What the television folks forget to mention is that Pfleger has long been a joke in Chicago and no one takes him seriously but himself.

When I saw this story on Yahoo news this morning I knew you’d have a word about it. Thanks for not disappointing me.
By the way, has McCain denounced the KKK for supporting him?
http://www.236.com/feed/2008/05/22/kkk_supports_john_mccainsort_o_6707.php

What are your thoughts on Bush’s “Faith Based Initiative” Michele?

Michele,
Father Pfleger does sound like he drank the black liberation kool-aid. I’m glad the white preachers are finally getting scrutinized.
That was my complaint with Rev Wright.
But the Hillary bit made me rofl.

“What are your thoughts on Bush’s “Faith Based Initiative” Michele?”
OK…let me see if I can answer my own question here, and save you the trouble of trotting out a canned answer. If I read Kuyper’s Lectures correctly, this would probably be seen as an area where the state is infringing on the sovereignty of the church. The strings attached to the money would be seen as putting inappropriate controls on the church within its sphere of influence. Therefore, from a Reformed perspective, I’m guessing that the faith based initiative as put forward by Bush would be viewed as a bad thing.
Close?

“When I saw this story on Yahoo news this morning I knew you’d have a word about it. Thanks for not disappointing me.”
You’re welcome! Glad to oblige. You realize of course that the combination of politics and religion is a natural for this blog, right?
“By the way, has McCain denounced the KKK for supporting him?”
Has McCain had a decades old relationship with them the way that Obama has had with this guy? Has he gotten them pork the way that Obama has done with this guy? Hmmmmmm?

“What are your thoughts on Bush’s “Faith Based Initiative” Michele?”
I’m against it because I believe that the church should support it’s own missions. I think that it’s corrupting for a church to take money from the government because they have to dance to the tune of the one giving them money, plus it absolves the congregants of their responsibility to support the missions of the church.
BTW, I knew that someone would bring this up that’s why I said this:
“Is it because they only care when Republicans do it?”
If the church and state people have a problem with Bush, they should have a problem with Obama. Have they raised this issue?

“OK…let me see if I can answer my own question here, and save you the trouble of trotting out a canned answer. If I read Kuyper’s Lectures correctly, this would probably be seen as an area where the state is infringing on the sovereignty of the church. The strings attached to the money would be seen as putting inappropriate controls on the church within its sphere of influence. Therefore, from a Reformed perspective, I’m guessing that the faith based initiative as put forward by Bush would be viewed as a bad thing.”
Close?”
Not just close but you got it as you can see from my response. Not a canned response though because I don’t get asked it a lot so I don’t mind answering it. I think it surprises people that I don’t support it but as you can see Reformed theology doesn’t look like American Christianity.
You’re getting me more now aren’t you? There’s a method to my madness, right?

“Has McCain had a decades old relationship with them the way that Obama has had with this guy? Has he gotten them pork the way that Obama has done with this guy? Hmmmmmm?”
Funny you should ask that, Michele.
Does the name Richard Quinn mean anything to you? If not, you might want to read up on him. I would bet that you will be hearing his name a lot in the coming months.
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/14301
“It’s good to know where the Senator stands on this issue (at least today). In my book, The Real McCain: Why Conservatives Don’t Trust Him And Why Independents Shouldn’t, I recount McCain’ questionable past on issues of race his entire career. From the many years he rejected a Martin Luther King Jr. holiday (pretty much the entire 70s and 80s) to his serial flip-flops on the Confederate Flag in 2000 (which he admits he did for political reasons–no way, not you Johnny!) to his close association with a white supremacist named Richard Quinn, who found himself hired as a political advisor by McCain in 2000 (and still is from what I can tell) after openly praising David Duke (he called him a “maverick”) selling t-shirts praising the assassination of Abraham Lincoln and writing/editing for a magazine (Southern Partisan) that reminded us that slave masters just really weren’t all that bad.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7604.html
“Adam Fogle, who is also editor of the blog The Palmetto Scoop, is described in his Newsweek bio as an “account representative for Mail Marketing Strategies in Columbia, S.C., … owned by former House Majority Leader Rick Quinn, whose father Richard Quinn serves as an unpaid adviser to Sen. John McCain in South Carolina.”
But that disclosure from Newsweek’s blog, which was launched in conjuction with the Media Bloggers Association, fails to mention thousands of dollars in printing and postage fees paid by McCain to Mail Marketing Strategies as late as September 2007.
In addition, the McCain campaign has paid $184,000 this year to two companies registered to the elder Quinn: Richard Quinn and Associates (for survey research and GoTV consulting) and Capitol Investments (for rent).”
This Richard Quinn, in 1990, endorsed one of David Duke’s runs for office.
Why would a GOP candidate have on his staff someone with the connections of Richard Quinn? Why would he have paid Quinn’s companies over $184,000 for “survey research, GoTV consulting and rent”? And why would McCain call such a person “a respected and fine man?”
Indeed, Michele…why would a person of good judgment continue an association with such a man…an association that goes back at least 10 years?

“You’re getting me more now aren’t you? There’s a method to my madness, right? ”
Yes, there is, both a method and a madness.

“Yes, there is, both a method and a madness.”
Cheap shot! I somehow expected more from you, I guess I won’t make that mistake twice

“But the Hillary bit made me rofl. ”
If he hadn’t thrown in race, I might have agree

Was this:
“By the way, has McCain denounced the KKK for supporting him?
http://www.236.com/feed/2008/05/22/kkk_supports_john_mccainsort_o_6707.php”
You’re attempt to set me up for this:
“Funny you should ask that, Michele.
Does the name Richard Quinn mean anything to you? If not, you might want to read up on him. I would bet that you will be hearing his name a lot in the coming months.
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/14301”
Nice but no cigar. Let me ask you this, are you accusing McCain of being a racist? Or are you using this as a tit for tat argument (McCain is no different from Obama — they both support racists)? If that’s the case, then you really can’t have much of an argument against my post, huh? Obama supports racists with his and our money and there must be a reason for it. Maybe he agrees with them?

RJohnson: “Yes, there is, both a method and a madness.”
Michele: “Cheap shot! I somehow expected more from you, I guess I won’t make that mistake twice ”
Touchy today, Michele? A little good natured humor tossed back at you and you call it a cheap shot?
I guess I’ll go back on my parrot stand then.

Michele: “Was this:
“By the way, has McCain denounced the KKK for supporting him?
http://www.236.com/feed/2008/05/22/kkk_supports_john_mccainsort_o_6707.php”
You’re attempt to set me up for this:
“Funny you should ask that, Michele.”
Actually no, in spite of all appearances to the contrary. When you came back at me with:
“Has McCain had a decades old relationship with them the way that Obama has had with this guy? Has he gotten them pork the way that Obama has done with this guy? Hmmmmmm?”
I simply Googled “McCain racist” and came up with a number of hits regarding this person. Purely coincidental, and yet not. I remember when McCain voted against the MLK holiday, and suspected that there would be someone like this in his circle of people. But I honestly did not know about this before you made your taunting response. Believe that or not, the choice is yours.
HOWEVER, given the nature of your response, I took great pain in making sure mine was framed to get maximum bang for the buck. And it is in true Reformed tradition since, as you pointed out the other day, Calvin and other writers of the Reformed tradition took pleasure in occasionally sticking it to their opponents.
You called my response to “method and madness” a cheap shot. I did not include the obligatory in that, and that is my mistake, for I intended it as a good natured poke, not a cheap insult. But you need to remember something, Michele. Implied in the Golden Rule is an inverse corollary.
Do unto others as you would have them to unto you.
Can also be read as…
How you do unto others indicates how you would have them do unto you.
You have set the tone of this blog Michele. That tone is pretty rough and tumble, and you do not pull a lot of punches when you go after the more liberal people and policies that are so frequently your targets here. That’s fine…it’s your blog, your rules. But please, do not complain when someone gets one over on you with a similar tone playing by your rules. It makes you sound so…Clintonian.

Michele: “Nice but no cigar. Let me ask you this, are you accusing McCain of being a racist? Or are you using this as a tit for tat argument (McCain is no different from Obama — they both support racists)? If that’s the case, then you really can’t have much of an argument against my post, huh? Obama supports racists with his and our money and there must be a reason for it. Maybe he agrees with them?”
Hey, McCain voted against declaring MLK’s birthday a holiday, and used some of Quinn’s rationale in defending that vote. Here’s what Quinn said regarding it:
“King Day should have been rejected because its purpose is vitriolic and profane. By celebrating King as the incarnation of all they admire, they [black leaders] have chosen to glorify the histrionic rather than the heroic and by inference they spurned the brightest and the best among their own race. Ignoring the real heroes in our nation’s life, the blacks have chosen a man who represents not their emancipation, not their sacrifices and bravery in service to their country; rather, they have chosen a man whose role in history was to lead his people into a perpetual dependence on the welfare state, a terrible bondage of body and soul.” (“Partisan View”, from “Southern Partisan”, Fall, 1983) McCain voted against the bill when it came up in the Arizona legislature that year.
McCain supported Governor Evan Mecham’s repeal of Arizona’s MLK holiday, a holiday that Mecham determined was merely for “pickaninnies.” McCain supported Quinn a number of times after being shown Quinn’s writings for the “Southern Partisan,” a pro-confederacy publication.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Partisan
http://www.southernpartisan.net/
Now…if a candidate supports someone who expresses racist opinions, would it be fair to call those racist positions to his/her attention? If that candidate continues to support that person in spite of the racist positions, is it fair to say that the candidate agrees with them?
Or does that door only open to the left?

“Why in the world don’t the separation of church and state people have a cow when a lefty uses federal money to fund a youth center at a church? Is it because they only care when Republicans do it? And why in the world would the Catholic church need money? They have billions, let them pay for their own youth center.”
Isn’t that a tad anti-Catholic? Don’t other religions have a lot of money too?
And, why are you complaining that Obama is doing it? You support faith-based initiatives, no? So, you are only against them if a Democrat does it? Or is it that they didn’t choose someone you like?
And why, while we’re at it, are you complaining about Fr. Pfleger? I will apologize in advance if you have railed against Hagee for saying that God wants to kill gays because they wanted to have a parade, or that he said the Catholic church was a great whore, or that women with PMS are worse than terrorists. Did you?
Now, I don’t think that Obama or McCain are racists. Nor, do I think that Obama and McCain agree with everything that every nutball on either side says. Maybe they’re both more open to people with different points of view than you are.

“And, why are you complaining that Obama is doing it? You support faith-based initiatives, no? So, you are only against them if a Democrat does it? Or is it that they didn’t choose someone you like?”
Actually I think Michele said she doesn’t like them at all, no matter who proposes them. And given what I have read regarding Reformed Theology, I don’t think an honest investigation of it would find support for any kind of government handout to churches.
As for her remarks about the Catholic church not needing money, I would agree, and expand it to include most (but not all) Christian denominations not needing government money to do this kind of work. It’s the work that they have been called to do as part of spreading the Gospel, and therefore they should be looking to the One who called them for their support, not government.

As for her remarks about the Catholic church not needing money
I’m trying to find a way to contribute here … it could be that Father Pfleger can’t get church money because his boss doesn’t like/agree with him.
I have to admit that I was pretty scandalized to find out how much money American churches accept from the government because one naturally assumes that strings are attached. Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
But I don’t think it’s prudent to refuse public money on principle without considering it carefully. And American churches have done quite well in considering it. If weekly attendance is down, the social concerns wing of the church is rarely to blame.
$100,000 is a pittance towards a youth center on the South Side of Chicago.
(and yes, I enjoyed that snippet of Fr. Pfleger’s “address” – it wasn’t preaching, in a strict sense)

If the church and state people have a problem with Bush
Early on, it seemed as if Bush intended to change the qualifications, i.e., add strings. So, obviously, I would be critical of that specific intention … and not of the long-standing arrangement as a whole.

My question is, how could Obama belong to this church for 20 years. The congregation, in their response to Father Phleger as well as to Jeremiah Wright, remind me of the audience for the Jerry Springer show. Is it something in the Chicago water?
I’m almost ready to wash my hands of both Obama and McCain, because I don’t believe either candidate is qualified to be President.

remind me of the audience for the Jerry Springer show.
Ironically, according to wiki, Pfleger’s criticism of that very show resulted in some positive program changes. Has Alicia stumbled upon another instance of “the Spitzer syndrome?”
Is it something in the Chicago water?
Would you deny Chicagoans their idiom?

Should Chicagoans be denied their idiom?
I don’t know if the tone of Trinity UCC is meaningfully characteristic of “Chicago speech,” but I believe that any supporter of Barack Obama possessing the political sense God gave gravel should have recognized that was exactly the least effective idiom at exactly the worst time for Barack Obama.
Does Trinity UCC have a right to host and applaud this idiom?
My first inclination is to support freedom of speech, but I think I’ll part company with Dr. Land on separation of church and state on this one. It would be fine with me for my tax dollars to be spent on razing the church for something of greater spiritual value to the community, like a new sewage treatment plant. And I am writing as someone who voted for Barack Obama.

I’m a mixed-race Southern Baptist who has found acceptance in predominantly white, predominantly Black, and mixed-race congregations. Living much of my life in Texas and the South, I’ve found race far less an issue here than in the Midwest. The snippets of Trinity UCC I’ve seen in the media make me wonder if its members are anything other than hate-filled racists driven by resentment and a sense of entitlement at the expense of everyone outside their little community. Perhaps everyone in Chicago is some kind of hate-filled racist driven by greed and a sense of entitlement, so the language of hate is the Chicago idiom, but I am repulsed, repelled, and revolted by what I have seen of Trinity UCC. And, come to think of it, I’m not really a fan of Farrakhan. Maybe for the first time in my life I’ll just have to vote for a Republican for President.

so the language of hate is the Chicago idiom
My comment was limited to Fr. Pfleger and, by implication, Chicago Catholic clergy (think Greeley, think Bernardin, think Loyola) whom I find to be (delightfully) idiomatic, relative to my Northeast Catholic temperament.

I’ve known Father Mike for many years as he adopted a sibling of two children we adopted. He has a good heart but clearly he is an angry man. I cannot understand why is is so angry and calls everybody who does not share his world view a racist including my husband and me. His behavior divides rather than unites people and does not in any way serve Mr Obama. As a Catholic I find Father Mike’s behavior disturbing to say the least. Anger may be justified but there is a huge difference between being right and being effective. If the goal is to get Mr. Obama elected then Rev. Wright and Father Mike need to put a lid on their anger and focus on healing. Their behavior makes a lifelong Democrat look seriously at voting Republican.

“Has McCain had a decades old relationship with them the way that Obama has had with this guy?”
so you’re ok with mccain’s new-found relationship?

Its worse, actually. It is possible that what’s happened with Wright has been progressive slowly over time, or with infrequent rants interspersing other themes. And in the end, it was the relationship that was treasured, more than the theology, or sermon topics.
And in the end, he painfully had to break with the man who started his religious journey and his first religious home.
McCain picked a name out of a hat, clear eyed and with a purpose. There’s dozens without those problems he could’ve chosen, and instead, he picks Hagee and Parsley.
Personally, I find it worse.

“Touchy today, Michele? A little good natured humor tossed back at you and you call it a cheap shot?”
I guess I could say the same about you

“How you do unto others indicates how you would have them do unto you.”
Actually, I don’t think that corollary is biblical. You don’t do unto others as you would have them do unto with an eye to your own treatment, it’s putting your thoughts on how you treat others. It’s not giving your enemy a way to treat you but treating your enemy the way you would want to be treated. The focus is on your behavior not your enemy’s behavior.

“You have set the tone of this blog Michele. That tone is pretty rough and tumble, and you do not pull a lot of punches when you go after the more liberal people and policies that are so frequently your targets here. That’s fine…it’s your blog, your rules. But please, do not complain when someone gets one over on you with a similar tone playing by your rules. It makes you sound so…Clintonian.”
I have no problem with your response, you read more into it than was there. I just thought it was a trap but will take your word for it that it wasn’t.

“Now…if a candidate supports someone who expresses racist opinions, would it be fair to call those racist positions to his/her attention? If that candidate continues to support that person in spite of the racist positions, is it fair to say that the candidate agrees with them?”
Yeah, I wonder if you would be willing to answer that question in regards to Obama?
BTW, I haven’t a clue whether Obama, Clinton or McCain are racists, do you?

“I’m trying to find a way to contribute here … it could be that Father Pfleger can’t get church money because his boss doesn’t like/agree with him.”
You know, I thought about and wondered about how local contributions worked. I remember a friend telling me about it a number of years ago but can’t remember the details. Do they keep it or is part of it given to the Church?

“Perhaps everyone in Chicago is some kind of hate-filled racist driven by greed and a sense of entitlement, so the language of hate is the Chicago idiom, but I am repulsed, repelled, and revolted by what I have seen of Trinity UCC.”
The response of the congregation says a lot about the acceptance of this type of racist hate speech. Obama had an association with this church for 20 years, even giving them money over the years. This was the environment he spent the last 20 years in. I’m not buying that he didn’t agree with the message week after week for 20 years and yet remain at the church.

Do they keep it or is part of it given to the Church?
You know, I can’t remember. I’ve seen a balance sheet on occasion. Special drives go wholly to that cause. Otherwise, it’s likely they turn in a percentage.
In general, I can’t imagine they bring in much above operating expenses.

” cannot understand why is is so angry and calls everybody who does not share his world view a racist including my husband and me. His behavior divides rather than unites people and does not in any way serve Mr Obama.”
Not to mention Christ.

“How you do unto others indicates how you would have them do unto you.”
Actually, I don’t think that corollary is biblical.
Right, however this might fit with the idea that we love … because God loved us. (1 John 4:10-11)
We love others in the same way: not so they’ll love us back … but so they’ll learn how to love at all.
Modeling love, learning love. But not for our own interests (AMDG, if you’d rather).
Theologians call it “disinterested love.” (1 Cor. 13:5).

Yeah, though I don’t mention love, it is the back of my mind but it’s good to state it for clarity’s sake.