Just watching Obama's speach on religion.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

As Mormons, each of us shares a history with a church that has said racist, vile things: from the pulpit at general conference to the pulpit at our local chapels. I doubt many of us stood up at any point in time and denounced the church. In fact, there tends to be a general sentiment on this board that such a public denouncement should lead to excommunication. So why the double standard? Surely, the statements made by Bruce R. McConkie in his mis-titled "Mormon Doctrine" are as inflammatory as many of the statements made by Reverend Wright. And yet, how many of us own a copy? How many of us would openly criticize the publication, even today?

I don't agree with your assumptions at all. Many Mormons have criticized, publicly, the beliefs and actions of church leaders in the past, and have not been excommunicated, nor should they have been in most cases.

I published a piece in the Student Review about Blacks and the Priesthood directly contradicting the Tex version of events. I'm glad I did. I'm still around.

You are asking for a brand of cravenness that I don't want to be a part of.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

At the end of the day, each of us is likely associated with some organization that supports something we sharply disagree with, or has made a statement we totally reject. It is a fair question to ask a person running for president if they support such statements or positions. Obama has been asked those questions. He has answered categorically that he does not.

I agree with your first statement. I guess you fail to see how this is different, and your McConkie example illustrates that. The suggestion that anything McConkie said rises (or sinks, rather) to the level of Jeremiah Wright is quite hilarious. But that aside, was McConkie my personal hand-selected spiritual mentor for 20 years? Did I sit in a pew and listen to him and nod week after week? Did he baptize my children? Marry my wife and me? Would, as Obama said, cutting him off be like cutting off my grandmother?

No. With respect to the office of apostle, he is just one of fifteen leaders, most of whom I've never met personally nor had any personal relationship with. And to boot, McConkie isn't still alive and still saying (allegedly) incendiary things.

Obama wants to, pardon the phrase, have his cake and eat it too. I've only read about the first half and so far at least, I actually thought it was a decent speech. But I heard Limbaugh say on the radio yesterday that it was a Rohrshach Test ... people see what they want to see in it.

Let me reiterate, by the way, that I don't personally care much about this issue. I find there are much more interesting criticisms of Obama. But I don't blame people for getting upset about it ... Wright's anti-Americanism is extremely stark, and it's surprising someone with (he claims) such different political views doesn't mind sitting in the pew and listening to it.

Parenthetically, we should note politicians have been criticized for much less. Bush got roundly criticized for merely speaking at Bob Jones University. Some public figures were grilled over having memberships at Augusta Golf Club. Why should Obama get a pass?

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

As for Juan Williams, of course he is entitled to his opinion. Again, show me where I said he wasn't. This isn't an issue of whether he has a right to hold an opinion. It is an issue of giving his opinion more weight than the opinion of Obama on the issue of Obama's motives. Perhaps there is a reason to do just that; if so, please identify it. Don't just tell me he is entitled to his opinion. The best answer I have heard so far is that "he sounded like what he was saying was common knowledge." That isn't much of a reason to decide that Juan is articulating Obama's motives better than Obama.

Hmm, it sure sounds like it is. It seems you're doing some delicate word parsing.

My read of your comments is: once Obama speaks his mind on his motives, that should be the end of the discussion. "Sure, Williams (or whoever) can have their opinion, but they are WRONG because The Obama Has Spoken."

I mean, how many times have I heard that the "real" reason for invading Iraq was Bush's Oedipus complex?

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I published a piece in the Student Review about Blacks and the Priesthood directly contradicting the Tex version of events.

Sorry, what was my version of events? I don't know why my name is being taken in vain here.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Take this with a pinch of salt because I know I live in a very insular situation. First, I thought Obama's speech, the snippets I heard, were eloquent, powerful and courageous. That being said, I can't help it, I get a little moody these days when exposed to "black rage." It's been flat out illegal to discriminate against blacks in any way for about 44 years now. Moreover, every elite elementary or secondary school, college, graduate school, corporation, or government agency I know of clamors to admit or hire qualified blacks. They do. The City of Seattle and King County offices are very disproportionately minority represented. No one can change the past. The opportunities are there. Overt racism is also a sure road to personal disgrace anywhere that counts. Overt racists invariably are losers.

Sure there may be soft or intangible barriers to blacks' success. No one will ever legislate those away. But I don't think that "black rage" does anyone any good or uplifts anyone. A lot of people in America have similar grounds for rage and aren't expressing rage. They're moving on. Lots of decent white people aren't getting warm and fuzzies for Obama over this. They're just tired of it because there's not much more they can do to address the rage than has been done. They have welcomed blacks into their neighborhoods and businesses and churches and made it illegal not to. They have passed laws making it illegal to discriminate and disgraced those that have.

I think this whole episode is very harmful to Obama. It threatens to make him into something he has up to now been smart enough to avoid becoming. If he loses the election he can thank his pastor.

I think that is very well said. Obama pays a significant political price for having affiliated himself so closely with with Rev. Wright. His speech did very little to dig himself out of this hole (although I don't know what he could have said; his mistake was not leaving that church several years ago or at least taking a stand against the more offensive things Rev. Wright said). It was very much a shout out to blacks that he understands their pain and anger and is standing by them; shoring up what has become his base. It wasn't very good at reaching across to two groups of skeptical whites.

The first group is working class whites that voted for both Reagan and Clinton. The find themselves competing for jobs and benefits with blacks and decry affirmative action. They also find themselves on the front line of government-led resolutions to past discrimination (busing et al). Rev. Wright's anger dismays them because they feel, rightly or wrongly, that they are losing out because of special allowances for blacks.

The second group is conservative whites, primarily in the south and west and in suburbs throughout the country. They love the country and are very patriotic. They were unlikely to vote for Obama, but probably saw him as an interesting phenomenon. They full on hate Hillary. Rev. Wright's comments cut them to the core. Obama's seeming tolerance for those comments are and will be a significant mobilizer for them during the GE. I live in the south. This is all over the radio 24/7 right now. They will come out to vote to beat Obama and recent polls are starting to reflect this.

I'm actually starting to wonder if we might not want Obama as the Dem candidate.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I don't agree with your assumptions at all. Many Mormons have criticized, publicly, the beliefs and actions of church leaders in the past, and have not been excommunicated, nor should they have been in most cases.

I published a piece in the Student Review about Blacks and the Priesthood directly contradicting the Tex version of events. I'm glad I did. I'm still around.

You are asking for a brand of cravenness that I don't want to be a part of.

I never argued that no single Mormon has ever publicly attacked the church and "gotten away with it." I think I am a pretty vocal critic of many flaws I have seen in the church. The point is that religion adds an entire new level of restraint and tempers our tongue in our response to outrageous statements (perceived or otherwise).

And the fact that your article was published in the Student Review at BYU tells me that the article was not a brazen diatribe against church leadership. I would very much expect that your words were tempered by the fact that you are a member of the church.

And, to be clear, the point of this debate is whether Obama holds the extremist views of Wright personally. Is there anyone who would actually argue that he does?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I agree with your first statement. I guess you fail to see how this is different, and your McConkie example illustrates that. The suggestion that anything McConkie said rises (or sinks, rather) to the level of Jeremiah Wright is quite hilarious. But that aside, was McConkie my personal hand-selected spiritual mentor for 20 years? Did I sit in a pew and listen to him and nod week after week? Did he baptize my children? Marry my wife and me? Would, as Obama said, cutting him off be like cutting off my grandmother?

No. With respect to the office of apostle, he is just one of fifteen leaders, most of whom I've never met personally nor had any personal relationship with. And to boot, McConkie isn't still alive and still saying (allegedly) incendiary things.

Obama wants to, pardon the phrase, have his cake and eat it too. I've only read about the first half and so far at least, I actually thought it was a decent speech. But I heard Limbaugh say on the radio yesterday that it was a Rohrshach Test ... people see what they want to see in it.

Let me reiterate, by the way, that I don't personally care much about this issue. I find there are much more interesting criticisms of Obama. But I don't blame people for getting upset about it ... Wright's anti-Americanism is extremely stark, and it's surprising someone with (he claims) such different political views doesn't mind sitting in the pew and listening to it.

Parenthetically, we should note politicians have been criticized for much less. Bush got roundly criticized for merely speaking at Bob Jones University. Some public figures were grilled over having memberships at Augusta Golf Club. Why should Obama get a pass?



Hmm, it sure sounds like it is. It seems you're doing some delicate word parsing.

My read of your comments is: once Obama speaks his mind on his motives, that should be the end of the discussion. "Sure, Williams (or whoever) can have their opinion, but they are WRONG because The Obama Has Spoken."

I mean, how many times have I heard that the "real" reason for invading Iraq was Bush's Oedipus complex?

How did you get that out of my remarks? Perhaps you should have bolded the sentence immediately following the one you got stuck on. Read to the end, Tex. Stay focused here.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

How did you get that out of my remarks? Perhaps you should have bolded the sentence immediately following the one you got stuck on. Read to the end, Tex. Stay focused here.

As I said, it sounds like you want to have it both ways.

[SeattleUte]

Here's a tip. In America ALWAYS follow the money. I don't know but I bet Obama's good reverand is a wealthy man. The fact is, like conservative punditry and pornography black rage pays, in CD and DVD sales and at church. Purveyors of black rage like Obama's reverand are as calculating and cynical as Ann Coulter. God bless America's first Amendment and free market. (I say the foregoing as exculpation not condemnation of Obama.)

[JohnnyLingo]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Troll.

You have a problem with trolls?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

I think that is very well said. Obama pays a significant political price for having affiliated himself so closely with with Rev. Wright. His speech did very little to dig himself out of this hole (although I don't know what he could have said; his mistake was not leaving that church several years ago or at least taking a stand against the more offensive things Rev. Wright said). It was very much a shout out to blacks that he understands their pain and anger and is standing by them; shoring up what has become his base. It wasn't very good at reaching across to two groups of skeptical whites.

The first group is working class whites that voted for both Reagan and Clinton. The find themselves competing for jobs and benefits with blacks and decry affirmative action. They also find themselves on the front line of government-led resolutions to past discrimination (busing et al). Rev. Wright's anger dismays them because they feel, rightly or wrongly, that they are losing out because of special allowances for blacks.

The second group is conservative whites, primarily in the south and west and in suburbs throughout the country. They love the country and are very patriotic. They were unlikely to vote for Obama, but probably saw him as an interesting phenomenon. They full on hate Hillary. Rev. Wright's comments cut them to the core. Obama's seeming tolerance for those comments are and will be a significant mobilizer for them during the GE. I live in the south. This is all over the radio 24/7 right now. They will come out to vote to beat Obama and recent polls are starting to reflect this.

I'm actually starting to wonder if we might not want Obama as the Dem candidate.

Good analysis. Reverand Wright seems to have irrevocably defined Obama as a "black candidate" in much the same way Romney was defined as a "Mormon candidate." Rightly or wrongly, this will harm his chances of being elected. In the end, this impulse is self-destructive on many levels. Until now Obama has been masterful at avoiding being cast this way.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Tex

I mean, how many times have I heard that the "real" reason for invading Iraq was Bush's Oedipus complex?

Woah-- Bush wants to kill his dad?!?!