NPR: "Chicagoans: Reports Misrepresent Obama's Church"

[Skidmore]

Please educate yourselves a little bit on this church and its congregation and the teaching of black liberation theology. You may become less fearful of what you don't know.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88552254

"Morning Edition, March 19, 2008 · The Rev. Jeremiah Wright's comments from the pulpit at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago have put the spotlight on his church and his relationship with Sen. Barack Obama. The church being portrayed in the media, however, is unrecognizable to many who are familiar with the congregation...."(read on and listen)

[CatsDogsBabies]

1. Obama was

elected to office in Illinois. Wouldn't this issue of his church have come up earlier in his political career (in the state and community where the church is) if the church really had the reputation people are propogating here?

[Smelting Pot]

5. Exactly!

There is absolutely no way this would only be coming up now if there was any "there" there.

[ellacott]

2. This has been the saddest part

They have unfairly condemned this church and it's members. Black Liberation Theology is scary when people are uninformed. It's not a separtist church and they don't hate white people.

[MethuenProgressive]

3. You'll agree, won't you, that this is not representative of black liberation theology?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremiah_Wright
In other sermons, he said "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color"
-------------------------------
Skidmore, when Shaheen, Cuomo, Ferraro all said objectionable things people rightly objected.
But now, because the objectionable things were said in a church - they're off limits?
I respectfully reject the Obama Camp's attempt to frame PastorGate in that manner.

[RaleighNCDUer]

13. Can you prove the US government or CIA did NOT invent HIV?

It came out of nowhere in the late 70s in Africa, where the CIA was working at putting down a liberation movement in Angola which was supported by 'volunteer' Cuban soldiers - a cold war conflict. While it first hit the gay community in the US, in Africa it has never been a gay disease. This was a very common theory in the late 80s, when people were first coming to understand the spread of HIV, and trace it origins. And it has never been disproved.

We know the government deliberately gave fake syphilus treatments to blacks for 30 years, to study the progression of the disease. We know the government - CIA, specifically - created the cocaine smuggling cartels as part of their gun-running to central america, which had the added (intentional?) effect of undrmining the civil rights movement as cocaine and crack flooded the inner cities, replacing it with drug gangs and the 'war on drugs'.

Our government has done many unequivocably evil things. Why should we not believe Wright?

[MethuenProgressive]

16. You'll agree, won't you, that this is not representative of black liberation theology?

?

[RaleighNCDUer]

20. As an atheist, I don't give a crap about any kind of theology.

What interests me is the truth, and the pursuit of it.

I didn't find anything Wright said particularly objectionable.

[KittyWampus]

15. Question, did the US Govt under Reagan ignore AIDS and help doom many gay people to death?

[MethuenProgressive]

19. "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color"

?

[Critters2]

4. It's still true that Wright advocated a specific candidate in one of his sermons.

That is not allowed under IRS guidelines, and it seems pretty likely that Trinity will lose its tax exemption because of this. That just seems careless to me.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

6. Is that the new RW talking point? IIRC, only TWO churches have lost their tax

exemptions in all of US history over political advocacy. Fat chance.

[LSparkle]

7. They'll lose their tax-exempt status as soon as all the fundie churches

who advocated for W in 2000 and 2004 lose theirs ... which will be never.

There may be investigations (e.g., All Saints Church in Pasadena, CA) but
no action will be taken (I predict).

[Critters2]

23. All Saints in Pasadena was found to not have advocated for a candidate.

They spoke against the war, which is allowed under IRs guidelines. One cannot, however, advocate for a candidate or party during an election. This is what Wright did. He told his congregation to vote for Obama. That is not legal.

[olkaz]

8. You realize that this is difficult to make stick legally, right?

You have to essentially be handing out loyalty pledges, yard signs, and other stuff to get pinned down for this.

So yeah, not going to happen.

[Critters2]

24. He told his congregation to vote for Obama. It was very clear. nt

[Skidmore]

32. How do you think Huckabee got all that support in Iowa?

Do you think he really campaigned for it? No, fundamentalist ministers pushed a vote for him from the pulpit in little churches all over the place.

[Critters2]

33. If this is so, those churches need to lose their exemptions, too.

I'm not arguing for a double standard. Just the opposite. I'm saying that if they can't do it, neither should we.

[olkaz]

48. Did you even read what I said?

Telling the congregation to vote for somebody won't make the church lose its status. It just won't. 3/4 of the churches in America would be paying taxes if that was the case.

You really might want to research some cases on this issue, because you're just getting it.

[EFerrari]

10. Why don't you wait until you've had a pulpit for 33 years

then come back and tell us you never had "careless" moment.

[Critters2]

25. I've had a pulpit for 21 years. But it has to be 33, huh?

Good to know.

[EFerrari]

28. Well, you might reflect on your own every word. Two decades

is a decent sample.

Rev. Wright was clearly a community builder. The diversity of his congregation and the way he built it shows that.

[Critters2]

30. I've never endorsed a candidate nor a party from the pulpit.

My congregation knows where I am politically, from private conversations and my community activism. I preach a progressive theology. But I never endorse from the pulpit. To do so would put my church's tax exempt status at risk and I have no authority to do so. My own congregation is also diverse, but will never be huge because we are the only progressive congregation in a small, conservative town.

The fact is that we can say whatever we want from the pulpit (my denomination, which is also Wright's, recognizes freedom of the pulpit as a basic principle). But we must also take responsibility for what we say. Wright endorsed a candidate in his role as a pastor. I'm disappointed that he is not publicly taking responsibility for this. I fear his church will have to.

[EFerrari]

34. The fact is, he didn't. His statement was that Clinton,

as well as a list of others, had never been black in America.

But, people sure have been quick on the draw to condemn him for what they believe he said.

[Critters2]

35. We're not allowed to name candidates as part of a comparison

that is clearly endorsing one candidate over another. Again, if he and his congregation (who are the ones who'll pay the price) believe this was appropriate and are willing to risk their exemption for it, God bless 'em. But anyone with an MDiv knows he violated the guidelines. The responsible thing to do is admit it and take the consequences (which will be less if he does admit it. Denying a clear violation only pisses the IRS off more).

[EFerrari]

36. At this point, it's TCC who is owed a confession and an apology.

That you are even flogging this is, frankly, disgusting.

[Critters2]

37. I'm not floggin anything. I'm asking a colleague to play by the rules

as I'm expected to do.

[EFerrari]

38. No. You're bending over backwards to find fault.

That's hardly a Christian position, is it, no matter how limber you might be.

[Critters2]

42. Not bending at all. I live by these rules. I expect others to do the same.

The rules are the same for big churches as for small. For famous clergy as for the rest of us. It's a matter of justice.

[EFerrari]

43. Justice? Do you really want to go there?

What kind of church do you run?

Wright fought for his congregation for more than thirty years. And he grew it 60 times over. He used Hillary in a comparison and you want the church's tax exemption pulled?

Good God. You should be ashamed of yourself.

[Critters2]

44. I serve the same kind of church as Wright--one that preaches

justice and peace. One that believes God loves all people equally and expects us to do the same. In a denomination that recognizes as equally called by God pastors of large, famous churches and small, faithful churches. A denomination that tells us to be faithful to the Gospel, not worrying about whether a church grows 60 times over--the Gospel is not likely to be popular (Jesus got himself crucified, maybe you didn't hear).

Rev. Wright is in covenant with me as a colleague, an equal. We're members of the same judicatory and have served on committees together (and he has never tried to lord the size of his church over me, as you've done. He's much more gracious than that.)

He is also bound by the same legal guidelines and limitations. He knows the consequences of breaking these rules. He should be willing to accept the consequences. Perhaps he will.

This is all I'm saying.

[EFerrari]

45. That you could wish something so disproportionate on a colleague is telling.

Christianity has never been about the letter but about the spirit, and it has yet to be demonstrated that Rev. Wright violated the letter of the law.

I'll leave you to the narrowness of your vision and wish your congregation the best.

[Critters2]

46. He knows the rules. This is not about theology.

It's about the IRS guidelines which govern all non-profits, religious and secular. It's about accepting that one is no better than anyone else. Or accepting responsibility when you do break the rules. That's what adults do.

[woolldog]

12. actually, you're incorrect

he wasn't advocating for a particular candidate.

Listen to a longer excerpt of that sermon: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4805737136221962023

He isn't anti-white. His point was that Jesus can relate to what it's like to be a poor black man, that he (Jesus) can relate to many of the parishioners who are present. Wright is, in essence, telling them that Jesus understands their pain. It is NOT a commentary on whites! He is NOT saying that whites are bad people! It is not a knock on Hillary Clinton either!

His point about Hillary fitting the mold and Obama not fitting the mold is that Hillary is an extension of the dominant power structure. Obama comes from outside that structure. Jesus was outside that power structure (as a "black man" living under the white Romans). He is making an analogy between Jesus and Obama. Controversial analogy? Yes. But I think his point is not political so much as it is an attempt to draw a parallel between something modern and something ancient, to make the latter more relevant.

[EFerrari]

18. Good catch. n/t

[Critters2]

27. Actually, you're incorrect. Clergy are not allowed to compare and contrast

candidates during an election cycle, in a way which makes it clear who they think their congregation should vote for. This is the behavior which cost the Christian Coalition its tax exempt status, and which caused fundies to stop handing out "Voter's Guides" which looked innocently objective, but were clearly advocating one candidate over another. We're not allowed to do this. Not even for a Democrat.

[jbnow]

40. Essentially the comparison was that Hillary was never black

and never called nigger. Is that what you're talking about in this case? Is that a violation?

[Critters2]

41. Yes, if it can be implied that that comparison is an endorsement of Obama over Hillary,

which it clearly was.

[jbnow]

39. Thank you so much

It pains me the way they demonized this preacher and a whole church. If they felt the need to show the "scary" clips to confront Obama, OK. Good TV for them.

But to not have anyone to represent the rest of the story, the good of the church, to show that most of Wright's sermons have no connection to what they showed...really how dare they bash a whole congregation to do a gotcha on Obama. All the good that church does, the good people who go there...no matter.

I had not seen this sermon and you're right that it is very different in context. If I went to church I would like hearing things like words that change in different versions of the bible.

Anyways, thanks.

[KittyWampus]

17. yeah, that's not cricket. But the overwhelming numbers of rightwing Fundies doing same & WORSE

makes this argument seem disingenuous.

[Critters2]

26. "EVeryone does it" is a great argument. If you're a five year old. nt

[EFerrari]

9. The hatred, real or faked, directed at that congregation

on the basis of Faux "News" talking points has been horrible.

If you go to their website, you can tell right away what a gift they are in their community.

[uponit7771]

11. I've said this earlier today, there will be a nice little backlash & a call of bias if the MSM keeps

...it up against TCC

[tishaLA]

14. There are two really excellent reports on that page

the one about Black Liberation Theology, which most Americans know woefully little about, should be required listening for those who want to speak about this issue. It is perfectly clear, and has been from the beginning for those of us who know that tradition, that some people just don't get it and don't want to.

[flpoljunkie]

22. Intriguing--"damn" is a sacred condemnation by God to a wayward nation-straight from the Bible!

Hopkins attends Trinity United Church of Christ, where Rev. Wright just retired as pastor. In the now-famous sermon from 2003, Wright said black people's troubles are a result of racism that still exists in America, crying out, "No, no, no, not God bless America! God damn America — that's in the Bible — for killing innocent people."

According to Hopkins, that was theological wordplay — because the word "damn" is straight out of the Bible and has a specific meaning in the original Hebrew.

"It means a sacred condemnation by God to a wayward nation who has strayed from issues of justice, strayed from issues of peace, strayed from issues of reconciliation," Hopkins says.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88552254

[Skidmore]

29. Unfortunately the RW will push the profane and chock up

the historical meaning to a liberal elitist interpretation of the Bible.

[flpoljunkie]

21. Very interesting parallel with his Biblical namesake, Jeremiah (end of tape).

[4_Legs_Good]

31. TIME OUT! You're saying (well NPR) that an established parish/church isn't fully represented in

3 30 second video clips?

Unbelieveable!

No no. Everything you need to know about Trinity is in those 2 minutes of clips. I'd be very surprised to learn that they do anything but play those video clips over and over and over at their worship every week.

David

[Texas Hill Country]

47. great... but unfortuantely, for swift boat purposes it doesnt matter.

do i think that is wrong? yes.

do i think the public has an unfair picture? yes.

do i think that there should be more of a grey area for his comments? yes.

do i think that it should effect how people vote for obama? no.

do i think obama sees the world thru race colored glasses? no.


do i think any of those intellectual sympathies are gonna matter one bit when the RW attack machine activates? no.