Obama Still Loyal To His Church

While Senator Obama has markedly removed himself from the Rev. Wright, he still claims association with the church.

Looking at some of the church bulletins, written by members other than the Rev., one must ask if he supports the views expressed in the bulletins.

Obama stressed his loyalty to the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, where he has been a member for many years.

Those comments included the claim that Israel worked with South Africa to build an "ethnic bomb" that would kill blacks and Arabs, that the Pentagon was training Latin Americans to be terrorists, and that the TV networks are run by right-wing racists.

Sen. Obama's presidential campaign declined to comment for this article, despite numerous requests from CNSNews.com.

CNS News

My only question here is this:
If Senator Obama is intending on running this country, do we need a leader that supports, actively or not, such divisive rhetoric?

I would think not.

Semper

I'm surprised you're not getting heaps of responses yet.

After all, we all know a man's church is the most important thing going in this election.

reply to post by bigbert81


If the thread was about his church, I would agree, however it is about his support of racially charged innuendo, published by AN ORGANIZATION he supports...

If you can't see the difference, I understand. Perhaps there are those that can.

Semper

reply to post by semperfortis


Oh, forgive me, the whole 'Obama Still Loyal to His Church' threw me off.

Weird, because I could've sworn you were making the correlation between his church and this rhetoric...


[edit on 5/11/2008 by bigbert81]

The title of your thread is slightly misleading.

To answer your question, no we do not need a leader that supports, actively or not, such divisive rhetoric. But I don't think Senator Obama does support anything like that.
Obama is multi-racial, so it just doesn't make sense to me.

sigh.....

Yes, the Church was mentioned in the title, big bert... And your liberal attempts at diversion are all to transparent.. The way you jump on to protect Obama, one would think you are related. You are not are you?

The church was mentioned in reference to an ORGANIZATION... any ORGANIZATION that espouses and upholds racist and divisive view points. The fact that Obama seems to endorse this, goes directly to his character and in essence, his possible actions as POTUS...

This should be of great concern to every American casting a vote, and the lib attempts to "foo foo" it away, is only more evidence that we should all pay even more attention to it...

Semper

reply to post by semperfortis


sigh...

And let me ask you Semper, is this what you look for in preparing to vote for a president?

What do you think Obama will be able to do above everyone's head (including Congress) that will back this whole 'racism' thing?

And I defend him because I'm sick of seeing all this irrelevant propaganda being spread about him, while people are ignoring the real issues about the candidates.

reply to post by bigbert81


First you will find with me, my friend, is that I am not the usual people you argue with on here.

I do not completely support any one given candidate and I am a proud card carrying member of the Republican Party.

The simple fact is this:

If you, or anyone, do not take into consideration every single piece of information about a presidential candidate when casting a vote, you should not be voting.

That includes, his church, his youth, his college days, finances, drug use, associations etc...

This is not a job in a garage or fast food restaurant, it is the single most important job currently in the world.

A person that submits their name for this position, and then cries fowl, or others cry fowl for them, when any area of their lives is looked into, is either a fool, or hoping to hide something.

I will assume Obama is not a fool.

The giving up of private information when entering the public arena is not some secret that has been shoved on him at the last second. Every single politician understands this, and accepts it when entering PUBLIC office. Heck, even in my position in Public Service, I have to accept some of my private life will never be private.

All of the lib attempts at diversion from this subject, only causes more and more people to look at it and wonder exactly to what extent it will effect a potential president.

Semper

reply to post by semper fortis

If you, or anyone, do not take into consideration every single piece of information about a presidential candidate when casting a vote, you should not be voting.

I think that is a very valid statement. The question though, is what hierarchy do you put those values? Some people clearly want to put his affiliation with his church above all else. Some people don't. Personally, I don't think it is all that important when compared to issues like the economy, the war, corruption, voting records... etc.

It isn't like Obama is running against Mother Teresa and Ghandi. He is running against McCain and Clinton. To me there are issues at hand that are far more important than what the bulletin board at Obama's church is reading.

I wish people would tell me why we SHOULD vote for their preferred candidate rather than why we SHOULDN'T vote for Obama. (I give a nod to RabbitChaser here and his unwavering support for W.A.R)

reply to post by Karlhungis


See that's a real problem...

All three of their voting records are either all over the place, or Socialist Left Wing....

Of course, "THEY" can "SAY" anything, and they will to get elected, the problem is they really are not saying anything of substance.

All that is left for the population to concentrate on, is the "Brittney Spears" like investigations into their personal lives...

Maybe if they would say something more than, "change" or "new", you know, like what are they going to change, or what is going to be new...

Listening to them most of the time, it is almost like they are campaigning against Bush.. Funny thing is, he isn't running..

Semper

No but Bush Junior IS running, and plans to have a smooth transition to pick up exactly where his hero Bush left off. Since McCain is basically running on Bush ideals, I can see how easy it would be to confuse this issue. The dems are not debating Bush, they are debating Bush Jr.

I will vote democrat as much as a vote AGAINST republicans as it will be to support my candidate herself.

I think its funny how they talk about the claims the Reveren made but they dont talk about the origins of his beliefs towards the fact that AIDS was created in a laboratory.

In my opinion, just mentioning what hes saying and not getting into the basis of why he says it is disinfo. Gotta love our brainwashing media!

reply to post by semperfortis


Fair enough, I can accept that you should look at everything a candidate brings to the table, however...

...this church and affiliation stuff is getting extremely old as being some of the only anti-Obama talk going on around here, yet I don't see any talk about things such as candidates lying, or supporting 300,000 job losses, or torture.

For some reason, the people here on ATS, including yourself, seem to focus your concerns and energies based on Obama's church affiliation and his associates.

Just as another one of my threads had asked, why is this more of a concern to you than the other stuff I've just listed, or the other stuff I know you know about which I haven't listed?

reply to post by bigbert81


Like many other people interested in politics and the shenanigans of Obama, Clinton and McCain, you can find tons of material I have posted in reference to the other candidates...

You can find several instances where I posted video of Obama flat out lying...

Hillary lying

And even some comedy about McCain... (Being a Republican, don't expect to much negative from me in reference to him)((I am sure you can find plenty))

Perhaps all you are seeing is Obama's Church affiliation because that is all you are looking for..

Here are sever threads of mine that address other issues for you to look over..

Clinton
Conservative Comedy
Libs in General
Hillary oops

As you can see, I am a fair game Liberal attacker...

Semper

reply to post by semperfortis


Perhaps I do see it more than others.

And perhaps you are more fair and balanced than I originally thought.

But yet you still make threads like this to point out Obama's affiliations, all the while McCain supports torture, he flip-flops on several issues, he supports a perpetual war, etc. Here is a candidate who votes AGAINST supplying aide to Katrina victims, yet has the audacity to say he would've turned Air Force One around to help them, all the while celebrating his birthday during the horrific effect, and you are posting more propaganda about Obama's affiliations.

It's not right that there is so much already about this, yet barely anything about things I've mentioned.

So why again, is this more important to you than what I've just brought up?

reply to post by bigbert81


Your post is singularly confusing...

You say all is this is so important, and yet have you authored threads about these issues? Instead you would expect me too? This is confusing...

I support many of McCain's political contentions, including some of what you are calling torture and the ridiculous abuse and fraud complacent in the Katrina fiasco..

If I thought they were important issue to me, I would author a thread on them, perhaps you should..

I am sure I would contribute to such threads...

This is a great forum for that and well authored threads of any ideology are subject to great applauds with substantial points..

Semper

reply to post by semperfortis


Honest question Semper:

What are you honestly concerned about with this? That black America will enslave you?

reply to post by semperfortis


Because, brother, I do not agree with what you are doing here with this thread. That is why I am relaying this to you instead of myself, even though I have started threads about things which I do believe matter more.

I do not mean to take this all out on you, but I do see several, several posts in this same subject area attacking Obama's church affiliations, and it just amazes me that this seems to be one of the, if not the biggest political issue here.

reply to post by semperfortis


please, he jioned that church to get into the game. nobody in chi-town knows who he was or is. he's not lying now, the big lie was way back then.

reply to post by semperfortis

Is that like Bush's lies about his associations with Protestantism (he throws around the F word in the White House) or his documented drug and alcohol abuse? Should we have taken that into account in 2000, or was it irrelevant because he claimed to be what Americans wanted him to be (i.e., someone you might like to have a beer with)?


I'm no Obama fan, but the logic in this particular post just escapes me.