They have to keep disavowing the comments that they make. Wright, Hagee, Parsley and now Pfleger’s attack of Clinton:
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Thursday that he was “deeply disappointed” by a supporter’s sermon at his church that mocked Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The Rev. Michael Pfleger, a Chicago activist, also apologized for last Sunday’s sermon at Obama’s church, in which he said Clinton’s eyes welled with tears before the New Hampshire primary because she felt “entitled” to the Democratic nomination and because “there’s a black man stealing my show.”
In video circulating on the Internet, Pfleger said the former first lady expected to win the nomination before Obama’s sudden popularity.
“She just always thought that, ‘This is mine. I’m Bill’s wife. I’m white.’ … And then, out of nowhere, came ‘Hey, I’m Barack Obama.” And she said, ‘Oh damn, where did you come from? I’m white. I’m entitled. There’s a black man stealing my show,’” Pfleger said at Trinity United Church of Christ.
He then went on to parody Clinton, sobbing and wiping his face with a handkerchief.
“She wasn’t the only one crying,” he said. “There was a whole lot of white people crying.”
Who knew pastors would be the source of such controversies this election cycle? Maybe they should just stick to preaching Jesus and him crucified:
ESV 1 Corinthians 2:2 For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.
posted May 30, 2008 at 12:55 am
Well, technically, Wright didn’t ever officially endorse Obama. He was simply the pastor at the church he attended.
Kind of ironic, in this most religious of all election cycle there’s the most problems with religion IN the election cycle.
So, maybe people should just concern themselves more with their candidates policies, than their church attendance, how much ‘God speak’ they can shove into a serm.. I mean speech, and who their clergy is.
posted May 30, 2008 at 6:07 am
At least he didn’t threaten to “snuff [her] out.”
posted May 30, 2008 at 9:04 am
If anything good ultimately comes out of this presidential campaign, it may be that clergy will no longer be permitted within a hundred miles of any candidate.
posted May 30, 2008 at 9:32 am
Amen, Charles! Amen! And Amen to Michele for her closing statement.
posted May 30, 2008 at 10:07 am
“Who knew pastors would be the source of such controversies this election cycle? Maybe they should just stick to preaching Jesus and him crucified:
ESV 1 Corinthians 2:2 For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.”
You hit the nail on the head with this one.
posted May 30, 2008 at 10:34 am
I saw the clips of Phleger on the news this morning. Seriously, I’m writing in Hillary Clinton in November.
posted May 30, 2008 at 11:19 am
Well, gee. If I was going to not vote for candidates based on their proximity to, or knowledge of the content of sermons of, whacked out preachers.. I’d never vote again.
Frankly, seems all of them have at least a few sermons in them that are a little crazy, and most of them want to have themselves taped these days. (Not that, in the day of cellphone cameras, anything is really all that private anymore.)
posted May 30, 2008 at 11:24 am
Wow praise for a post, I’m in shock! I better not let it go to my head
BTW, I second the Amen for Charles’ comment. If that were only true, it would be one of the most positive results of this campaign.
posted May 30, 2008 at 11:50 am
And want a real shock?
I agree with you and Charles both.
Maybe, with this campaign, with the sheer.. religiosity of it, and the consequences, maybe the next campaign.. the voters will have ‘religion fatigue’ and we can leave the pastors where they belong.. with their parishioners, and not in the center of elections.
posted May 30, 2008 at 2:42 pm
This church needs its tax exempt status examined: this is obviously politics rather than preaching.
posted May 30, 2008 at 3:01 pm
I’d have no problem with that. Especially if it happens to ALL pastors who give political endorsements, turn sermons into stump speeches for candidates, and give out voting and position papers, and try to use sacramental ‘blackmail’ for political leverage.
On BOTH sides of the aisle.
posted May 30, 2008 at 4:37 pm
“This church needs its tax exempt status examined: this is obviously politics rather than preaching.”
To be honest, all churches would be better off if they simply renounced the tax exemption and trusted God to provide for their needs. The government has no business controlling what is preached from the pulpits of the churches in our country, and through the tax laws the churches have been muzzled. It is a muzzle that they put on willingly and then complain bitterly about.
It is my belief that if a church is doing what they feel God has called them to do, then God will provide for their needs while doing it. If they do it and find that there is no money to support it, perhaps they need to consider that God is trying to restrain them in some way from doing it.
posted May 31, 2008 at 1:48 am
I don’t know which I find the more appalling, that Father Pfleger would release his venom to congregants jumping up and down with pleasure, or that these nitwits with clerical collars thought perhaps Obama had already won the election and their comments would not hurt their (and, coincidentally, my) candidate. I have to wonder if razing Trinity UCC to make new basketball courts might better serve its community and better proclaim its Lord (whomever That might really be).
posted May 31, 2008 at 12:15 pm
To be honest, all churches would be better off if they simply renounced the tax exemption and trusted God to provide for their needs.
I agree, the system is not healthy for churches or government.