Thanks for this comment, David. I’m reminded of some other comments made by well-known clerics at other times in out recent history, and I’m not even thinking of the obvious ones such as Falwell or Robertson. There are tapes of Richard Nixon and Billy Graham trading anti-semitic comments in the Oval Office. There used to be a crude joke about a police charge that was “driving while black”. The new charge seems to be “preaching while black”. Preachers could damn segments of America for their religion, sexual orientation, and such, but don’t damn them for the color of their skin, especially if it’s caucasian…

This isn’t a fair post David. When you put together all of the black racism that UCC stands for (Kwanzaa guidelines NOT Gospel), and you connect it with Mrs. Obama and her recent statements about America, you connect it to Barack “choosing” not to where a US flag lapel pin, you see the word “CHANGE” connected to the words “WE can believe in,” and you see and hear the “statements” of Obama’s church leaders, and it adds up to a decent decision not to support Obama’s bid for the position of greatest influence in America. THEN, you connect that with his extreme liberal desires, and you have a good reason to not want to support him.

“Let’s say that the critics are right. Let’s grant them the argument. They are right. Obama never should have remained part of this church for 20 years.
So how many then?”
David, the answer is one sermon. I am white, my family is mixed race. If I heard one sermon from my white pastor where comments such as those made by Rev. Wright were made, I would vote with my feet and walk out.
For me to sit Sunday after Sunday for the next twenty years should raise questions. Do I agree with the racist rhetoric, or do I simply not have the integrity to take a stand and leave. For me, these are the questions the Wright issue raises with Barak Obama. Omaba himself has referred to Wright as his spiritual leader, he has attended the church for 20 years, Wright married him and baptized his children. Obviously Obama is close to the man. Friendship with Wright is not the issue. But to name this man as his spiritual advisor, raises questions. If he has no issue with Wright being his spiritual advisor, what judgement will Obama exercise when he is forming his cabinet of advisors?

Dave: where can I apply to be archbishop of this new state church? And how about, oh, say $250,000 to start? Do I have to wear one of those dorky hats like the pope and that Canterbury guy?

Well said, David.
The fact that your rhetorical questions have no answers strongly suggests that this whole thing was motivated more by race than anything else.
Peace.

David,
I don’t comment often. But I wanted to offer my kudos to you.
This commentary is spot-on. It asks the very questions that I have been arguing with my politico-friends.
If people, with the very willing help of the media, are going to dissect every minute detail of Barack Obama’s connection to Rev. Wright – aren’t we setting a precedent to do that for EVERY election going forward? Why doesn’t anyone else notice this?
Keep up the good work.
http://thepajamapundit.com/

Barack “choosing” not to where a US flag I dont wear a falg pin either. Military vet with 8 years experience. Still do a little consulting and if there was a real war and they needed an old guy with a bad knee Id join in a second. No one is setting a litmus test for me.
David, the answer is one sermon. I am white, my family is mixed race. If I heard one sermon from my white pastor where comments such as those made by Rev. Wright were made, I would vote with my feet and walk out.
I have read some of his other sermons and he didnt preach like that in every sermon. So if we all agree that we will walk out when someone in our church does or says something wrong we will walk out. Guess I had better go open a new church for all the Catholics. Or, maybe we could do that walk a mile thing or maybe even forgive.
Steve

What if Obama stayed for 20 years b/c he decided to do something really stupid like forgive his pastor 70 x 7?

You are so right on . . . I’d never thought about it like that before, but as I read your post I saw the danger, immense danger.

Who on this earth can genuinly be so sure of thier own righteousness and that of their frends, associates, pastors, etc, that they would willingly be held accountable for everything said by those people? Now that would be ARROGANCE.

Forget Barack Obama for a second.
People complain, not ultimately correctly IMHO but with no little justification either, that the process of running for president has become so demeaning that no one who’d really make a good one would ever want to run.
Then you hear these folks like the white male Democratic bowlers in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, interviewed on ABC World News with Charlie Gibson tonight, who say that Rev. Wright’s words have convinced them to vote for Sen. Clinton.
When even Sen. Obama’s worst enemies admit there is not a shred of racism in his body, and that even if they disagree with his proposals, they acknowledge that one of his core missions in his political and personal lives (as his speech in Philadelphia demonstrated) is racial reconciliation based on his own remarkable biography.
With such distorted, short-term thinking in response to such a passionate, courageous speech showing long-term leadership, we get the presidents we deserve

I used to a part of a church whose leaders said things I was often uncomfortable with. I was a part of that church for 6 years.
After I left, I realized that my membership at that church was harmful to others.
Here is why; I realized that my very “presence” became an “endorsement” of what was being said. People who are visiting think to themselves, “Look how many are here. There wouldn’t be so many here if they didn’t think this was a good message”.
The number of members present becomes a form of voting on what is being said.
I did not want my presence to be a vote for the preacher and what he was saying any longer. And, when I left, I wrote the church leaders a letter telling them why I was leaving and why I objected to what was being said. That is what Obama should have done 15 years ago.
People need to be careful of where they go to church. Many church leaders say things which are hateful, untruthful, and also anti-Biblical. And too many who attend churches are too cowardly to tell them so.

David, you asked:
Should we undertake an exhaustive review of the sermons of each and every pastor, priest, rabbi, or imam to make sure that they aren’t offensive?
If not, why not? If Obama can be disqualified because of Jeremiah Wright who knows what kind of dirt can be dug up on other pastors?
The reason Wright receives extra scrutiny is that he has been trumpeted as Obama’s spiritual mentor and was placed on his website as a witness to Obama’s character and fitness to be president. Do we not have a right to know something about the positions taken by the man who makes these claims?
I don’t know a thing about the pastor at the churches attended by Bush, Cheney, Gore, McCain or the Clintons and I strongly suspect it is because they were either not put forward as character references or don’t say offensive things on a regular basis. Just as a politician subjects him/herself to scrutiny when they become a candidate, a pastor does the same when he agrees to endorse a candidate in his official capacity.
As to dirt being dug up, this is irrelevant. How would learning about the secret impropriety of some pastor have any relevance to the trustworthiness of the members of his congregation (unless they knew about the indiscretion)? Are all 10,000 members of Ted Haggards’s church tainted by his private failings?
I do understand that there is a slippery-slope argument to be made in hyper-analyzing pastor’s positions but this situation is nowhere near the precipice.

David, what Jesus “said” held what He believed and what He “was.” In fact, He was the “Word” of God, made flesh. Those that “listened to Him,” became believers and followers. They were called “Christians.” Jesus “like.” It is very, very, important, to look at what people listen to and who they are following to determine what they believe and “who” they are. It is a main theme of the New Testament. We are also taught by Jesus and the Apostles to be concerned with a person’s doctrine and beliefs to determine if they are in the faith or not of it. The lack of consistency in the Christian world for doctrine is shocking. That is why so many get away with calling themselves “Christian” and are shown to be anything but. “Anything goes,” is the modern religion of the masses. Or, as Jesus puts it, those on the wide path.

How many here have seen the two complete sermons of Rev. Wright from which the “snippets have been taken.”
I saw one of them on You Tube and they were completely different. There was no hatred. There was no racism. But it’s because I CHOSE to look further. Maybe it’s because I know how media manipulation works.
Rev Wright was successfully swiftboated with the help of the media for whatever their reasons – ratings, money, hatred. I want to know their motives and intent. FOX NEWS and ABC NEWS had bought all of Rev Wright’s sermons on videotape. They had access to the complete videos and choose not to show them. If they had, we wouldn’t even be discussing this.
I am concerned about the lack of intellectual curiosity of people who believe anything without digging deeper for the truth. I am concerned about media manipulation and lack of integrity. We’ve heard the saying: “go for the jugular”. Well in media and PR, it’s go for the limbic – the primitive emotional centers whose responses are fear, and anger. And once you’ve got people hooked into that, it’s very difficult for them to think logically and reasonably about an issue. That requires activation of a different part of the brain – the neocortex.
And how many people know about the hypnotic trance most people go into while watching tv as they become more passive and receptive to whatever they’re hearing and seeing. It has to do with THE FLICKERING OF THE BROADCAST SIGNALS!
Media and PR people know this. Why don’t we?
What has happened to our society that we have allowed the media to frame the way we see things? That’s giving our power and control away.
The way to change this is through what matters to the corporations that own these media outlets – their bottom line – MONEY. Using the power of the consumer to boycott the sponsors of programs spewing hatred and divisiveness. Then see how quickly it changes. That will send a message that what they are dong is not acceptable. If we do nothing, that’s passive acceptance. We don’t yet realize the power of the people. But more and more are waking up.

Patricia
You hit the nail on the head. Like most of these so-called controversies, the Rev Wright situation was media driven. We have fake journalists who have no interest in presenting the facts, but rather crating a story that will get people curious enough to keep tuning in. It’s all yellow journalism and the MSM should be called on it every time it happens. Unfortunately it’s so frequent, that you could spend 24 hours a day firing out alerts!
At least with the availability of the internet, those who crave more substance and truth have somewhere to go. But there are so many people who prefer the distortions and the made-up stories because it fits in with their world-view, which they cling to despite evidence that they have been deceived.

The double standard.
Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell’s gave this speech post 9/11 speech, to which Robertson responded I agree with you. To remind you on what they said, I took this quote from a blog:
“And, I know that I’ll hear from them for this. But, throwing God out successfully with the help of the federal court system, throwing God out of the public square, out of the schools. The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way — all of them who have tried to secularize America — I point the finger in their face and say ‘you helped this happen.’”
Hmmmm.
McCain said during the 2000 campaign:
“Neither party should be defined by pandering to the outer reaches of American politics and the agents of intolerance, whether they be Louis Farrakhan or Al Sharpton on the left, or Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell on the right.”
He then gave the 2006 commencement address at Falwell’s University.
In the run up to that speech, ABC.com carried the following story:
When McCain ran for president the last time, he denounced Falwell as one of America’s “agents of intolerance.” But now that McCain is gearing up to run for president as the GOP’s establishment candidate, he has told Falwell that he spoke “in haste” in 2000. (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=1779141)
Here is a YouTube video that summarizes this argument
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mrD7msvhUw
So why is it that Barack Obama has to “disavow” Wright, when no one is up in arms that McCain made nice with (deleted) people like Robertson and Fallwell, who have attacked virtually everyone who is different, and are far more divisive than some damn comments from Wright!
Is there a double standard? A black man makes… what I think aren’t entirely… unjustified remarks about race in this country (I agree its divisive, but as Obama said, its real).. and Falwell blames the 9/11 attacks on gays and the ACLU?????
What?
So if you’re a right wing zealot, its ok for a GOP candidate to pander… obviously…for political gain. But if you’re Barack Obama, you can’t disagree with your minister because he is saying divisive things. The black community can’t express years of anger, but the religious right can spew hate garbage all day long.
Next time a conservative critic calls for Obama to disavow Wright, ask them to have McCain give the same speech Obama gave about disavowing the religious right.
Maybe you don’t agree, but it’s something to think about.
By the way, McCain can’t even say.. that’s my minister, it is PURE pandering.
Fallwell, McCain quotes from (http://www.laist.com/2007/05/15/jerry_falwell_7.php)