Quote:
Originally Posted by RFK1968
Why do people act as though this was a common part Reverend Wright's sermons week-in-and-week-out. These were random occurrences that have destroyed this man's legacy, all with the purpose of bringing down a presidential candidate. I can't believe we're reaching a point where the sins of everyone that surrounds the political figure are cast upon that political figure. It was pathetic when it was done to Mitt Romney. It's pathetic when it's being done to Barack Obama.
But this idea that someone should leave their church because they disagree with some of the things the preacher says is absolutely ludicrous. Would you abandon members of your family that made racist or sexist or homophobic statements just becuase you agreed with them? What if your church was as big a part of your life as your family? Obama said Wright was like an uncle. That doesn't surprise me one bit. I've got a racist uncle. I still hang out with him sometimes. Does that make me a racist? This whole "agreement by association" principle falls flat on its face.
And these same people find it acceptable for a candidate to be endorsed by someone who has made homophobic, anti-Semetic or anti-Catholic remarks because, to them, it's the degree of association that matters, and they are the deciders regarding what degree is acceptable.
If anyone could find me a single piece of evidence that Barack Obama shares any kind of this sentiment, I'd really love to see it. Otherwise, if we're going to continue this "agreement by association" mentality, I'd be worried about the tremendous can of worms that will be opened regarding associations on the other side.
|
Well the degree matters.....5 days after 911, he preaches a sermon that is vindictive, inflammatory and basically places the blame on our heads. Now, do you really believe something like that was unknown to obama? And let’s say it is, does that mean he agrees? That’s was 7 years ago. And hey, some here even agree with that assessment, but that’s not quite the issue, the public has a right to now what this man, our possible future leader sees as viable regards continued affiliation etc. I think this is important. What we are not entitled to know what a man believes or provides by his attendance and assoc. tacit agreement too? Since when?
So, affiliations, associations are now off limits? I’ll ask again, since when?
And
“I'd be worried about the tremendous can of worms that will be opened regarding associations on the other side”
RFK, that horse has been out of the barn for decades...Bush spoke at Bob Jones univ...remember that? And for 2 weeks there after he was taken to task for speaking at a “racist” univ. Once, as he wasn’t a member of that church and did not attend its services.
Every candidate since JFK has had to speak to at some length, to his religion. Bush has been excoriated for making faith to big a part of his life etc. as it may spill over into decision making processes that he has to employ while in office. Faith in Obamas life, by his own admission, plays a big part too. I say good for him. I think spirituality is very important. If faith pays a part in ones life I think asking what that faith espouses and what its tenets are is very important.
If he had given a few sermons or made a few appearances to garner votes or shore up sppt. we would not be having this conversation. This is not the case.
I thought the hoopla regards swaggart, roberst, et al regards assoc. evidencing some deeper held conviction regards endorsements based on a couple of appearances was foolish. That’s an indication of a politician doing what they do, and is not a 20 year commitment.
The results of delving into pastor wrights proselytizing on some levels resulted in some troubling disclosures, it appears that those who surfaced this and thinks its important will now be taken to task for doing so. That’s dishonest. If the news were cheery and all bright lights we’d be cheering.
I won’t even get into the complete lapse of the MSM. Anyone, who expects to get balance from them, is dreaming.