion. It used to be enough to hold a candidate to what (s)he had said in the past. Now, the candidate has to answer for what his minister, spouse, and parents said.
What I'd really like to see: "Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama, and Ms. Clinton, you all claim to be Christians. Jesus tells us we must love our enemies. Do you love Ahmadinejad? Do you love Osama bin Laden? Do you pray for Hugo Chavez"
Posted by: carl copas | February 29, 2008 5:24 PM
Let me add my voice to the chorus thanking Nuttshell for her input. I'm sorry you felt unwelcome before; but I sure am glad you're back.
Posted by: sangerinde | February 29, 2008 5:26 PM
"You need to read a bit further, Kevin."
Ah, I see. The dictionary comment didn't exactly make me excited to comb through his other myrid posts, however.
"Has Obama adequately clarified for you now that he is not Louis Farrakhan?"
I didn't say he was.
"Or is there some evidence you have that indicates he holds to any of Farrakhan's unethical views?"
That's not the point. I have said this before, but American has become increasingly tolerant of anti-Semitism in recent years. We hear about dark Jewish cabals and the power of neocon Jews. If Farrakhan were disparaging of any other group, Obama would loudly denounce him. Instead, he has chosen a path of polite disagreement.
I'm sorry that feels like bigotry to you. It isn't.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 29, 2008 5:48 PM
Neuronurse,
I don't know if my reasons will pursuade you to vote for McCain, or cause you to reject him completely, but here are some other reasons I support McCain.
1) If you believe, as I do, that diplomacy is important, you want a leader who understand certain fundamental rules that gives us leverage at the negotiating table. Most of Obama's gaffes thus far in his campaign have centered around this very issue. Nothing leads to war faster than an enemy sensing that a leader is out of his element.
2) Obama's popularity has thus far been a function of his failure to take any controversial stands on anything. Yet, he claims to be postpartisan. Someone who is post-partisan should be expected to piss of ideologues, yes. But the most ideological wing of his party is in love with him. You certainly can't say the same for McCain.
3) I believe that the courts should leave lawmaking to elected officials. allowable. I want the nine unelected officials to make as few decisions as constitutionally I think John Roberts and Sam Alito are examples of judges who take this tact, even to the point of taking unpopular stands.
Barack Obama opposed both nominees, clearl because of the abortion issue. Given that you are looking to get around the abortion issue, having that be the sole determining factor in deciding which judge to nominate seems a bad idea.
4) I believe that earmarks are a greater threat to Democracy than people make of them. Major spending bills live or die based on $800k pork projects in North Dakota. McCain has taken real steps to curb the problem, and has the gravitas to force Congress to change.
The Democrats ran almost entirely on a platform of corruption, yet failed to introduce any substantive changes of any type. In other words, Obama and his fellow majority members failed to do precisely what they were elected to do, which also includes...
5) If you hate this war, Obama will do nothing to make it go away. A somber pullout now might feel cleansing or freeing somehow, but will result in situations that force us to intervene down the road.
Obama has not articulated a plan in Iraq, which leads me to believe he will endeavor to pull the troops ASAP. I don't see any evidence that he knows how to execute this to our maximum benefit, or knows what to do if it doesn't go so well.
6) Read D.F. Wallace's Rolling Stone article on McCain from years back. That isn't a reason, but it added to my esteem for him.
7) Yeah, he spent 5.5 years in a POW camp, several of them voluntarily. Since that time, he has shown the ability to make tough decisions, even those that earned the ire of folks like me.
In 2000, who thought a major terrorist attack was going to be the major issue of the next decade? Very few. The struggles facing our nation will turn on a dime. The present economy and war in Iraq might seem like a pittance compared to the decisions facing our president in three years.
In that scenario, I would take those years in a POW camp over happy-go-lucky goodness about hope. Obama, like Bush, is a charisma candidate. No problem with that. There have been great charisma presidents. But I've got an inkling we'll need McCain's fortitude more than we'll need Obama's good vibes.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 29, 2008 6:12 PM
"That's not the point. I have said this before, but American has become increasingly tolerant of anti-Semitism in recent years. We hear about dark Jewish cabals and the power of neocon Jews."
And of "invasions" of the demonized dark-skinned aliens, Fifth Column immigrant insurrections requiring "patriot" "Minuteman" vigilantism.
Across the board, we're tolerating intolerance. Each side seems to be intolerant of someone the other is tolerant of.
If this is so, (although neo-cons try to avoid having to debate their policies on their merits by levelling charges of anti-Semitism against their policy critics) it may be just part and parcel of the propensity for good old red-blooded (and redneck) American bigotry, the same that's coursed like a latent infection through the body politick since the Pilgrims and Puritans purchased human beings from Portuguese slavers and poisoned hundreds of their native benfactors at fatal Thanksgiving feasts, all in the name of religious or ethnic superiority.
As Malcolm Muggeridge sardonically observed, human history is a recounting of a tragic "Who, whom."
Evidently we have our own part to fulfil in this deadly dance of the history of domination, too, like marionettes with strings pulled by elites distorting us into striking strange unloving attitudes towards one another.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | February 29, 2008 6:18 PM
I think it's pretty funny to find nearly 99% of the people who hang out at the web site of a supposedly politically neutral religious leader are hard-core left-wing Marxist Democrats - the majority of which also appear to be females.
How can this be? LOL
Posted by: jan | February 29, 2008 6:25 PM
Ain't I a female?
Ain't I a Marxist?
Not me!
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | February 29, 2008 6:28 PM
In light of Obama being pressed by Tim Russert in the recent debate to "reject and denounce" Louis Farrakhan, I'm curious as to what folks here think about John McCain's acceptance of the endorsement of Pastor John Hagee of Texas. Indeed McCain has said that he is "very honored ... very proud to have Pastor John Hagee's support."
Pastor Hagee has called the Catholic church "the great whore," "the anti-Christ" and and a "false cult system" and has written that the Catholic church conspired with Hitler and Nazi Germany to destroy the Jews.
Pastor Hagee has said that if America pressures Israel to allow a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, that God will "release the terrorists" to come to America to create a "bloodbath" in revenge.
Pastor Hagee has said that God deliberately destroyed the city of New Orleans because of a planned "homosexual parade there on the Monday that Katrina came ... I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans."
Pator Hagee blames Jews for anti-Semitism, saying "It was the disobedience and rebellion of the Jews ... that gave rise to the opposition and persecution that they experienced beginning in Canaan and continuing to this very day.... their own rebellion had birthed the seed of anti-Semitism that would arise and bring destruction to them for centuries to come.... it rises from the judgment of God upon his rebellious chosen people."
Pastor Hagee has said that not only radical Muslims but "Islam in general -- those who live by the Koran have a scriptural mandate to kill Christians and Jews."
Pastor Hagee in his book Jerusalem Countdown says that "God's plan" requires the US and Israel to join in a preemptive military strike against Iran, which will cause Arab nations to unite under Russia's leadership, leading to an "inferno that will explode across the Middle East, plunging the world toward Armageddon" (including the deaths of any Jews who do not convert to Christianity). Hagee predicts Russian and Arab armies will invade Israel and be destroyed by God. Israel will then be the site of a battle between China and the West, which will be led by the anti-Christ in his role as head of the European Union.
I find the views of Pastor Hagee to be no less bizarre and offensive than anything that Louis Farrakhan has said.
John McCain says "I'm very honored by Pastor John Hagee's endorsement today ... He has been the staunchest leader of our Christian evangelical movement in many areas."
Should McCain be pressured to "denounce" John Hagee for his bizarre, offensive, bigoted and offensive views, and to "reject" his endorsement? Just as Obama has been pressured to "denounce" Farrakhan's views, and to "reject" support from Farrakhan (which, by the way, Obama has never received or accepted to begin with)?
Posted by: SecularAnimist | February 29, 2008 6:41 PM
Carl:
"Jesus tells us we must love our enemies. Do you love Ahmadinejad? Do you love Osama bin Laden? Do you pray for Hugo Chavez"
Extremely difficult questions--thanks for asking them! I have to do a gutcheck myself over that one!
Posted by: squeaky | February 29, 2008 6:51 PM
jan
"I think it's pretty funny to find nearly 99% of the people who hang out at the web site of a supposedly politically neutral religious leader are hard-core left-wing Marxist Democrats - the majority of which also appear to be females."
Say QUA?! I doubt you have spent much time here, then, if that's your impression. Very few who post here are as you describe, let alone 99% of us, and probably even fewer are female, let alone the majority.
Posted by: squeaky | February 29, 2008 6:57 PM
Thanks Kevin,
You know I respect your opinions. I didn’t expect someone as articulate as you to respond to my question so quickly.
There was a time when I had a great deal of respect for John McCain, but I feel that he compromised himself after being bullied by the bush administration. I still respect the man, and all things being equal, I don’t think I would object to him becoming President. (Although I argued to give bush the benefit of the doubt when he won the 2000 election and have since come to regret it – once bitten…) That being said, I don’t see myself voting for him.
As for the nomination of Supreme Court justices, I don’t think it’s fair to criticize Obama’s opposition to Roberts and Alito when bush made it clear that he would appoint nominees who he thought would strike down Roe vs. Wade. I don’t think anyone in the Senate could or would claim to be completely neutral on this issue.
Personally, I think it is high time to stop making enemies in the Middle East/Gulf Region, and what I’ve read from Obama’s campaign website sounds like he took a page from the Iraq Study Group (yes, I saw that James Baker, one of the authors of the report, has endorsed McCain). Has McCain clearly articulated his strategy for Iraq?
Finally, we can’t know how either man will perform in office. As Squeaky pointed out, bush, with his limited political experience has gotten us into a (singular or plural?) mess. The rest of the world hates us, our economy is circling the bowl, and for all of the high talk of Christian morality, our country is in no better shape than when bush took office.
I don’t think I have unrealistic expectations of Obama. I’m extremely pessimistic about the future of this country and am not excited about any of the candidates. I get the sense that many voters in the U.S. have similar feelings, if not for the same reasons as mine. I suspect that McCain is going to have an uphill battle trying to convince a cynical electorate to put him in office. The abortion/homosexuality platform has gotten stale, although there is obviously a segment of the population for whom that is and will be the deciding factor, but that alone isn’t going to put McCain in office.
The man who said the invasion of Iraq was “stupid” still has my vote.
PX
Posted by: neuro_nurse | February 29, 2008 7:01 PM
I'll try not to be too tedious...and I won't try to rebut each and every one of Kevin's arguments. While I rarely agree with Kevin, he usually does a better job in presenting his arguments.
First, I believe all 4 major candidates will continue to be supportive of Israel. I don't think we have to worry about that. Obama has been called an apologist and panderer for AIPAC, so I don't believe the man is an Anti-Semitic. Second, re: #1 - Sen. Obama has had a reputation both in the IL Senate and the US Senate as a coalition builder with members of the opposing party. There are many members of Sen. McCain's party who cannot stand him because he is ill-tempered and intemperate particularly in his language. He's not an easy person to work with.
#3 - while abortion may have played some part of his decision to not support Alito & Roberts but I would submit that as a Constitutional Law Professor, Sen. Obama may have been opposed to the last 2 justices because of their support of the Unitary Executive. I would like a Supreme Court that is balanced. I don't want too many Liberals or Conservatives on the Court.
#4 - the earmarks argument is weak. Tax money is used for many different things that support our society, i.e. bridges, security, roads, etc. There are 13 million people in IL. The figure ($91M) that McCain accused Obama of securing for IL works out to $7 per IL citizen. That's hardly a windfall for the citizens of IL. Sen. Obama sponsored the Ethics Reform bill in 2007. You may disagree but considering the scandals from Abramoff, Duke Cunningham, Tom DeLay, Bob Ney (insert name) that legislation was necessary and is significant.
#5 - Sen. Obama does have an Iraq plan. Just because you don't agree doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. I don't think spending generations in Iraq is good for our country, our economy or Iraq. And heavens, I don't think starting a war with Iran is advisable.
I did support Sen. McCain in 2000 but since then, I have become disillusioned with his willingness to back pedal on nearly everything he has formerly believed in his desparate attempt to become President. He has turned 180 degrees in order to get the tepid support of the right wing. Unfortunately, I believe that Sen. McCain will be neutered if he becomes President because he will never be able to live up to the demands of the neo-con agenda. I liked him much better when he was a true maverick.
And to Kevin and all the other cynics, there's nothing wrong with charisma. It's been so long since ordinary Americans have felt hope and trust in government. We have been moving towards a police state and ordinary Americans don't want to revile their government like during the darkest days of the Soviet Republic. For many of us, Sen. Obama gives us hope that he won't use government might to oppress the people of this country or any other country. In addition, I believe most people are sick of the partisan fighting that has not benefited ordinary Americans. The only people doing well now are the oil companies, military contractors, Bush's buddies and the super rich. John McCain is Bush 2.0.
Posted by: Nuttshell | February 29, 2008 7:03 PM
Thankyou SecularAnimist. And you could give a hundred more examples of this silliness.
Kevin, so what exactly do you want Obama to do that has anything to do with anything he has said or done?
The best I can tell is because the former pastor of his church has a daughter that publishes a magazine that gave Farrakhan an award; therefore that puts everything Farrakhan has done or said onto Obama's plate for review, judgment and corrective action; including an obligation to come up to some level of activism against anti-semitism.
Never mind there is no evidence that he is anti-semitic. Never mind there is no evidence Dr. Wright is anti-semitic--through with this taint has traveled. Never mind there is no evidence Trinity UCC is anit-semitic. Never mind this has been pointed out multiple ways by multiple commenters.
Is it possible the issue is not the issue.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | February 29, 2008 7:15 PM
Very few who post here are as you describe, let alone 99% of us, and probably even fewer are female, let alone the majority. Posted by: squeaky
But Squeaky is (female that is)!
See, I remembered this time. :-)
Kevin and Neuro_nurse:
I like several things about McCain. For one thing, he is one of the few who says what he thinks is right, regardless of how his audience might react. A very rare politician indeed. I admire that. For another, his reputation for building consensus, something which is sorely needed in Washington. (Of course, Bush promised the same thing in 2000. We know how far that went.)
I voted for him in the 2000 Republican primary. I thought he was in just about every sense a superior candidate to Bush. But the nomination of Bush was just about sewed up by that time. (I also was hoping that Bill Bradley could have pulled off the Democratic nomination, instead of Gore. I still think a McCain-Bradley contest would have been much more interesting and better for the country than Bush v. Gore.)
I still think that if McCain had been the nominee instead of Bush, the country today would be a lot better off.
That said, McCain concerns me in many ways. His temper for one. And, as Neuro_nurse said, his standing with Bush all the way on a policy that was wrong to begin with--the Iraq invasion.
I don't yet know who I might vote for in November, though if Obama wins the nomination, I'm going to give him serious consideration. But for next Tuesday here in Ohio, I'm leaning toward Huckabee. Yeah, that's right. There are things I don't like about him, either (especially his views about natural science). But none of the presidential candidates appeared outstanding to me from the beginning of this campaign. We seem to have a lack of true leaders in our nation right now. But Huckabee has my ear on what I think is the most critical issue of our day--our continued dependence on petroleum. From that one issue stems virtually all our national security and foreign relations problems, but especially our over-willingness to go to war to keep the oil spigots flowing. Huckabee has a plan for how to end that dependence.
Huckabee isn't going to win the nomination, of course. He isn't even going to win Ohio next Tuesday. So maybe my vote is a protest against the way things are. I've been voting a lot that way, it seems, since 2000.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | February 29, 2008 7:31 PM
squeaky: "Extremely difficult questions--thanks for asking them! I have to do a gutcheck myself over that one!"
Agreed squeaky. I have to do the same sort of gutcheck.
SecularAnimist: "Should McCain be pressured to 'denounce' John Hagee for his bizarre, offensive, bigoted and offensive views, and to 'reject' his endorsement? Just as Obama has been pressured to "denounce" Farrakhan's views, and to "reject" support from Farrakhan (which, by the way, Obama has never received or accepted to begin with)?"
SecularAnimist, you haven't gotten an answer to that yet have you? Let's see if sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander. . .
Posted by: carl copas | February 29, 2008 7:44 PM
"See, I remembered this time. :-)"
Good job, Don!
I share much of your sentiments about McCain. I have a lot of respect for the man, even though I don't agree with his position on Iraq. However, I take his position more seriously since he has actually served our nation in a war and understands military more than our current administration. I would have voted for him in 2000 had he won the nomination.
I will have a lot of thinking to do over who to vote for. It will take some time for me to make that decision.
Now, if John Edwards had won the nomination, it would have been a no-brainer. I was very excited about the prospect of having some eye-candy in the oval office for at least 4 years =). Those $500 haircuts are worth it in my book!
Posted by: squeaky | February 29, 2008 7:55 PM
Apologies to all who were miffed by my misspellings. It was chemo day -- those who have had that lovely experience know that it often leads to creative spelling, creative cooking, creative driving, etc. I notice Wolverine had no trouble understanding the point and responding to it.
Secular Animist brings up a good point. This is the FIRST I have heard of McCain's association with Hagee, whom I consider a much more dangerous man than Farakahn (sp?), if only because he has such a gift of speech.I would listen to him sell toothpaste. So why isn't the press and all the pundits talking about HcCain's religious affiliation? Because Hagee is a "Christian"?
Posted by: ckitty | February 29, 2008 10:22 PM
Thanks Jim, for your educated and well-articulated argument in defense of Barack Obama. I know many who are not basing their critiques of Obama on facts but instead on misconceptions. This article dispells the attitude that Barack does not have a genuine belief in Jesus Christ. I am one of those who loves Jesus and believes that Barack will serve our country well. I am hoping he wins the primary so I can vote for him in the general election. God Bless You.
Posted by: Gisella Perezarce | February 29, 2008 10:50 PM
"Should McCain be pressured to 'denounce' John Hagee for his bizarre, offensive, bigoted and offensive views, "
And for his dispensationalist views, yes. That is all fair game.
"Kevin, so what exactly do you want Obama to do that has anything to do with anything he has said or done?"
I've said what I thought he could do. He might also refuse Farrakhan's endorsement.
"The best I can tell is because the former pastor of his church has a daughter that publishes a magazine that gave Farrakhan an award;"
I think you know the relationship runs deeper than that. If you don't, then you should do your research before pretending that I am a bigot.
"- Sen. Obama has had a reputation both in the IL Senate and the US Senate as a coalition builder with members of the opposing party."
His reputation is unearned, and entirely produced by his own campaign. Even his supporters have been unable to cite legislation that he worked across party lines to engineer a legislative outcome.
". Tax money is used for many different things that support our society, i.e. bridges, security, roads, etc."
It is also used to appease special interests, which is the problem. The Democrats took a golden opportunity to pass substantial reforms, and didn't do it, which is part of why their approval rating is so low.
"And to Kevin and all the other cynics, there's nothing wrong with charisma."
I said as much.
Posted by: kevin s. | February 29, 2008 11:35 PM
"Jesus tells us we must love our enemies. Do you love Ahmadinejad? Do you love Osama bin Laden? Do you pray for Hugo Chavez."
Well asked. The love that Jesus asks us to have for our enemies is the understanding that they are human beings just like us - that they have hopes, fears, dreams, etc. just like us. But most of all that they are each a human body inhabited by a God-given spirit just like us.
It is seeing PAST the hatred, anger, frustration, disappointment, resentment, etc. that they have - those things that make them our "enemies" - to the spirit within them, to the human being behind the "enemy."
"Loving" one's enemy does not mean condoning their behavior, or not attempting to get them to change their ways - NOT via "negative" or defensive response, but lovingly, humbly, patiently.
No matter how repugnant Ahmadinejad, bin Laden, Chavez and others might be, they are human beings with God-given spirits - flawed, perhaps, but nevertheless human beings. Like family, friends, neighbors, acquaintances or colleagues, they deserve no less than our most Christ-like response.
Peace.
Posted by: Maani | February 29, 2008 11:41 PM
"No matter how repugnant Ahmadinejad, bin Laden, Chavez and others might be, they are human beings with God-given spirits..."
"It is seeing PAST the hatred, anger, frustration, disappointment, resentment, etc. that they have - those things that make them our 'enemies' - to the spirit within them, to the human being behind the 'enemy.'"
Oddly enough, I have noticed those same exact "enemy" tendencies in myself and my neighbors, as well as in those 'enemies' Jesus commanded me to love and to do good for, despite being misused.
How could that be?
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 1, 2008 2:28 AM
I was made aware of false preaching at a young age. Anyone who supports someone whose voting shows they approve of abbortion and openly said used MJ/drugs isn't for this country. I am tired of people who suggest that everyone has done drugs.I haven't and most of my friend haven't. This is the problem in America.Obama said he would fund No Child Left Behind program but extra fund in our school is NOT the answer. WE MUST RESTORE DISCIPLINE and end the drug problem.America is in trouble if we keep side stepping these issues.Any preacher who supports someone with a vote reflecting a morally wrong issue has problem and should repent,As for the muslin conflict he should have watch where he was photo, my dad's favorite quote, "Birds of the feather flock together" If I was running for president I would be wary of who I hung out with.
Posted by: sandy | March 1, 2008 7:35 AM
Jim Wallis I was raised to believe something simple and that is if it looks like a Muslim, speaks like a Muslim, and smells like a Muslim, it probably is a Muslim, which is the case with B. Hussein Obama who you defend like a typical left wing communist, which is what you are anyway.
Your defense of B. Hussein Obama is a disgrace to the name of Jesus Christ. How dare you have the nerve to call yourself a Christian! It is people like you that give Christianity a bad name because you all are gutless cowards. You need to be in Berkeley with the rest of your Code Pink manly girls and girly boys, and you can take Ariana Huffington with you. Better yet, why don't you move to Iran? That way, you can tell your Muslim buddies how you attack right wing Patriotic Christians all the time and defend B. Hussein Obama! Maybe then they will take your head off with one quick whack instead of slowly sawing it off like they do now.
Rev. Johnny Lee Clary
www.johnnyleeclary.com
Posted by: Rev. Johnny Lee Clary | March 1, 2008 8:46 AM
Rev. Clary, please take your hate speech elsewhere.
Yes, that's what it is. If you are a Christian, nobody can tell by what you have written here.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | March 1, 2008 9:11 AM
Any dummy can claim to be a "Christian".
In fact, even the Anti-Christ will come in the guise of a "Christian". But the truth is by their fruits you shall know them.
No true christian will vote against Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
No true christian will vote in support of same sex marriage.
there is nothing like gay christians or lesbian christians.
You cannot be gay and be a christian and you cannot be lesbian and be a christian.
Jesus Christ said you cannot be hot and cold.
That he will spit you out if you are hypocritical.
Hypocrites are not christians.
What makes you a CHRISTIAN is not by claiming to be a "CHRISTIAN", but by keeping the commandments of Jesus Christ.
Not by lip service and eye service.
There is too much hypocrisy in the masquerade of Christianity.
The reign of hypocrisy is destroying the True Christian Church in America and the rest of the world.
Senator Barack Hussein Obama cannot be a true Christian and write the letter he sent to the Windy City Times in 2004, promising to vote against DOMA and to vote in support of same sex marriage, because he wants gays and lesbians to vote for him.
Posted by: Orikinla Osinachi | March 1, 2008 10:34 AM
"and smells like a Muslim..."
If anything, he smells like Marlboros. Sorry, I just got the RNC memo that says I'm supposed to talk about his smoking habit. Is he back on the sticks? I think so. Gossip, gossip.
Posted by: kevin s. | March 1, 2008 11:07 AM
Evangelical Christians have a higher rate of divorce (I understand > %50) than the general population. Even Dr. James Dobson's son is divorced (not to single him out - just to show that even the great family advocate's famiiy is affected.)
The National Association of Evangelicals' President Ted Haggard was caught in the same sins that make supposedly make others beyond the pale - homosexual male consensual sex and the use of methamphetamines - yet he had built one of the most successful megachurches ever, right in the heart of the evangelical Christian stronghold, Colorado Springs.
Rush Limbaugh, though he may not be a Christian, is held in high esteem by them - and yet, he is multiply married and divorced and got in serious trouble for forging prescriptions for his drug abuse problem - while having condemned the same behavior in others and calling for draconian punishments - for others.
Even nationally syndicated columnist Cal Thomas and Ed Dobson, former Moral Majority stalwarts, have called the Religious Right approach a failure - "How can Christians try to impose a morality on others they cannot obey themselves?"
Moreover, who knows what thoughts Christians have entertained in the privacy of their own minds? Jesus said that thinking of it makes one just as guilty - because sinful acts can't occur unless first conceived in the heart. You know who you are - everyone!
Some speak of keeping Jesus' commandments. However we often don't know their own record and when we do, hypocrisy is evident. And they don't seem to know them.
They are found at the core of His teachings, found in Matthew 5, 6 and 7. I daresay that many of the "law and order" "send-'em-to-hell" Christians need to review just what it is their Savior required of them if they are interested in being legalistic.
These despicable "Hussein" attacks reveal that their purveyors' hearts are as far from Jesus as it's possible to get - they are liars all. Such will never inherit the kingdom of heaven, and on the last day will assuredly be called accursed, because despite their "Jesus" talk, He never knew them, because they couldn't stand Him then.
By your love, the world will know that Jesus is the Son of God.
This sort of thing just disgraces Christians and tells the world we are Bible Bigots - a just judgment.
Posted by: Sojourner Truth | March 1, 2008 11:10 AM
Although Barack seems to have good intentions, his rhetoric still is very pro-war and he is uncritically supporting the state of Israel without addressing their genocidal campaign in Gaza.
Posted by: Ani | March 1, 2008 11:38 AM
Hi Squeaky,
Thanks for your coming to my defense regarding mrk's comments.
I was in no way trying to create an impression that I was trying to attack Mr Obama and, as you described, mrk's sarcasm came to me as a complete surprise. I would never claim to be "absolutely sure about all the big cosmic issues of life."
The reason that I posted the question was because I DID not understand and was trying to get an alternate perspective, not question Mr Obama's faith.
I just thought that a basic tenent of the Christian fairth is that your place in eternity is in heaven. Is that different than where the soul resides? When I read Mr. Obama's comment I interpreted it as not being sure, which is what I found odd.
Regarding Mrk' sarcastic remarks, in the future if you are going to refer to Mother Theresa and Jesus I would recommend drawing on both of their their spirits of care and compassion rather than on sarcasm.
I've never really posted anything before and if it creates situations like this where people attack you for posing a question (and assume that you have some sort of agenda behing it), then I will probably not bother ever doing it again. These types of situations are the reasons why people just choose to stop asking questions (about politics, religion, faith, etc.)
Posted by: Travis | March 1, 2008 11:38 AM
What about his uncritical support for the state of Israel? It seems that our politicians have a pavlovian response when they are asked about the state of Israel. I cannot support a candidate who is not going to do anything to stop the eminent "holocaust" in Gaza as was declared by teh Israeli minister a few days ago.
Posted by: Suzie | March 1, 2008 11:44 AM
"Barak Hussein Obama should speak out about his Muslim heritage and explain how he feels about it." Paul Jamieson
Please stop bearing false witness: "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor." Exodus 20:16.
Posted by: JamesMartin | March 1, 2008 12:33 PM
Did you know - gasp - C.S. Lewis was a smoker (of cigarettes)?
And G.K. Chesterton, before him (but only cigars)!
Hip flasks, smoking like imps, petting like movie vamps.
All the New England taboos violated.
What is the world of Puritan heroes coming to?
Posted by: N.M. Rod | March 1, 2008 12:56 PM
"Rev. Johnny Lee Clary"
If you look like a Christian and smell like a Christian, you probably are one. Unfortunately, your comments neither look nore smell like the comments that come from a Christian. We know Christians by their fruits. I suggest you read up on that and see if your fruits match Christian fruits.
Posted by: squeaky | March 1, 2008 1:21 PM
Travis,
I apologize that you received the sarcasm you did. No excuses, other than it is often easy to read into people's statements in the written word.
Unfortunately, I don't have time to give you an answer to your question right now, as I am about to leave my office. But I'll try to get back to them later. Don't be discouraged by your first experience posting here. People with thoughtful, honest questions are always welcome here, in my book.
Posted by: squeaky | March 1, 2008 1:26 PM
For all who are so very outraged at Cunningham...
Perhaps you can show your outrage as well at the rather crass and tasteless window stickers which I've seen around, which take off on the "W the President" stickers but substitute the letter 'F' for the 'W'. And we all know what the 'F' means, thank you very much.
Until you can, I can only find your 'moral outrage' to be rather selective.
Posted by: jazzact13 | March 1, 2008 1:28 PM
Well, I suppose we could have a thread about that, Jazz, but that isn't the topic at hand, is it? Stick to the discussion.
And no, I don't support the bumper sticker you describe above.
Posted by: squeaky | March 1, 2008 2:19 PM
Perhaps you can show your outrage as well at the rather crass and tasteless window stickers...Until you can, I can only find your 'moral outrage' to be rather selective.
Talk about a non-sequitur!
jazzact13, this posting is about verbal and email smears to the name and reputation of a presidential candidate. Slander. Violations of the Eighth Commandment (or Ninth if you're not Catholic or Lutheran).
Smears that Bill Cunningham is clearly guilty of committing and promoting. This name-calling and mudslinging isn't appropriate behavior, regardless of one's opinion of Senator Obama as a candidate.
It's not about bumper stickers. I haven't seen any of the stickers you mention, and I sincerely doubt whether most of the people who post or comment here regularly would place such an offensive sticker on their vehicle, regardless of how they feel about the current president. I think most of us would agree that this sticker isn't appropriate either. Maybe it would be a good topic for a future posting.
To accuse us of being selectively outraged is simply not true. We can't possibly discuss, or even take note of, all the outrageous and offensive things that are out there.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | March 1, 2008 2:23 PM
Travis, I should apologize as well. When I wrote that note commending the reply to you, I didn't notice the sarcastic ending of that other posting. I thought the first part of the comment was appropriate.
If I had noticed the sarcasm, I wouldn't have commended it.
Don
Posted by: Don | March 1, 2008 2:26 PM
Kevin, I know you, Wolverine, Mick, & others think that Farrakhan is an obvious evil that if anyway can be connected to Obama or Ellison or anyone--then it is legitimate to just keep throwing it in their face.
Multiple posters, including me, in different ways, essentially ask you to reconsider both your assumptions and your evidence.
The continued innuendos, without evidence that Obama embraces any tint of any of Farrakhan's twisted views (which they are not all twisted), is profoundly hurtful.
To argue back something like, "do your homework," does not make the case. I apologize I can't find the strong case you made (where do I find it)?
Why is continued innuendo profoundly hurtful? For one reason, because you are swinging a sledge hammer at the knees of the first African American candidate who has a reasonable chance of becoming president. And if you can't provide reasoned evidence (repeating "Farrakhan" 2156 times does not count) there are millions of people who experience that swing of the hammer as aimed at them.
It does not work to say you are not trying to hurt--if you have been alerted it is hurtful.
This is not a personal argument with you. It is with your words because your words travel and touch many folks.
I did not call you a bigot (I do not know you). I stated I consider your comments to be bigotry--and I sincerely meant it when I stated I express that with sorrow.
I understand issues around Ellison. I knew him from before his first name change, earliest activism, falsehoods during campaign,etc. Farrakhan scares me. But Hagee has his moments too. I am not saying these men are pristine. But the fact you speak to Rick Nowlin, who has at least a wee bit regard for Farrakhan, does not make you an anti-semite.
Dr. Wright has seen Farrakhan up close for decades. I have zero doubt he recognizes a whole lot more of the craziness than either you or I do. But African Americans have always dealt with (from inside their ranks and outside) a lot of craziness; including honoring and serving those who enslaved and took life. i.e. have the capacity to embrace what helps while coping with the crazy piece.
There is no community in the nation more in need to turn out a million men in Washington to engage their own lives and community than African Americans. There is a reason why the leader of a religion with a very small following could turn out a million Black men; and PromiseKeepers (representing 50 million evangelicals) may have had 50,000 black men at their million man gathering.
The fact there is greater regard for Farrakhan than White, conservative Evangelicals does not imply anything to me about Farrakhan or African Americans. It tells me the respect for White Evangelicalism among Black Men is about -1 on a scale of 1 to 10.
White conservative evangelicals who swing hammers at Obama without any evidence--just deepen wounds we are called to heal.
Posted by: letjusticerolldown | March 1, 2008 2:57 PM
"To argue back something like, "do your homework," does not make the case. I apologize I can't find the strong case you made (where do I find it)?"
I made the case. You do not find it to be strong.
Farrakhan represents an anti-semitic racial separatist organization. That is a fact, and not innuendo.
Obama's church has a publication that presented Farrakhan with an award named for it's (then) pastor. That is also a fact, and not innuendo.
Obama and his supporters tout his affiliation with this church as proof of his sincere faith. Obama himself talks about the church's profound effect on him. This is a fact, and not innuendo.
Obama has not publicly refused Louis Farrakhan's support, and did not unilaterally condemn HIS church's decision to give the award to Farrakhan. This, too, is a fact, and not innuendo.
None of those facts are in dispute. My conlusion, based on those facts, is that Obama does not agree with Farrakhan, but knows that a number of his supporters do, and is not willing to make a public statement that will earn their ire.
You are free to draw a different conclusion, but do not pretend that I disregarding evidence in the name of bigotry. Obama's race does not preclude criticism of his actions or viewpoints.
"I did not call you a bigot (I do not know you). I stated I consider your comments to be bigotry."
That is a distinction without a difference. One cannot make bigoted comments without a bigoted intent, or else they would cease to be bigoted by definition.
"But the fact you speak to Rick Nowlin, who has at least a wee bit regard for Farrakhan, does not make you an anti-semite."
I don't see much regard at all, but to the extent he shows it, I will gladly condemn it, without fear of the political ramifications.
"But African Americans have always dealt with (from inside their ranks and outside) a lot of craziness; including honoring and serving those who enslaved and took life. i.e. have the capacity to embrace what helps while coping with the crazy piece."
I would hazard to guess that some African Americans who would be very offended by the insinuation that, by virtue of their history, they are more tolerant of anti-Semitism within their ranks. You are digging a deeper hole, here.
"There is a reason why the leader of a religion with a very small following could turn out a million Black men; and PromiseKeepers (representing 50 million evangelicals) may have had 50,000 black men at their million man gathering."
I would cite the fact that the former was exclusively for black men. This is a silly, irrelevant point.
Posted by: kevin s. | March 1, 2008 3:37 PM
That is a distinction without a difference. One cannot make bigoted comments without a bigoted intent, or else they would cease to be bigoted by definition. Kevin S.
Agreed, with all of the implications that that entails with regards to you.
Posted by: JamesMartin | March 1, 2008 4:26 PM
To Jim Wallis:
"Defending the Facts on Obama's Faith"
Due to a deeper realization that we, America, who have had a unique place in history where we are not subjugated to leadership against our will but, rather according to our will, I now respond to your e-mail with conviction.
I guess we should all be able to be a witness to his factual faith and relationship with the Lord by watching him in the race (?).
Barack's values are reflected in his voting record. From what I understand, Barack has only a fractional alignment with traditional Judeo-Christian values, especially on KEY values such as homosexuality (not voting) and abortion (chief justice Roberts vote, killing babies partially born). Can you support (provide substantiated data) your "Christian claims" of this PUBLIC representative with more than your personal attestation?
It appears that your article reflects personal allegiance more than allegiance to opposing "abominations" to God.
I pray that Barack, whether he wins or loses, will be as you have described him. I also pray that he will be blessed as he grows in his relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. May America love God and keep His statutes being always mindful of His awesome power and Jesus' soon return.
Posted by: Brian | March 1, 2008 4:39 PM
My conlusion, based on those facts, is that Obama does not agree with Farrakhan but knows that a number of his supporters do and is not willing to make a public statement that will earn their ire.
The trouble is that you believe that most people who "support" Farrakhan believe in his racial animus -- in fact, probably most don't (it's considered more of an "internal" matter because they don't want "the man" to take him down). The fact that white conservatives like yourself despise him so much only adds to his popularity.
"There is a reason why the leader of a religion with a very small following could turn out a million Black men; and Promise Keepers (representing 50 million evangelicals) may have had 50,000 black men at their million man gathering."
I would cite the fact that the former was exclusively for black men. This is a silly, irrelevant point.
OH, NO, IT ISN'T!
In fact, I would have loved to have gone to D.C. for the Promise Keepers' rally but couldn't get off work that day. Bill McCartney has been on an anti-racism kick for years, but when he tried to bring that into PK he met considerable resistance from not so much the staff but from men who attended; he was quoted in Christianity Today saying that focusing upon racism actually drove men away.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 1, 2008 4:42 PM
Brian -- You basically undercut your own argument, especially these days. No longer are Christians considering abortion and gay rights as the only "key" issues on which to judge a politician's faith, in large part because more than a few crooks have voted the right way.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 1, 2008 4:57 PM
"Agreed, with all of the implications that that entails with regards to you."
Right. And so you and LJRD boil bigotry down to mere disagreement. Meanwhile, Farrakhan's explicit, legitimate bigotry is tolerated.
"The trouble is that you believe that most people who "support" Farrakhan believe in his racial animus"
Not that it has nothing to do with my conclusions re: Obama, but the Nation of Islam states racial separatism as part of its platform. Either way, I am not saying Obama agrees with Farrakhan's bigotry, but rather that his unwillingness to confront it is problematic.
That this conclusion is considered bigotry is simply absurd.
Posted by: kevin s. | March 1, 2008 5:05 PM
Agreed, with all of the implications that that entails with regards to you.
It's somewhat revealing that Kevin, in his response to Letjustice, chose to ignore the paragraph about the sledge hammer. The one that begins, "Why is continued innuendo profoundly hurtful?"
Kevin, you don't try to answer that question, either. You only try to demonstrate that you haven't been engaging in innuendo. Yes all the facts you cite are facts, but they still don't add up to a connection between Obama and Farrakhan. Nonetheless, you're content to continue swinging Letjustice's sledge hammer despite the damage it causes.
Sad.
D
Posted by: Don | March 1, 2008 5:10 PM
When are white, Republican, "conservatives" gonna denounce and sever all ties with Tom Tancredo, in order to avoid being tarred with the same nativist, xenophobic racist label he wears on his sleeve?
This "lunacy" has made everyone a bit mad.
I think we need to stop labelling each other heretics and going on witch hunts, else we all get waterboarded, so to speak, at some point.
Let he who is without his own lunacy cast the first stone.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | March 1, 2008 5:17 PM
Either way, I am not saying Obama agrees with Farrakhan's bigotry, but rather that his unwillingness to confront it is problematic.
Hold on a minute. Weren't we saying earlier that he denounced it?
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 1, 2008 6:44 PM
Wow...
the issue is really simple: no human has the power to judge the heart. That's God's job. I've had people tell me i wasn't a Christian just because I wasn't the same race as them or in the right career or of the "correct" political persuasion.
But who cares? I know what my relationship with God is. God knows it. My goal is to have actions that reflect the Biblical fact that God is love. And the only way you can declare someone unworthy of Christianity because of who they are is to deny that Love.
The idea that there are no gay or Lesbian Christians is as ludicrous as the idea that being ethnic excludes you from Christ, who, if i remember correctly, died for everyone.
Posted by: tuneman | March 1, 2008 9:16 PM
"Barack has only a fractional alignment with traditional Judeo-Christian values, especially on KEY values such as homosexuality (not voting) and abortion..."
That's it? That's Christian values in a nut shell? That's what it all boils down to - the "KEY" values in capital letters?
That's really sad.
PX
Posted by: neuro_nurse | March 1, 2008 9:25 PM
Excerpt from Minister Louis Farrakhan's speech in the Shaare Shalom Synagogue in Kingston, Jamaica, as reported in the Gleaner newspaper. March 2002.
http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20020326/news/news1.html
"I have come to my father's home. My mother told me that my father was a man named Percival Clarke, a man that I never really knew, but that his father was a teacher and that lineage came from Portugal. I thought to myself if the lineage of my father was from Portugal then my father's ancestors were among those Jews who found a home in the Caribbean and even though they owned slaves they were kind to those slaves and had relations with the women of those slaves and produced children from those slaves and I believe I am one of those descendants who have in my genetic coding the coding of a Jewish people.
"At five years of age my mother gave me the violin. I had a natural passion for this instrument. It must be a part of my Jewish heritage for as I came up all of my heroes in the violin were Russian Jews. And so I never, ever have a problem with the Jewish people. As a young boy growing up in Boston, Massachusetts I went to the oldest public school in North America called Boston Public Latin School established in 1635, one year before Harvard University was established. It was a very racist situation and in my classroom there was a young Jewish boy who was usually attacked by some of the other whites of other European extractions.
"I did not stay in that school for very long; I went to complete my high school education at Boston English High School and seated behind me in my early years was a young Jewish boy, one of the most handsome young men that I have had the privilege of knowing. But it was 1948 and he told me he was going to Israel to fight for the new state. I didn't understand why this young man would leave the United States and go to fight for the state of Israel, it was many, many years before I would come to understand the sacrifice that that young man made, now here we are in beloved Jamaica."
Final Call's report on the same speech: http://www.finalcall.com/national/jamaica04-02-2002.htm
Posted by: MerryMay | March 1, 2008 9:47 PM
"It's somewhat revealing that Kevin, in his response to Letjustice, chose to ignore the paragraph about the sledge hammer. The one that begins, "Why is continued innuendo profoundly hurtful?"
That's because he goes on to answer his own question, and I disagree with the question's premise. I explained why I was not basing my conclusion on innuendo. You ignore that explanation and simply reassert that I am wielding a hammer. I suspect we'll be seeing plenty of this nonsense from Obama supporters through November.
"Yes all the facts you cite are facts, but they still don't add up to a connection between Obama and Farrakhan."
Farrakhan endorsing Obama is a connection. Period. Obama failed to sever it. Hillary leapt on him for this, as did the Washington Post. The notion that it is an off-limits question because he is black is, again, ridiculous.
Posted by: kevin s. | March 1, 2008 10:37 PM
Leroy,
I am an evangelical, and I believe that you are
right in your critique of Jim Wallis' statement
about Obama's faith. One can say that he is a
member of a church. One can say that he has made
a declaration of faith. One cannot credibly say
that one knows as a fact whether a genuine inner
spiritual experience has occurred.
Only God knows the heart. I believe that Mr.
Wallis is well intentioned, but I also believe,
that in his exuberance to "endorse" a candidate,
he crossed a line that endangers his credibility.
Some may remember that another well known
Baptist minister made a similar statement about
the "genuine conversion experience" of George W.
Bush before he became president.
God has not given us the ability to discern the
motives and intents of the heart of others, nor
has he given us the right or ability to know
their true inner spiritual condition.
We may see outward signs that we think indicate
what is on the inside of someone, but our opinions
cannot be asserted as facts.
Posted by: Margaret A. | March 1, 2008 10:44 PM
I just posted a comment. I don't see it.
Posted by: Margaret A. | March 1, 2008 10:49 PM
re: Rev. Johnny Lee Clary
Wow. Feel that Xian lurve.
Posted by: spinetingler | March 2, 2008 1:15 AM
The notion that it is an off-limits question because he is black is, again, ridiculous.
Not because he's black: it's off limits because Obama has denounced Farrakhan's alleged anti-semitism. That ought to be the end of it.
And it does seem that McCain is quite willing to accept Hagee's endorsement of him.
So where's the beef? That's the question we all have been asking.
D
Posted by: Don | March 2, 2008 6:19 AM
"Farrakhan endorsing Obama is a connection. Period." Kevin S.
..."Obama has denounced Farrakhan's alleged anti-semitism. That ought to be the end of it." Don
Not when your life's mission is to be a spin doctor a la Karl Rove.
No need to worry, Don, if the Democratic National Committee plays its cards right, some right-wing nut job like a former grand wizard of the KKK is bound to endorse McCain and then both sides can muddle and confuse the issues accusing the Republicans of much the same.
In all seriousness, though, I hope that the campaign does not sink to the depths that certain bottom feeders would like for it to.
Posted by: JamesMartin | March 2, 2008 7:52 AM
"Farrakhan endorsing Obama is a connection. Period." Kevin S.
..."Obama has denounced Farrakhan's alleged anti-semitism. That ought to be the end of it." Don
It won't be the end of it until some decider decides it's no longer one of the lower echelons' Republican "talking points" that "dittoheads" have been ordered to "repeat, over and over again, to kind of catapult the propaganda."
That relentless top-down lockstep dirty-politics propaganda focus is why you can't get any traction on the merits.
As a matter of moral consistency, from a Christian approach this shouldn't be surprising. People who can rationalize wars of choice against violations of Just War Theory's Just Cause and Just Conduct requirements, who adopt a "whatever it takes" pragmatic amoral approach that practices a relativism that discards any and all life as acceptable collateral damage and tries to make their overriding ends justify any means, won't have compunctions about stooping to a banality like political slander.
Posted by: N.M. Rod | March 2, 2008 11:02 AM
I am a Brit who follows American politics quite closely. I am also a Conservative (Tory) which. to some of my fellow countrymen, means that my political views are to the right of Attila the Hun. Needless to say they are not but, given my desire to see government as small as possible and keeping its nose out of things for which it has no remit, I ought to be firmly behind the Republicans and McCain but I am not. McCain, no doubt a brave man who fought and suffered for his country, is "old hat" and cannot help but be hand in glove with those who would preserved the status quo.
It really is high time that the American electorate missed a generation, as they did in 1960, to elect a younger man who appears to be full of promise and also relatively free of the shackles which cripple so many seeking to do business with and on Capitol Hill.
What is wrong with campaigning on a message of hope? Well, I'll tell you there is nothing wrong with being hopeful and it behves Clinton ill to make light of Obama's apparent lack of political experience.
More power to that young man who comes across to us on this side of the pond, not only as someone we can trust to lead the free world but also as a symbol that anything is possible and you don't have to be a WASP (White anglosaxon protestant) in an expensive suit to acheive your aims.
My prayers are with Obama which is not the same as saying anything but another Clinton in the White House
Posted by: Andrew Bailey | March 2, 2008 12:28 PM
kevin s wrote: "Farrakhan endorsing Obama is a connection. Period. Obama failed to sever it."
Obama said on national television that he both "denounced" and "rejected" Farrakhan. Your assertion that Obama "failed to sever" what you call a "connection" is blatantly false, particularly since Obama never accepted any endorsement from Farrakhan to begin with. Farrahkan never "endorsed" Obama, he merely praised him.
On the other hand, John McCain publicly accepted the formal endorsement of Pastor John Hagee, who has said that the Catholic church is the "great whore" and a "cult" and that the Catholic church conspired with Hitler to kill off the Jews; that Jews themselves are responsible for centuries of anti-Semitic oppression and prejudice because they "rebelled" against God; that the city of New Orleans brought the destruction of Hurricane Katrina on itself as a punishment from God for its tolerance of homosexuality; that if the US government succeeds in achieving a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, God will "unleash the terrorists" to create a "bloodbath" in the USA as punishment; and who advocates that the US and Israel undertake a preemptive attack on Iran -- in order to provoke the Arab nations to unite under Russian leadership, attack Israel, trigger a regional war with the European Union (under the leadership of the Anti-Christ) and unleash Armaggedon, in which all the Jews who refuse to convert to Christianity will be destroyed by God.
McCain appeared alongside Hagee at the rally where Hagee announced his endorsement, and said "I'm very honored by Pastor John Hagee's endorsement today ... He has been the staunchest leader of our Christian evangelical movement in many areas."
When asked about Hagee's bizarre, offensive and hateful views, McCain said "in no way did I intend for his endorsement to suggest that I in turn agree with all of Pastor Hagee's views, which I obviously do not."
Did Barak Obama appear in public with Louis Farrakhan and praise him as a spiritual leader, and say that he was "proud" to accept Farrakhan's support? No. He rejected any support from Farrakhan -- who in fact had not and has not formally endorsed Obama; he merely praised Obama.
Did Obama vaguely say that he "doesn't agree" with "all" of Farrakhan's views? No. He forthrightly denounced Farrakhan's views.
So the real question is, why are you misrepresenting Obama's alleged "connection" with Farrakhan? Why are you misrepresenting Obama's unequivocal, public rejection and denunciation of Farrakhan?
And why do you tolerate John McCain's open acceptance of the endorsement of a hateful bigot like John Hagee, and his refusal to categorically reject Hagee's bizarre, offensive and hateful views?
Posted by: SecularAnimist | March 2, 2008 1:27 PM
"It won't be the end of it until some decider decides it's no longer one of the lower echelons' Republican "talking points" that "dittoheads" have been ordered to "repeat, over and over again, to kind of catapult the propaganda." N.M. Rod
Yeah, and the one so fond of repeating it here is most certainly on the lowest rung of that bottom-feeding ladder.
Posted by: JamesMartin | March 2, 2008 2:25 PM
"So where's the beef? That's the question we all have been asking."
The beef, as I have said, is that he is sitting on the fence with regard to these connections. He has privately distanced himself from his affiliation with the man who prayed with him before he announced his candidacy, while publicly touting his connection to his church. He denouncen Farrakhan's anti-semitism while not denouncing Farrakhan.
I think it is significant to some degree, but I'm not voting for Obama anyway. If you don't think it's a big deal, that's fine. Just don't pretend I'm racist for bringing it up. And, if anything, I'm repeating Hillary's talking points. She's the one who brought it up.
Posted by: kevin s. | March 2, 2008 4:16 PM
The exchange in question, for the record...
"Russert: "Do you reject his support?"
Obama: "Well, Tim, I can't say to somebody that he can't say that he thinks I'm a good guy.""
That's what caused Hillary to pounce.
Posted by: kevin s. | March 2, 2008 6:48 PM
Well, it appears that John McCain has been actively courting Hagee's endorsement for over a year. Specifically, on January 29, 2007, the two met. And he made a "surprise appearance" last July at Hagee's Christians United for Israel conference in Washington.
Those who continue wishing to make an issue out of Farrakhan's unwelcome endorsement of Obama need to reevaluate their concern, IMO.
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2008/2/29/112513/406
Peace,
Posted by: Don | March 2, 2008 7:10 PM
"Well, it appears that John McCain has been actively courting Hagee's endorsement for over a year. "
Since you have brought this up, and have acted on an action point from the Talk2Action group by posting this, do you consider the McCain-Hagee issue to be problematic? Is it fair to bring it up in the realm of political discourse.
Posted by: kevin s. | March 2, 2008 10:52 PM
God has told me that John McCain will select John Hagee as his running mate and the tandem will be known as the "Fix-O-Dent/Brylcream Duo."
Posted by: I said it, I believe it, that oughta settle it | March 3, 2008 1:55 AM
Of course it's problematic. Extremely problematic.
Hagee is Mr. Apocalypse Now: he thinks he can bring on the Second Coming by causing a conflagration in the Middle East. Juxtapose that with McCain's stand on Iraq.
Just think "Iran" and you'll have my final answer to your question. I know he was joking, but remember McCain's parody of a certain Beach Boys song?
D
Posted by: Don | March 3, 2008 5:51 AM
Kevin, I think it's fair to ask you a question. Are you (and your ideological comrades Woverine and Mick) willing to give the alleged Obama-Farrakhan question a permanent rest?
Given that Obama did not solicit Farrakhan's endorsement and has denounced it, and given that McCain has actively sought Hagee's support for over a year and is extremely unlikely to distance himself from it, is there any justification whatever in continuing your whining over Farrakhan?
You like to talk about sauce for the goose, don't you? Well?
Peace,
Posted by: Don | March 3, 2008 7:41 AM
"Of course it's problematic. Extremely problematic."
And so I find Obama's connection to Farrakhan problematic as well. Obviously, since Obama is your guy, you find McCain's connections much more disturbing. I find them to be about the same. Partisanship? Perhaps. Bigotry? No.
"is there any justification whatever in continuing your whining over Farrakhan?"
I am not whining. I simply pointed out that there was something to the proposition other than bigotry. I was then accused of wielding sledgehammers and the like.
"Kevin, I think it's fair to ask you a question. Are you (and your ideological comrades Woverine and Mick) willing to give the alleged Obama-Farrakhan question a permanent rest?"
That depends on whether you will persist in calling me a bigot. You (and your ideological comrade, JamesMartin) have re-asserted the claim continuously, and now are asking me to simply accept it as so and move forward. I am merely responding to the comments addressed to me, and am accused of (in addition to being a bigoted, Rovian, bottom-feeder) refusing to let something die.
Posted by: kevin s. | March 3, 2008 9:02 AM
That depends on whether you will persist in calling me a bigot.
Excuse me, Kevin, I think you're putting words in my mouth. First, I for one never brought race into this discussion or labeled anyone a bigot.
I also never said Obama was "my guy." Why don't you re-read my February 29, 2008 7:31 PM post above. I said If he wins the Dem. nomination, I would give him serious consideration. That doesn't mean he's "my guy," at least not in my lexicon.
I do believe you are guilty of applying a double-standard here. I would presume that your motivation isn't race, but rather ideology. But on the one hand, you browbeat Obama for an unsolicited endorsment by someone on the political fringe, but you want us to pay no attention McCain's active courting of the nomination of someone who's (in my mind) even farther out on that fringe.
Let me put the question another way: If McCain's active seeking of an endorsement from Hagee doesn't bother you, then why should you worry about Farrakhan's endorsement of Obama?
So since I never called you a bigot, can you let this thing rest?
D
Posted by: Don | March 3, 2008 10:12 AM
"First, I for one never brought race into this discussion or labeled anyone a bigot."
You echoed LJRD's sentiments re: race and sledgehammers.
"but you want us to pay no attention McCain's"
I said flatly that you may pay attention to it.
"That doesn't mean he's "my guy," at least not in my lexicon."
I know, you would never say that anyone is your guy. But clearly your sympathies lie with him, and I would be astonished if you didn't vote for him in November, unless Hillary somehow pulls a win out of her hat.
"So since I never called you a bigot, can you let this thing rest?"
Are you going to let the Hagee thing rest?
Posted by: kevin s. | March 3, 2008 10:53 AM
Are you going to let the Hagee thing rest?
Are you, again, going to let the Farrakhan thing rest? Because that's where this whole thing started in the first place.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 3, 2008 11:28 AM
I know, you would never say that anyone is your guy. But clearly your sympathies lie with him, and I would be astonished if you didn't vote for him in November
I have repeatedly stated here that I am not thrilled with any of this crop of presidential candidates. All are flawed in some ways. That includes the ones who are no longer in the race. I still don't feel that any of them represents (or represented) the kind of leadership our nation truly needs to avoid slipping further into decline.
My sympathies with Obama primarily rest in the fact that he has been the target of particularly vicious personal attacks: on his name, on his religious affiliation, and regarding the people that some of the people he knows associate with. In some cases, I'm sure, these attacks are related to his race (e.g., see the comments by "Rev." Clary above--then go to his Web site. One line of text on that site will tell you all you need to know about where he's coming from). But some come from what I perceive is the fact that a lot of people seem to be very "afeared" that he might indeed become our next president.
I simply don't share in that fear. Does that then make me a de facto Obama supporter? In essence, that's what you are saying. In fact, it's far too early to know whom I might vote for in November, and I will be sure and take my time making up my mind. A lot has to happen first, not least including selection of running mates.
But in the meantime, I will defend him against attacks that seem to be motivated by fear of his possible presidency, or by ideological spin. And the Farrakhan thing seems in my opinion to be in that latter category--it has the appearance of grasping at straws.
Contrast that with the McCain-Hagee connection, if you please. Yes, McCain has been the target of personal attacks, too, mostly from the far right. I dislike those unjustified attacks as much as those against Obama. And I will acknowledge that you said we could pay attention to his relationship with Hagee. However, the depth of that relationship, when compared to Obama's distant, secondhand relationship with Farrakhan, seems far greater. Do you acknowledge that? You have said that McCain should publicly distance himself from Hagee. Knowing what you know now about his yearlong pursuit of that endorsement, do you reasonably think that he would? If Newsweek or the NY Times ran a thorough expose of Hagee and his anti-Catholic and anti-Semitic teachings, not to mention his inflammatory theology re. the Middle East conflict, and then linked him to McCain through this endorsement, would you think McCain had been treated unfairly by the "liberal" media? Would you still call on McCain to renounce his connection to Hagee?
Peace,
Posted by: Don | March 3, 2008 11:57 AM
Travis--
Just a really short nutshell response of your questions about where Obama is coming from with his doubts about where the soul resides and what is before the Big Bang.
I think he is just putting into words the uncertainty that I think most of us share, whether expressed openly, denied openly but held privately, or existing deep down inside and appearing in the dark nights of the soul.
I think it is an honest position to take, even though it makes many uncomfortable. There is a sense that in order to be a Christian, we must be 100% certain of what we believe. Some may say I am wrong about this, but I don't think any of us truly are certain, not 100% of the time. I also don't think God expects that of us. Truly most people's faith is summed up by "Lord, I believe. Help my unbelief."
Posted by: Squeaky | March 3, 2008 12:08 PM
kevin s wrote: "And so I find Obama's connection to Farrakhan problematic as well [...] you find McCain's connections much more disturbing. I find them to be about the same."
Why do you continue to lie about Obama and Farrakhan?
There is NO "connection" between Obama and Farrakhan. Obama never sought Farrakhan's endorsement. Obama never accepted Farrakhan's endorsement. Farrakhan has, in fact, NEVER ENDORSED Obama. Farrakhan merely spoke approvingly of Obama's candidacy. Obama has never appeared in public with Farrakhan, nor has he ever praised Farrakhan. In fact, Obama has repeatedly, publicly, unequivocally, categorically "denounced" AND "rejected" Farrakhan's views.
On the other hand, McCain actively sought the endorsement of the hateful bigot John Hagee. McCain appeared publicly with Hagee at the rally where Hagee officially endorsed McCain, and praised Hagee as a spiritual leader. McCain has neither denounced NOR rejected Hagee's hate-filled bigotry, he has only vaguely said that he does not share "all" of Hagee's views.
So again, given that you are aware of these FACTS, why do you continue to knowingly, deliberately LIE about Barack Obama?
Posted by: SecularAnimist | March 3, 2008 12:21 PM
"I simply don't share in that fear. Does that then make me a de facto Obama supporter?"
No.
"However, the depth of that relationship, when compared to Obama's distant, secondhand relationship with Farrakhan, seems far greater. Do you acknowledge that?"
First off, am I allowed to answer your questions, or will I be excoriated for my refusal to "let it go"?
Assuming the former, my guess is that McCain has met with Hagee about once or twice, and I would guess the same about Obama. McCain was actively courting a variety of conservative religious figures in preparation for a presidential run. But no, I don't think Hagee and McCain have much of a personal relationship at all.
"But in the meantime, I will defend him against attacks that seem to be motivated by fear of his possible presidency, or by ideological spin."
Or Hillary Clinton, who you might say is afraid that he will become president, on some level.
"Knowing what you know now about his yearlong pursuit of that endorsement, do you reasonably think that he would?"
Possibly. If pressed in a debate, perhaps, as Obama was.
"would you think McCain had been treated unfairly by the "liberal" media?"
Depends on whether Obama is the subject of similar exposes.
"Would you still call on McCain to renounce his connection to Hagee?"
Yes.
Posted by: kevin s. | March 3, 2008 12:28 PM
Kevin, you're still trying to elevate the Obama-Farrakhan connection to the same level as the McCain-Hagee connection.
The facts just aren't there to allow you to do that. That's why SecularAnimist's question is relevant.
D
Posted by: Don | March 3, 2008 12:47 PM
Does an unsolicited endorsement carry the same political and moral significance as a solicited endorsement? That's what this comes down to.
kevin s seems to indicate they are the same. Most of the rest of us disagree.
I'd like to hear from kevin s WHY unsolicited endorsement = solicited endorsement. Because that certainly differs from my understanding of politics.
Posted by: carl copas | March 3, 2008 12:59 PM
Did you say UCC heretic?
Yes I disagree with my pastor on occasion. I don't expect him/her to agree with me on every thing iether. For that matter I reserve the right to disagree with my maker. But that's between me and Her. I don't abandon my faith in God just because She disagrees with me. Why should I abandon my church community when none of them agree on everything with each other, regardless of what I think?
I was raised in family where children were expected to think for themselves. Who cares what my cousins think.
This is America isn't it?
Now stop making up things about us. Go to www.UCC.org and get it right.
You'll find that there's great deal of plurality in the UCC.
Do you agree with everything that is said by people you have admired? I suspect not.
As for Cunningham. He insults himself.
Posted by: UCC heretic | March 3, 2008 12:59 PM
As I responded on another post, there's nothing Obama or any black person can do to distance themselves enough from Farrakhan for Kevin. We are constantly beaten up and asked to denounce and reject people repeatedly and it still never dies. As I said on the other post, I am not constantly asking white people to apologize for David Duke or any other racist. Kevin doesn't like Obama. We get that. His insistence on aligning Obama with Farrakhan is extremely tedious. He hasn't wasted hardly any keystrokes on denouncing the McCain/Hagee connection or even mentioning how Hillary Clinton took days to renounce Adelfa Cajello for her racist comments in TX, "...simply has the problem that he [Obama] happens to be black."
At first Hillary refused to renounce the comments and saying in an a television interview: "I want us judged on our merits. I believe strongly that the fact that we have an Aftrican Ameircan and a woman running for the Democratic nomination is historical and I'm very very proud of that. I want people thought to look beyond, look beyond race and gender."
"This is a free country. People get to express their opinions," she added. "A lot of folks have said really unpleasant things about me over the course of this campaign. You can' take any of that as anything other than an individual opinion."
It took Hillary days to renounce her TX supporter.
Posted by: Nuttshell | March 3, 2008 1:00 PM
I attended seminary on the southside of Chicago a little over five years ago and had several opportunities to attend Trinity UCC on a Sunday morning. The authenticity and energy in the place are palpable. Summed up in a few words, I experienced it as a genuine community of faith. With boldness, hard words were sometimes spoken by Pastor Wright. The concise credo "unashamedly black and unapologetically Christian" never came to me as a source of alienation, though I am not black myself.
Reducing one's assessment of Barack Obama to a statement or decision made by his pastor somewhere along the way distorts what it means for him to be a member of Trinity UCC. Jeremiah Wright considers himself to be a flawed yet forgiven child of God. Divorcing his statements or actions from the historical and racial struggle that his life's work is a part of is offensive and simply unhelpful. Life is messy, and folks inside and outside of the church are far from perfect. None of that takes away from the faithful struggles of a congregation like Trinity UCC to daily extend God's love and justice within and without the walls of their church.
It seems only fair to refrain from snap judgments about Jeremiah Wright. What's more, Barack Obama does not deserve to be chastised for his authentic participation in the faith community of which he is neither ashamed, nor apologetic.
Posted by: R Fletcher | March 3, 2008 2:28 PM
Thanks, R. Fletcher.
Our older son visited Trinity one Sunday last summer and had a similar reaction.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | March 3, 2008 2:50 PM
"KEY" issues such as sanctity of life AND sexual orientation are not an exhaustive list of Judeo-Christian values but, are a 30,000ft perspective of the politician's moral views/positions.
In other words, we can get a "first impression" on the politician's morality based on their position regarding these highly charged disputes.
Barack's (and others) position on these issues are assaults on core tenets of the Christian
Faith.
Will believers stand for what is pleasing to the Lord or will believers stand for the agenda of the enemy. Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
It's not a color thing, it is a spiritual thing. Whom do YOU serve?
Lord, I pray right now for the author and all who are posting, including myself, that YOU, TRUTH, will reign in our lives, in Jesus' name, amen.
Posted by: Brian | March 3, 2008 4:18 PM
"I'd like to hear from kevin s WHY unsolicited endorsement = solicited endorsement. Because that certainly differs from my understanding of politics."
In the case of Obama, it's more than just an endorsement. He cites his participation in this church as evidence of his commitment to his faith, and this church has awarded Farrakhan an award. If my church gave an award to John Hagee, I would leave my church.
The situations are apples and oranges, but the fruit seem to be the size to me. Neither is affecting my voting decision.
Posted by: kevin s. | March 3, 2008 4:21 PM
"KEY" issues such as sanctity of life AND sexual orientation are not an exhaustive list of Judeo-Christian values but, are a 30,000ft perspective of the politician's moral views/positions.
You wish. You sound as if a person with the right positions on those issues must be a Christian despite his perhaps being a practical atheist. In fact, we've elected some God-ignoring criminals to office but who were anti-abortion and anti-gay.
Posted by: Rick Nowlin | March 3, 2008 4:41 PM
thank you Jim for the comments to set the record straight on Obama. He has nothing to defend on this issue. mm
Posted by: margaret Musgrove | March 3, 2008 4:47 PM
"KEY" issues such as sanctity of life AND sexual orientation are not an exhaustive list of Judeo-Christian values but, are a 30,000ft perspective of the politician's moral views/positions."
No, they are a smoke screen – blinders to larger issues. They are convenient issues about which presidents and other politician can really do little – just spew a lot of hot air and appoint a couple of Catholic Supreme Court Justices under the assumption that some day they will strike down Roe vs. Wade, for which there is no guarantee. They allow people to feel good about voting for a particular candidate without having to think beyond what amount to superficial issues – superficial not because they are not important, but superficial because the end result is a few token gestures with no real effect on either.
Has there been a significant reduction in the number of abortions performed in the U.S. since gwb took office? The answer is no. Take a look at the abortion surveillance reports in the MMWR (www.cdc.gov) – you’ll probably be surprised at what you find there.
How many U.S. States recognized same-sex marriage, domestic partnerships, or civil unions when gwb took office?
None.
How many have legalized same-sex marriage or recognized civil unions or domestic partnerships since gwb took office?
California: domestic partnerships, 2005
Connecticut: civil unions, 2005
District of Columbia: domestic partnerships, enacted 1992, implemented 2002, expanded 2006
Maine: domestic partnership, 2004
Massachusetts: same-sex marriage, 2004
New Hampshire: civil unions, 2007
New Jersey: civil unions, 2007
Oregon: domestic partnership 2007
Washington: domestic partnership, 2007
Did I miss any?
Don’t forget, Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.
PX
Posted by: neuro_nurse | March 3, 2008 5:36 PM
It is interesting that Obama has denounced and distanced himself from Farrakhan but McCain has not distanced himself from a force for intolerance, anti-Catholicism and anti-Semitism, James Hagee. Indeed, McCain wraps himself in Hagee like a blanket.
The Republican smear machine will be putting out whisper campaigns throughout the coming months. They can't help it. It's their nature. But will we be hearing the denunciatons of a true agent of intolerance on the right? I doubt it.
Posted by: Karen | March 3, 2008 6:00 PM
I've now heard Hagee referred to on this thread as 1)John Hagee, 2)Kenneth Hagee, and 3) James Hagee.
Can we just agree to call him "Brylcream Bubba?"
Posted by: I said it, I believe it, that oughta settle it | March 3, 2008 7:51 PM
The situations are apples and oranges, but the fruit seem to be the size to me. Neither is affecting my voting decision.,/i>
Assuming you meant to say that the fruit seem both to be the same size, I certainly don't agree. McCain met with Hagee. He attended Hagee's Israel conference. McCain was with Hagee when he announced his endorsemet.
As SecularAnimist points out, Farrakhan didn't actually endorse Obama. And so forth.
If we want to measure fruit here, the difference is about that of a grapefruit vs. an elderberry.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | March 4, 2008 6:20 AM
Much is being said about Rev. Farrakhann's anti- semitism. But I thought that he had repudiated all that when he decided to join the mainstream Islamic faith. Am I right?
Therefore if louis Farakhan indeed has turned a new leaf where ani-semitism is concerned, then why the fuss?
Posted by: blutenhalbmond | March 6, 2008 2:26 PM
Living in Australia I also received am email about Muslim Obama Barack, which has little relevance to us here but show how extensive the campaign is. After a recent visit to the US where I met several evangelcal Christians I came away shaking my head at the (literally!!) incredible attitudes of Christians in the US. Racism seems rife, the amazing attitude to abortion while on the other hand supporting the anhilation of Iraq is unique, exploiting while condemning 'illegals' seems the norm. Somehow it seems to me the US Church needs to re-read Matthew 25.
Thanks for your sane comments, Jim
Posted by: Jon | March 6, 2008 6:45 PM
It seems that critics of Senator Obama have decided attacking him on the basis of his race would be unwise, so are attempting to use the current fear factor in our nation of anything Muslim. Thank you, Mr. Wallis, Senator McCain and any others who raise objections to this outrageous behavior.
Posted by: jellybean | March 8, 2008 4:50 PM
Listen, after 911 I think people are allowed to be very skeptical about putting in someone that even has connections to Muslims. Farrakahn, and this church who thinks Farrakahn is so wonderful that he deserved an award. The church which Obama is such a BIG part of) loved Farrakahn so much that they gave him an award!)
It really is time to start using our heads and think about what could really be going on here. Barak has been caught in several lies. Literally caught! He is not a BLACK man, he is half black and half white. So the race card cannot be played. He attends and loves a church who awards Farrakahn for his works. He "says" he is Christian. Well, I could tell you I am Muslim too, but I am as white as Casper. If it were to serve a purpose for me to say I am Muslim, then I could say it (according to the Koran). And visa-versa. He can say he is not and attend his church faithfully, but anyone who holds Farrakahn so high has an agenda also. I don't care that he "denounced" his endorsement. Of course he would! He wants to be in office. Our Whitehouse. He will say whatever he wants to get what he wants and with all of the zombied out Americans sitting around with thier eyes rolling in the back of thier head will believe anything they are told. Well, the moon is made of cheese. I'll bet nobody knew that. But I bet if Barak Hussein Obama said it, people would believe it! Wake up and smell the deceit!
Posted by: Jodee | March 10, 2008 6:16 AM
Good lord, some of the comments here remind me of why I stopped going to church for such a long time...
First off, congrats to Jim Wallis for a concise rebuttal of the 'Muslim' innuendoes floating around Barack Obama. I've referenced his article and a very well researched snopes.com article to many people who have voiced such concerns regarding Senator Obama's faith.
Rev. Wallis has had to walk a tightrope with this article of his. Theoretically, there should be nothing about someone's 'Islamic heritage' or 'Muslim faith' that would disqualify him from taking the office of the Presidency. I think, however, that we all know this to be false. There is far too much prejudice against someone who is not mainstream Christian that would turn off the teeming masses. Just look at the flap surrounding Mitt Rommney's faith. The repetitive mentions of Obama's middle name is being used purposefully to remind everyone of his 'foreign-ness' and to activate that little twinge of doubt that exists in the minds of those that can't be bothered to do their own research.
I also find it interesting that Rev. Wallis devotes much of his book "God's Politics" to showing that the concerns of Christianity are myriad (preemptive war, poverty, world hunger, environmental degradation, human rights, etc), and should not be boiled down to the two-trick ponies of abortion and homosexuality. Yet, it seems that when Senator Obama isn't being questioned on whether he is being a 'stealth-Muslim', he's being accused of not being a 'True Christian' because he's pro-choice and pro- civil unions. I don't think it's any wonder that many people no longer associate Christianity with the ideals of love, compassion, and respect for others... just intolerance, arrogance, and ignorance.
Rev. Wallis's book God's Politics, and Philip Yancey's book What's So Amazing About Grace went quite a ways towards healing my jaundiced view of what Christianity was all about... but there's still quite a ways to go...
BTW, two links... the first is a good example of Senator Obama working across the aisle to get good legislation passed unanimously in the state Senate despite significant initial opposition.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html
The second is a link to his 'Call to Renewal' speech which I thought was remarkable.
http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060628-call_to_renewal/
Cheers to all!
And in the interest of full disclosure, my wife, who has voted Republican all of her adult life until 2006, and voted for GW Bush twice, signed us up to canvass for the Obama for President campaign...
Posted by: Evan | March 11, 2008 9:26 PM
Good job. And very admirable comments on CNN tonight (3/18) after Obama's speech -- actually all the commenters were alot more wise and balanced than the media commentators!
(my pre-speech rant on the subject:
So what is Jeremiah Wright saying that isn't historically true (except the jury’s still out on HIV)? Do we forget so soon that black America has had to forge an identity in the face of the most consistent, de-humanizing racism from 1619 thru (at least) 1967 (when, at last, some Southern states repealed their anti-miscegenation laws)? And we who value the Revolution, the religious beginnings of America (from 1620, anyway), who think that these "old" events matter -- is it not "disingenuous" of us to chide black folks for remembering Jim Crow laws just 50 years ago? For crying out loud. Especially those of us who claim some civil rights beliefs. There's no way a healthy uniter like Obama could evolve in this country without a strong understanding of who he is in context. I'm just amazed and delighted it's happening in my lifetime!)
Posted by: Sheryl Lee Olsen | March 19, 2008 12:00 AM
According to the bible, people who advocate partial birth abortion are not christians but Moleck worshippers.
Posted by: Sharon | October 28, 2008 12:21 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?