What Is Going On At Trinity Church?

Update (TL): The commenters here do not speak for TalkLeft or represent the views of TalkLeft, as is stated on our home page and is particularly relevant to the comments to this post by Big Tent Democrat.


First of all, this has nothing to do with Barack Obama but I have to ask, what in the world is going on at Chicago's Trinity Church? This is simply outrageous:

I repeat, this has NOTHING to do with Barack Obama, but there is clearly something wrong at Trinity Church in Chicago.

Speaking for me only

Comments closed

< All Four Caucus-Primary States Show Same Trend | Thursday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Father Pfleger is one of Obama's advisors, so (5.00 / 19) (#1)
    by carmel on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:47:04 AM EST
    this does have something to do with Obama. How much do we need to see of the "circle of hate" that surrounds Obama and Michelle? They take their children to this church to listen to these hate messages. So much for the unity candidate. My stomach just wrenched watching this.

    I'm Thinking/Hoping (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by talex on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:12:31 AM EST
    that Armando was being a little snarky when he said the video has NOTHING to do with Obama.

    You still are trying to change (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by pie on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:18:40 AM EST
    the subject.  How will videos like this influence the campaign?

    Don't shoot the messenger.  How are you going to deal with this stuff?


    How is Obama going to deal with this stuff? (5.00 / 9) (#110)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:25:38 AM EST
    That is the real question here because he is going to have to deal with it and the longer he puts it off the worse his chances against McCain are.

    According to Pelosi and Obama (5.00 / 15) (#222)
    by Kathy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:01:01 AM EST
    he'll be the "winner" after Tuesday.

    "I will step in," Pelosi told the paper. "Because we cannot take this fight to the convention...It must be over before then."

    She can't end the war, she can't stop Bush, she can't, she can't, she can't...until it comes time to swing the nomination to the Chosen One.  Then, she is all powerful.

    So disgusting.  This just cements my opinion about where the dem party is heading.  Off a cliff, and they ain't taking me with them.

    Even Rendell is making noises, so something must be going on behind the scenes.  I hate this.  We are becoming what we hate.  Not in my name.


    Where the hell does she get off? (5.00 / 2) (#241)
    by masslib on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:10:33 AM EST
    This is just absurd.  

    Kathy (5.00 / 9) (#244)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:12:13 AM EST
    I hope you don't mind, but that makes my blood boil.  I just borrowed your words and sent the following email to Pelosi:


    "Speaker Pelosi:

    You are quoted as saying the following regarding the Democratic nomination process:

    "I will step in," Pelosi told the paper. "Because we cannot take this fight to the convention...It must be over before then."

    So, in your role as Speaker, you have not been able to stop the war, you have not been able to stop Bush, you can't do a whole host of other things, but you are going to stop the nomination process? Especially when all polls are showing Sen. Clinton to be the stronger and more viable candidate for the fall?

    Your Speakership has been a grave disappointment and personally I feel that you are threatened by the idea of a more powerful woman than you.

    I was never politically active before this election, but I am now and will be sending my money not to the DNC, but to any candidate that opposes you and those who have made a mockery of this process. I will also be registering as an Independent.

    Thanks for making the decision so easy. The Democratic Party no longer represents "real" Americans, and instead is the party of the few.

    Very sincerely,



    Good for you! (none / 0) (#253)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:16:03 AM EST
    If Pelosi wanted that much power, she should have become President by impeaching Bush and Cheney IMMEDIATELY upon her ascension as Speaker.

    As it is, she just looks sad and desperate after her terrible performance in the past year and a half.


    Zactly (none / 0) (#201)
    by talex on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:51:31 AM EST
    No, he will not, deal with it.... (none / 0) (#254)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:16:17 AM EST
    he has been given the "pass home, collect $200.00 and occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Ave." from EVERYBODY, save some (few, very few)who still value journalistic integrity and objectivity. These few, are in turn, constantly chastized for being "ANTI", racist, you know, "clingers"

    No I was not (4.33 / 3) (#77)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:15:00 AM EST
    I am not stupid enough to believe the Media and others will agree with me on this, but to me, Obama has NOTHING to do with this. See, when I sign my posts, I express MY opinions.

    Some people are afraid (5.00 / 8) (#184)
    by cpa1 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:47:12 AM EST
    this is what is waiting in the wings, along with Wright and Farrakhan. Obama knows how to use people.  Did he use the Trinity Church and Jeremiah Wright or is he using the kids and those great people of the Dailykos who never think it is necessary to look twice at something?

    This is the cauldron from which Obama rose in Chicago politics and until we know better, this IS Obama.  Using the parsing lies of South Carolina, telling the children and their stupid parents that Reagan was what we needed as opposed to Bill Clinton, calling Geraldine Ferraro a racist and calling Charlie Rangel, Andrew Young and Robert Johnson racists is gutter politics that either comes from Axelrod or the Obamas.  


    And Carthage must be destroyed (5.00 / 2) (#220)
    by Upstart Crow on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:00:02 AM EST
    There's more waiting in the wings. No one has yet asked any questions about what on earth Obama was doing campaigning with a whack job like Odinga in Kenya last fall. Is this an appropriate role for a U.S. Senator? Did the State Department know about it before January when Condi Rice became involved?

    I don't think you can separate (5.00 / 8) (#198)
    by talex on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:50:23 AM EST
    Obama from that video because it is pretty clear that this type of hate filled racial rhetoric goes on in that church on a consistent basis and Obama attended that church by choice for quite a few years. He had to be party to that kind of 'sermon' by Wright on others by choice on a consistent basis and I have no doubt that he being Obama was front and center with his 'Amens' just like the rest of the audience we have witnessed.

    I find it hard that you wouldn't comprehend that so I take it that you are just accepting that Obama will be the nominee and you do not want to cause him any further harm. If that is the case you probably would have been better served to not post the video at all because myself along with several other posters see that video much differently than you and I'm sure the general public would also.


    I disagree, BTD (5.00 / 6) (#205)
    by americanincanada on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:51:56 AM EST
    It is being done in his name, by hischurch and one of his advisors...not to mention the "new" pastor he claims is not at all like Rev. Wright.

    If this has nothing to do with him then he needs to denounce it, in public, and apologize.


    BINGO! (5.00 / 9) (#88)
    by p lukasiak on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:18:34 AM EST
    They take their children to this church to listen to these hate messages.

    This is what is going to damage Obama.  He can say that he doesn't buy into the message of TUCC all he wants to -- that he stays in the church because of its tradition of public service, etc -- and some people might buy it.

    ....that is, until its pointed out that this is the Church he has chosen for his children, and represents what he wants his children to believe God and Christianity is all about.  


    Of course. (5.00 / 1) (#226)
    by madamab on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:03:33 AM EST
    Black Liberation Theology, which is what TUCC espouses, is radical, and NOT the preferred version of Christianity for most AA's. The sermons of Reverend Wright and this other hateful jerk reflect the views of Black Liberation Theology.

    As for the vitriol spewed at Hillary specifically, remember that Reverend Wright was also hateful towards Bill and Hillary Clinton on the pulpit.


    content (none / 0) (#147)
    by gaf on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:34:53 AM EST
    I am on a dial-up temporarily - too slow to play the video. Can someone briefly describe what's the content?

    Um. . . . . (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:49:48 AM EST

    Exactly (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:52:23 AM EST
    On one level, it struck me as a bad Jamie Kennedy skit on the other, I was simply appalled.

    It was like Public Access TV (4.50 / 8) (#16)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:58:31 AM EST
    until the reparations talk.

    If Trinity Church were a secret front group for the GOP, it couldn't do better.


    the crowd didn't seem (4.83 / 6) (#100)
    by Kathy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:22:00 AM EST
    too shocked by the message.  They were standing and applauding.

    I guess the good Father didn't hear from his ancestors how despicably Irish were treated off the boat and how most of the early Irish came over here as indentured servants.  I'm certainly not saying they had it worse, but it was never a walk in the park.  America was built on the backs of exploited immigrants, from the railroads to the skyscrapers to the atomic bomb.

    Also, you'd think that a church that is under investigation by the IRS about being too political would not encourage that Clinton attack at the end.  Their hubris will be their downfall.


    Actually (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:25:57 AM EST
    I believe Pfleger is a German name.

    Ha! My bad (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by Kathy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:36:44 AM EST
    but, even better.  Germans in internment camps on American soil, forced labor, etc.  A lot of them worked on the Hoover Dam project, where the death toll was extremely high.  Some were worked like dogs to their deaths.

    And, most sadly of all, a lot of them moved to Texas.  Bush is a solid German name, ya know.  heh heh heh


    In German, "Pfleger" means (none / 0) (#233)
    by scribe on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:04:59 AM EST
    "healer" or "caretaker", the latter usage being in the sense of a careful gardener, a painstakingly careful maintainer (of something or someone), or a doting nurse.

    Of course (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:51:40 AM EST
    If I had it in for Obama would I could have done was demand he denounce his church.

    Are you a freaking idiot?

    What I am saying is let's not hold Obama responsible for what is going on in that video.

    Let me assure you, that a lot of people are going to insist on holding him responsible for it.

    But by all means, pretend that MY posting this and saying Obama is not responsible for it is my way of sticking a shiv in Obama.

    By now it is clear that some Obama supporters are complete idiots, not that I am saying you are necessarily one of them.

    It's not the Hillary supporters you need (5.00 / 7) (#23)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:02:13 AM EST
    to worry about.

    And the end of the day, Obama is going to have to have something to say about this to John Q. Public.


    John Q. Public? (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by ccpup on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:04:47 AM EST
    more importantly, he's going to have A LOT to say to these suddenly nervous SDs who are already concerned about his Electoral Chances in the Fall not to mention his lack of ability in bringing over voters the Dems need and he can't get.  

    This Trinity Church debacle -- yet another one -- ain't gonna help matters.


    Site Abuser: djohnson (none / 0) (#43)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:07:54 AM EST
    djjohnson has been (none / 0) (#136)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:31:29 AM EST
    banned under six different names before. He's erased again.

    can we get an amen!!! (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:04:26 AM EST
    For the fully delusional!  We need saving too!

    I see you bring up (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by pie on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:14:28 AM EST
    everything but the problem Obama will have with videos like this.

    Your "look over there" is not going to work if he's the nominee.


    WTF? (none / 0) (#68)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:13:24 AM EST
    you have really crossed the line.

    One warning. Rein it your vitriol or be gone.


    Here's the problem, BTD (5.00 / 10) (#46)
    by p lukasiak on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:08:46 AM EST
    When the Wright controversy broke, the question that was asked was "why don't you leave the church", and the answer was:

    1. I didn't know
    2. Wright is retiring
    3. the Church isn't really like Wright, its like that nice new pastor who is going to replace him.

    now, everyone who pays attention knows that the Church was Jeremiah Wright, but the media covered it up, and the GOP was more than happy to sit on it until it made sense to exploit it.  

    And the person who raised the issue of what Obama's children are being exposed to got this exactly right, because that is one very effective way of tying Obama to this kind of trash talk.   He can say he disagrees with it all he likes, and most people aren't going to believe him because this is what he has chosen for his children, i.e. that Obama wants his kids to believe that GOD thinks like these people.


    Obama's church taught black liberation theology (5.00 / 5) (#54)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:10:59 AM EST
    This is black liberation theology in all its glory.

    Christian hatred (5.00 / 4) (#157)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:38:56 AM EST
    This video shows what kind of Christians Barack and Michelle are. I avoid these Christians in my life, I sure don't want them making decisions that affect the entire population of my country.

    For how much of her adult life has Michelle been proud of her church?


    That's a question that is going to come up (5.00 / 2) (#197)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:50:15 AM EST
    a lot and it isn't going to be helpful to Obama's chances at all.

    More fodder for the Repubs (5.00 / 6) (#230)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:04:33 AM EST
    The Dems have gone after Repubs for their associations with the extreme in religion.  They lost the high ground on this, in fact, they keep talking about Hagee.  They should have shut-up, said this has no place in politics and provided Obama with some cover.

    BTW, the young man doing the introduction, the new pastor? That is the one who ran up and patted Wright on the back when Wright was doing his 'riding dirty' sermon. I knew there would never be a change in tone at the church.

    The Repubs have been using the ripping up of the Clinton's by their own party as an example of how the Dems 'do' politics.  They are everything they have accused the Repubs of and that they kept denying they themselves do.


    I am exonerating MYSELF? (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:10:44 AM EST
    What in the world do I need to exonerate myself for in regards to THIS video?

    I found it repulsive. If I DEFENDED it then I would have to exonerate myself.

    Here is a question for you. Do YOU want to defend the video?


    My biggest question is do I want to defend (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:13:42 AM EST
    this video when the GOP starts using it, because they will.  My answer is well known here......not really.  I'd rather have to defend the blue dress because the blue dress has been beaten into a dust rag now.  

    I condemn it (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:24:39 AM EST
    But it is not about Obama to me.

    Heck, Obama must be so pissed at these people.


    He has to be! (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:33:24 AM EST
    The one thing that really really gets to me is that if you know that having a black president breaks one of those glass ceilings out there plaguing our culture and social structure why would you give his opponents, the GOP, something like this?  It just befuddles me all to heck and back.  A nose parted from the face.

    Frustrated, or exasperated maybe (5.00 / 2) (#173)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:43:17 AM EST
    but, I doubt this is much different than what he and Michelle participated in multiple times over their 20 year association.

    Remember, this is the church Oprah left only because it would have a negative impact on her climb to the top.

    Obama probably has a speech in the drawer prepared to respond in the event they did this to him again. You have to wonder how these ministers think they could possibly be helping Obama.


    Can you imagine the conversation between (none / 0) (#196)
    by zfran on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:50:09 AM EST
    Axelrod and Obama about what to put in this speech that people will believe!!!

    They already used up their only shot (5.00 / 0) (#228)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:03:35 AM EST
    at racism, and didn't do a very good job at that. I think they are going to lay low and pray this one will just go away on its own.

    but what is he pissed about?.... (5.00 / 4) (#185)
    by p lukasiak on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:47:13 AM EST
    What is shown in the video may not be all of what TUCC is about, but it does represent a very real part of TUCC.

    So, while I'm sure he'll be angry about this, the question is whether he has any right to be angry.  And I don't think he does --- he has no right to demand that people at TUCC censor themselves temporarily and pretend to be something that they are not, for his political benefit.

    What bothers me is that Obama was stupid and naive enough to believe that he wasn't vulnerable to questions that would be raised by his membership in TUCC and his close association with Wright.  


    Are you kidding? This Father is involved (5.00 / 4) (#209)
    by zfran on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:52:17 AM EST
    in Obama's campaign. If Obama didn't want this speech to happen, all he had to do was to wave his magic hands and tell everyone there to lay low until after November. He didn't. This is another bleed, albeit, a big bleed imo. It's gonna take a big plug to fix it.

    And the truth in this post is where (5.00 / 0) (#214)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:55:46 AM EST
    my feelings become very mixed.  Did Obama do this?  No.  Did he want someone to do this?  No.  Has he played a role though in empowering this church knowing full well that this is part of what they teach?  Yes.  Can he be held completely blame free in this current situation by me?  No.  We were going to have a discussion about race after the first go around of this bullhonk and then............the crickets started chirping after he had made a really really good speech about having a discussion about race.  Obama has done this to himself by not clarifying his stance on black liberation theology when this first happened.

    You don't have to defend it... (none / 0) (#250)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:14:44 AM EST
    you can say that you're disappointed in the good father's statements towards HRC. But "y'know" ::shrug:: "freedom of speech doesn't mean the listener has to like it or even approve of it."

    Hey BTD (3.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Lil on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:14:31 AM EST
    I saw this first on Noquarter and did not watch it because they are a little like the Enquirer over there (IMO), but when you posted it, I did watch because I basically trust you. IMO, you don't need to be exonerated. I think you are pretty fair.

    I personally don't hold Obama responsible (5.00 / 5) (#181)
    by angie on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:46:46 AM EST
    for what is going on in that video. However, I do hold him responsible for (1) giving more than $20,000 last year to that Church were the kind of stuff that is going on in that video occurs and (2) not knowing and/or not caring about what goes on in that Church were that kind of stuff that is going on in that video occurs. The man is running for the job of President of the United States of America based on his "bio," "superior judgment" and "intellect" yet has no curiosity to know what is going on around him in the present or (based on his ignorance of history) the past.

    agreed there are hundreds of (1.00 / 2) (#35)
    by TruthMatters on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:05:53 AM EST
    offensive chruches out there that will never see a post on here,

    I don't recall seeing anything about Libermann speaking for Hagee, but Trinity Church gets a post why? because it was offensive? does that mean we will expect other offensive churches to get a post? for some reason I highly doubt it, so why Trinty? because its a news item and why is that? oh yes its Obama's curch. but does this any anything to do with Obama? espeically on Talk Left, need we go back and review the opinions of Obama in the comment section of this board? but yes we will post about trinty and simply say its nothing to do with Obama, will that work?

    ofcourse not, this whole lets talk about Trinty but its not about Obama, hmmmm ok.


    It's called (5.00 / 5) (#47)
    by pie on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:08:56 AM EST

    What are you going to say when more videos come out if Obama's the nominee?  

    The relationship with this church is an ongoing problem for him.


    I am not talking about that (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by TruthMatters on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:14:12 AM EST
    I am talking about BTD posting this saying it has nothing to do with Obama, as if he doesn't know this site and doesn't know the FIRST thing you all would do, is exactly what you are doing

    making it about Obama.


    You are deliberately (5.00 / 6) (#105)
    by pie on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:23:42 AM EST
    ignoring the obvious here - Obama has been a member of this church for 20 years.

    Obama has made this about Obama.  


    Now you have said your piecve on that (none / 0) (#120)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:28:23 AM EST
    It is utter BS,imo. But enough on that topic. Move on or be deemed a chatterer.

    It is an issue of electability only because we (3.00 / 2) (#174)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:43:45 AM EST
    are divided.  If we weren't divided, the left would call this guilt by association nonsense, what it is, nonsense.  Though I think the Obama Hilliary portion (the second half) should have been left out.  I am not sure what was so wrong about the first half, and even the second half has a smell of truth.  White people (men and women), men (black, white, latino, etc) have benefitted from the system and as such have a notion of entitlement that is hard to recognize and even harder to discard.  Why is noting this wrong.  

    Well... (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by pie on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:49:07 AM EST
    Why is noting this wrong.

    A lot of white people will take offense at this.  They're not going to stop to think that there's some truth to it, because they don't feel responsible for the inequality.

    Just like people who voted for George Bush don't feel responsible for all the death and destruction in Iraq.

    And, frankly, I don't see how divisive rhetoric like this does any good.  It only causes more hate and more division.  It certainly doesn't promote healing.


    So it is the churhes falt that you want stop (1.00 / 1) (#229)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:04:13 AM EST
    and think?  Why would you blame them.  And why would you excuse someone who didn't stop to think about it.

    Those offensive churches (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:10:05 AM EST
    won't have a post here unless a presidential nominee attends them for 20 years and cites its leaders as his advisors.  This isn't rocket science you guys.  When you run for office here comes the microscope into your life, every politician knows and some handle it better than others and some do end up having to change who they hang with.

    duh! they aren't running a member for (5.00 / 0) (#56)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:11:17 AM EST
    president. and expressing dislike and distain for over half of the american population says trouble to me. your self righteous bull is a pathetic, rather shallow smoke screen.

    You never read about Joe Lieberman (5.00 / 5) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:12:23 AM EST
    at THIS site? In post by ME????

    That has to be one of the least informed comments of all time.

    As for Lieberman and Hagee, what woould you have me write. I despise Joe Lieberman and have for year and years.

    that he likes Hagee is just what I would expect from him.


    my point is you KNOW this site (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by TruthMatters on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:16:26 AM EST
    you full well posting this would make it about Obama, so what do you do, oh its not about Obama please.

    and then you will do the well I am not responsible for what they say, ofcourse you aren't but you know exactly what would happen posting this, thats WHY you felt the need to point out its not about Obama because you know it will be about Obama, and now you will point to your "oh well I didn't say it was about Obama"


    Look (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:27:14 AM EST
    I want to get ahead of it and try and separate Obama from it for peopel at this site.

    As you know, some people do read me here and they may consider my view that this is not Obama's fault.

    Perhaps a quiet denunciation and removal of Pfleger will do the trick. I hope so.

    My posting this is your complaint? I think my not posating it and separating Obama from it would be the mistake.

    But the Ostrich is the favorite animal of some Obama supporters.


    ok fair enough (none / 0) (#146)
    by TruthMatters on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:34:53 AM EST
    if you are thinking of your readers outside TL then yes posting that is right.

    but I see you posting this HERE, and saying this isn't about Obama and i have to ask what did you think the posters HERE would think this is about.

    then to me it allows the posters here yet another reason to attack Obama and you can simply say well I can't control them and I said it wasn't about Obama I can't help the people here have one track minds.

    for me no matter what site I visit, I associate the front page poster with the comments they generate, ESPECIALLY if you can reasonably forsee the types of comments your post will generate.


    Bill Clinton is an advisor to Hillary. (4.50 / 2) (#212)
    by zfran on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:55:23 AM EST
    If Bill goes out and says something, she is accused of "not reigning him in" or "not in charge of her campaign or him" and the like. This guy in Obama's church is an "advisor" of some sort to Obama. He and Trinity and Obama are responsible for its contents.

    If you will see (none / 0) (#172)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:42:54 AM EST
    MOST of the criticism is being directed at Pfleger and the UCC, NOT Obama.

    I think I had something to do with that.


    That's you... (none / 0) (#203)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:51:40 AM EST
    Me? I associate BTD with BTD.

    It most certainly is (none / 0) (#151)
    by blogtopus on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:36:26 AM EST
    Ostrich meat can be tasty if cooked properly, though.

    some Dems won't understand your point (none / 0) (#251)
    by Salo on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:15:42 AM EST
    The Southside looks like a looney bin.

    That's just icky in a million ways. (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Burned on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:52:21 AM EST

    I call it depraved (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:56:34 AM EST
    if this isn't racism, then what is it? (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by athyrio on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:53:24 AM EST
    Pure, unadulterated hatred!! This type of behavior I  fought against many years ago from whites toward blacks and now I am seeing it from blacks toward whites. It truly makes me sad and it will cause this nation to go backwards in its progress...

    bingo, and you haven't seen the worst. (none / 0) (#65)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:12:43 AM EST
    go take a look at the black panthers website. i have.

    What do you mean "this has nothing to (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by zfran on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:53:29 AM EST
    do with Barack Obama" This is his church. Has he resigned, has he not been back, if carmel is correct and this "father" is one of Obama's advisors, this has everything to do with Obama. This is not pretty and if it airs, it will be even uglyer.

    Everyone is entitled (5.00 / 0) (#111)
    by Kathy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:25:38 AM EST
    to their own opinion.  Even Bush couldn't take that away from us.

    Well, I will make it about Obama and say (5.00 / 14) (#11)
    by tigercourse on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:55:24 AM EST
    that he is an absolute fool for attending this church for 20 years and for picking these people as advisors.

    the obama campaign thinks we are fools. (5.00 / 6) (#33)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:05:26 AM EST
    take a good look at what the dnc has foisted on us.

    I have mixed feelings (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:55:48 AM EST
    This is the sort of thing this church has preached in the past and Obama did choose to attend this church for many many years.  He has said that Father Pfleger is one of his advisors,  in what current capacity I don't know.  He isn't responsible for anyone saying things like this but he is responsible for the company he keeps and who advises him.

    Technically (5.00 / 6) (#15)
    by MMW on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:56:36 AM EST
    If you attend, donate and utilize the services of a church for blessing your home, educating your children on faith, name a book after a sermon given by your pastor, call the pastor a member of the family or mentor, etc... for twenty years. UHHH... you are associated with said church. At least, I'd say that that is what most church going individuals would believe.

    I don't go (to church, I mean - but I'm catholic so that doesn't really count) and I still believe that.

    Has anyone gotten a copy of the sermon the "Audacity of Hope"? Is there anything in it that could be used?

    This is a UCC problem. (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by Fabian on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:10:24 AM EST
    The heck with Obama!

    This is a bad publicity for UCC churches everywhere!  


    Pfegler's not UCC, he's Catholic. (none / 0) (#232)
    by Ben Masel on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:04:36 AM EST
    Pastor of St. Sabina.

    This isn't gotcha. (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by Fabian on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:14:45 AM EST
    This is what "supporting Obama" looks like - to a lot of people.

    Usually we just see it on the internet, not at the pulpit in front of a live audience, streamed live, masquerading as a religious sermon.

    Nice supporters you got there Senator Obama.


    Ohhhhh dude... (none / 0) (#36)
    by MMW on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:06:30 AM EST
    What can I say to you and not be banned from this site????????????????????????????????????????

    still nothing...........

    Still nothing............


    Flineo video (5.00 / 0) (#243)
    by waldenpond on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:11:38 AM EST
    I know they are extreme, but one had Wright making his statements about Nagasaki and then Obama reading aloud from his book and then another piece by Wright and Obama reading from his book.  I always said, that Wright and Michelle were 527 data on their own.  Intersperse Obama or Michelle's words with any of the extremists in Obama's life and you have a problem.

    Yuck (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by befuddled on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:00:57 AM EST
    But, it's their yuck, so they can have it. I would like to know, though, just how much "politicking" can be done in a church or other non-profit. I first learned about Trinity from a Fox post with a head something like Pastor Endangers Tax-exempt Status, and in spite of all the Wright stuff since, haven't seen more about the tax angle.

    There's an ongoing investigation (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by janarchy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:04:20 AM EST
    It started before the Rev. Wright tapes surfaced. However, the article I read about it said that it can take several years for the IRS to do a thorough investigation so it would not effect Obama's campaign.

    Of course, no one in the MSM (other than on FOX) has ever mentioned a word about it, as far as I know.


    IRS Inquiry Settled (none / 0) (#165)
    by daring grace on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:40:30 AM EST
    According to the Wall Street Journal (May 22, 2008):

    "The Internal Revenue Service has told the United Church of Christ, Sen. Barack Obama's denomination, that it didn't violate tax laws when the presidential candidate addressed 10,000 church members in June.

    In a letter released by the UCC, the IRS said that the denomination hadn't engaged in prohibited political activity and retains its nonprofit status. The UCC disclosed an IRS inquiry into Sen. Obama's appearance earlier this year. IRS spokeswoman Nancy Mathis declined to comment."


    Obama has donated over $55,000.00 to TUCC (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by carmel on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:03:04 AM EST
    over the last two years that he submitted tax returns for. So Obama does support TUCC and apparently endorses the messages of TUCC. If Obama wants to claim he has never heard any of these hate messages, it makes him really naive or stupid, and not really potus material. Otherwise, Obama has heard these messages before, and supports them with his hard earned money. My question, will reparations be part of the "new democratic party platform"? Sorry, just had to ask.

    My take is that Obama has heard (5.00 / 0) (#171)
    by zfran on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:42:30 AM EST
    these messages, some from the pulpit and some from his kitchen table. Rev. Wright, remember, was "like an uncle" and the Priest is a member of his campaign (not verified yet to me). Hmmmmm. I wonder if this video will send another tingle up tweety's leg?

    isn't it strange.... (5.00 / 5) (#199)
    by p lukasiak on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:50:37 AM EST
    that Obama knows all about the war exploits of a great uncle that he never met, but had no idea about the thinking of a man who was "like an uncle" to him for 20 years?  ;)

    Additionally, David Axelrod is on the committee (5.00 / 0) (#179)
    by FLVoter on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:46:30 AM EST
    to raise money to make structural repairs to St. Sabina's Church where the good father is the Pastor. It is unbelievable to claim that Sen. Obama never heard any of these hate filled sermons in twenty years. This is still about Sen. Obama and his church.  It has not gone away.  For the Republicans this is a gift that just keeps on giving all the way to the GE.

    OMG! (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by Radiowalla on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:06:55 AM EST
    This is truly disgusting.  
    Of course it reflects very badly on Trinity Church, and by extension on Obama.  

    It is what it is and his campaign is going to have to deal with it.

    pandering (5.00 / 0) (#39)
    by Fabian on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:07:08 AM EST
    And the congregation just sucked it up.

    I wonder if Trinity can be officially sanctioned by the United Church of Christ.  I don't know.  I'm a lapsed Catholic and ignorant of the UCC organization and affiliation.  But there have to be UCC members out there thinking "This is not my church.  This isn't what we stand for.".


    It is relevant to this campaign. (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by bslev22 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:07:32 AM EST
    This is the stuff that divides us.

    Study it while you worry, nay whine, about how it might somehow impact on the man most of us are prepared to vote for in November, regardless of people like the heinous reverend on the video, who we now know is an advisor to Senator Obama.  We are being asked to look past this stuff, but whether you like it or not, it just keeps getting in the way [and while you're at it think South Dakota and RFK because I just can't get it out of my mind; it gnaws at me as I think that KO's diatribe against Senator Clinton was circulated to the press by Senator Obama, the man who speaks of unity when it's convenient.]

    I'm sure Senator Obama knows that he needs all of us whether you like it or not.  I think it'd probably be wise to urge folks like the good reverend on the tape to go back to his cave.  By the way, can a whole church fit under a bus?  Senator Obama might just have to let us find out.  Gonna have to check on the condition of that bus soon, cause it keeps on being asked to run folks over, all in the name of unity and a change in direction of course.  

    Could someone post a summary explanation of (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by hellskitchen on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:10:48 AM EST
    the video for those of us who are hearing impaired.  I feel increasingly frustrated by the use of videos on blogs.  To those who can hear well, the videos are a quick way to understanding an event, but for me and others it is not only not illuminating, it is exclusionary.

    If there's a transcript (probably not here), you can link to it.  If not a short summary will suffice.  Then I can watch the video for the body language, which is also important (but meaningless if you don't know what is being said).

    This generation of whites is still responsible (5.00 / 2) (#127)
    by Joan in VA on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:29:51 AM EST
    for the sins of their ancestors. Haven't given up the advantages they have because of those sins. Should give up their money. Hillary thought the nom. was hers because she's white. Barack came along to take it away from her. She cries like a baby.

    Hope that helps.


    "married to Bill" (5.00 / 3) (#139)
    by Fabian on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:32:26 AM EST
    You forgot that part - no HHer ever forgets who Hillary Clinton's husband is.

    Tres charmante.


    Thanks! (none / 0) (#190)
    by hellskitchen on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:48:29 AM EST
    It does help.  The internet is so anonymous in some ways that its difficult to remember that people with disabilities use the web.

    I appreciate your summary.

    Thanks also to Fabian, below


    I typed it in all its glorious glory (4.75 / 4) (#188)
    by Burned on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:48:11 AM EST
    The very beginning is sort of mushy.
    Then he goes off:

    .....for the one who says, "Well don't hold me responsible for what my ancestors did." But you have enjoyed the benefits of what your ancestors did, and unless you are ready to give up the benefits, throw away your 401 fund, throw away your trust fund, throw away all the money that's been put away in the company you walked into because your daddy and your granddaddy and your great granddaddy...unless you're willing to give up the benefits, then you must be responsible for what was done in your generation because you are the beneficiary of this insurance policy.

    We must be honest enough, to expose white entitlement and supremacy wherever it raises it's head.

    I said before, and I, I really don't want to make this political because you know, I'm very unpolitical (crowd laughs and claps) but, (something I can't make out) when Hillary was crying, and people said that was put on, I really don't believe it was put on, I really believe that she just always thought, "This is mine. I'm Bill's wife, I'm white, and this is mine. I just got to get up and step into the plate."

    And then out of nowhere came, " Hey, I'm Barack Obama." And she said, "Oh, damn! Where did you come from?! I'm white, I'm entitled! There's a black man stealing my show!"

    (then he does fake Hillary tears and wipes his tears with a kerchief, crowd stands, clapping, he goes ends it with....)

    She wasn't the only one crying, there were a whole lot of white people crying. I'm sorry, I don't want to get you into anymore trouble. The live streaming just went out again.

    Then he walKs off.


    The first part - (5.00 / 1) (#240)
    by scribe on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:10:09 AM EST
    where he says one can only claim no responsibility for healing the sins of past generations only if one casts off the benefits one received from one's own ancestors - the 401k, the trust fund, etc. - is actually philosophically (and a lot of responsible theologians would say, theologically,) correct.  

    Each of us does, indeed, stand on the shoulders of our forebears and derives benefits (or hindrances) from the decisions they made in the past.

    The second part, sounds kind of like a bad parody of a Chris Rock routine.

    This is Exhibit A of why churches should not get involved in politics. Or, if you want to put Hagee, Parsley, Robertson and all the rest ahead of it, whatever letter would be next in the exhibit list.


    good accurate transcript (5.00 / 0) (#245)
    by tree on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:13:40 AM EST
    I think the the words you couldn't make out were "Reverend Moss", the one who introduced him.

    Its probably important to say that its possible that there is an edit between the first and second paragraph, as there is a cutaway to the pews after the first paragraph. However, there is no edit between the second and third paragraph. He is connecting "white entitlement and supremacy" with Hillary Clinton choking up in New Hampshire. Pure hateful race baiting.


    When the good friend of Trinity, (5.00 / 6) (#58)
    by Anne on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:11:26 AM EST
    roundly applauded and for whom the pastor effusively thanked God for his message, went on a rant about Hillary's tears and Barack Obama, he made it about Barack Obama.

    I'm sorry, but at what point can I draw the conclusion that if these are the people Obama chooses to associate himself with, he must share some part or all of the opinions, philosophies, theories that are being espoused?  Or am I supposed to stay tuned for the latest chapter of "just because I know them, doesn't mean I believe what they believe?"

    There just is no way for me to reconcile the overarching message of unity and hope with the ugly and divisive things I've heard from yet another high-profile Obama associate.  Is this the message that resonates with the 80-90% of black voters?  

    I just don't get it; I really, really don't.

    Really? (5.00 / 9) (#118)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:27:24 AM EST
    You believe it was that commentor who injected race, not the preacher who said "Hillary felt entitled to the nomination because she's white"?

    IMHO. this does involve Obama (5.00 / 6) (#130)
    by befuddledvoter on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:30:12 AM EST
    This priest is in Obama's inner campaign circle. He is railing about Hillary Clinton from the pulpit.  It obviously has a political message.  And how is this religious, pray tell?  

    Last sermon about crying women (5.00 / 0) (#145)
    by Fabian on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:34:48 AM EST
    I can remember is the women weeping at Jesus' tomb.  Don't think any them were named "Hillary" though.

    You must be kidding (5.00 / 1) (#268)
    by TomLincoln on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:57:27 AM EST
    to believe anyone here injhected race into this, rather than the priest himself --and all of those cheering him on at Trinity. I will take it one step further. I can understand how the vast majority of African Americans feel proud to have a "viable" black presidential candidate. But please do not tell me that the vast majority of them are voting for him based on his ideas on issues rather than the fact he is black. That just does not sell. Is that racism? What would you say if Hillary Clinton were getting 90% of the white vote in all the primaries? Would you likely assume there is a vast group of whites who are not voting for Barack because of his race? Of course you would!

    This video is very troubling to me. Many Obama supporterse like to call this guilt by association, as if that cures it all. They are absolutely correct in that it is guilt by association -- associating himself with this church for 20 years, supporting it financially, and most recently saying that the new pastor --who invited this priest-- is sooo different from Rev. Wright that he sees no need to disassociate himself from this church. If it is correct that this priest with these views is a campaign advisor, that is even much more troubling.


    I don't have an issue wth black voters. (3.00 / 1) (#218)
    by Anne on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:57:57 AM EST
    What I have is a question that I cannot answer because I am not a black voter.  And my question was whether the kinds of messages we have heard from people who support and advise Obama have anything to do with their support for him.

    You can try to turn me into a racist for asking the question, if that's what works for you, and I suppose that's one way to ignore what looks to me like a growing racial divide in this country - one that has been growing precisely because of sermons like Pfleger's.

    I asked the question because I saw a lot of people clapping and cheering in that church - applauding some truly ugly comments and characterizations of Hillary Clinton, with emphasis on the color of her skin.  So - is it not fair to ask whether that message resonates with black voters?  Or with any voters?

    And I'm sorry, but I was not the one who injected race into this discussion - race was already there, courtesy of Father Pfleger, and the people at Trinity who apparently welcome and support his philosophy.


    Don't forget Catholics (5.00 / 4) (#83)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:16:48 AM EST
    I AM Catholic, and while it is in the dogma of the Catholic Church to preach social justice, it is NOT part of the dogma to blame one group over others (sorry, Father, I'm not giving up my IRA because my great grandparents came here on boats from Italy, Ireland, Poland, and Croatia in the early 1900's).

    I am, however, going to send this video to all my Catholic friends and relatives.

    Give up our trust funds ... to whom? (none / 0) (#227)
    by Upstart Crow on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:03:33 AM EST
    Did the video say who we are to give up our trust funds to?

    My boss is African-American.  Do I give it to him?


    Shrug (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:17:17 AM EST
    "Hillary felt entitled to the nomination because she's white."  Sounds like mainstream Daily Kos to me.

    Some people just live to stir up controversy.  This guy loves getting in the news.  He's already a lightning rod for the Right because of the time he told the owner of a gun shop, "We're going to snuff you out."

    This is supposed ot be a freaking church Steve (none / 0) (#93)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:20:30 AM EST
    What the eff was that about?

    I dunno (none / 0) (#133)
    by Steve M on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:30:28 AM EST
    Maybe I'd be more of a churchgoer if I had known it was this interesting!

    At least you got one Obama supporter to admit it was "borderline offensive"... whatever that means.


    Indeed (5.00 / 2) (#156)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:38:28 AM EST
    One of my best bloggong friends is a UCC pastor, you folks may know him, Pastor Dan,. I sent him this video with this comment - WTF?

    Let us know if he replies (none / 0) (#170)
    by Fabian on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:41:55 AM EST
    or diaries about it.

    Love PD... (none / 0) (#231)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:04:34 AM EST
    wonder what his response will be as his style of preaching is a bit more laid back...well except for the swearing thing. :)

    This is why unity will be difficult (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by Manuel on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:18:28 AM EST
    Father Mike seems quite sincere in his feelings as did Samantha Power in her unguarded moment.  Many in the Obama camp, if not the candidate hiself, do view Hillary as feeling entitled.  The irony is that in many ways it is Obama who has been running as though the nomination was owed to him.  I can understand that feeling although I don't share it (for either candidate).  This race should be about who would be the best candidate against John McCain and who would make the best President.  Unfortunately, given the historical context of this nomination, these feelings are going to be part of it.

    historical context? naw, it is a use (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:22:00 AM EST
    of history for false purposes with an attitude of cynical abuse.

    I don't know about you... (5.00 / 0) (#95)
    by dianem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:20:47 AM EST
    ...but what my ancestors did was work their asses off as serfs in eastern Europe, then leave everything and everybody they knew so that they could come to America and work just as hard for a bunch of people who thought they were dirt because they were not from western Europe. My grandparents were immigrants or children of immigrants. My parents were the first generation in my family to go to college, and it wasn't Yale - it was state college. My ancestors never oppressed anybody (they never had the chance - they were the ones being oppressed), nor did they leave a legacy of wealth and privilege.

    This is why context... (none / 0) (#129)
    by mike in dc on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:30:03 AM EST
    ...is important.  It's true that many whites came to this country after slavery ended(my ancestors, for example), and that most of them were not in positions to oppress anyone for a long time.  However, the benefits and privileges of "whiteness" accrued to them within a generation of "coming off the boat", while blacks who had been here for generations did not get a fair chance to prosper from "working their butts off" until only just recently, historically speaking(the poorest white person still had more societal privileges than a middle class black person).  And, of course, whites who were already in the country (and their descendants) did benefit tangibly from that oppression(cheaper clothing and foodstuffs due to lower labor costs, less competition for school and in employment, bank profits from slavery carried forward, estates left, etc.).

    Whiteness did not (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by Molly Pitcher on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:49:09 AM EST
    help a whole lot in the Appalachian mountains.  Not much sympathy for Johnny Reb, and much of the goods that America enjoyed did not come there until FDR and electricity.  Cheaper stuff: only thing they paid cash money (from 'sang and 'shine) for was salt and shoes. And, boy, do we love hillbilly jokes!

    Let's let Obama and his (5.00 / 0) (#202)
    by frankly0 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:51:32 AM EST
    campaign explain the "context" of this guy's remarks to the American people.

    You can excuse it all you want, but I'd like to see the reaction of the average voter to this rant.

    Again, the guy is a spiritual adviser for his campaign. Obama has to explain this rant to the American people.


    Look at the Obama surrogates (none / 0) (#257)
    by zfran on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:17:36 AM EST
    who are blogging here, right now. They have all said  they don't see anything wrong here that directly relates to Obama. What do you think the masses will say, except find a way to put this back on Hillary?

    context (5.00 / 0) (#261)
    by pukemoana on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:21:06 AM EST
    I agree with what you're saying, that individual histories of white forebears sit within a wider context of whiteness itself enabling privilege.  Whiteness has been able to normalize upward mobility in way blackness has not.  But when Father Pfleger says Hillary feels entitled to the Presidency because she's white, and is PO'd because a black man seems like he'll take it from her, he's trafficking in stereotypes and reverse racism, not the complexity you're invoking.

    White privilege is a myth (1.00 / 1) (#267)
    by dianem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:30:07 AM EST
    There was privilege, but it wasn't extended to all white people, only a select few. Every ethnic group except the British and the French have had their share of discrimination.  Ask people from Poland, Italy, or Russia if they were treated fairly and given equal opportunities within a generation. In a way, black people had an advantage over them - they spoke the language (my grandparents never did - they were working too hard to take time to learn it) and had communities and families to help support them. Not every state discriminated to the point that black people couldn't get an education. Heck, it was easier for black men to get an education before it was for women of any race. And it has always been easier for the rich of any race or ethnicity.

    My point is not to suggest that black people did not suffer discrimination, which they undoubtedly did, but to point out that being white has never been an automatic ticket to success in America. There are people still living here who have never managed to turn their pale skin into opportunity, while there are many black people who have. It's not really a black v. white issue. I wouldn't care, but too many people choose to focus on their victimhood rather than get on with their lives. This is not useful. Education, the key to success, is available to everybody and has been for 40 years.

    Asian people have not been trapped in this pattern, and they suffered as much discrimination as blacks over the last 150 years. But they don't let it stop them, they don't focus on it. If you get close, you will find bitterness, but they don't focus on it, they get on with their lives and prosper, to the point that some Americans think they are too successful and wish to hold them back.


    BS (none / 0) (#255)
    by angie on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:16:58 AM EST
    context doesn't mean squat to the ancestors of slave owners -- that is nothing more then using a medieval hammer to visit the sins of the fathers onto the sons, and has absolutely nothing to do with justice. My father's paternal line were among this country's first founders who fought in the American Revolution -- they were white New Englanders & landowners which means while they certainly could have owned slaves, it isn't a given (as opposed to say a white Southern landowner mostly likely would have). Nonetheless, even if those ancestors of mine DID own slaves it has absolutely nothing to do with me. I have no problem atoning for my own sins. I have no problem recognizing the evils of slavery and demanding this nation as a whole correct past wrongs. But I am not going to allow anyone to guilt me into taking responsibility for the actions of others.

    Metamorphosing into Wright (5.00 / 0) (#103)
    by Saul on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:22:54 AM EST
    Must be some bad mojo that goes on in that church.  Looks like once you get on to the pulpit the Wright syndrome hits you.  

    Is this guy a catholic priest?  If so we need to send a clip of this to the Vatican to see if they want to keep this guy on.

    I didn't hear you

    Can we have an amen.

    That would be ironic.... (5.00 / 0) (#159)
    by kdog on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:39:09 AM EST
    this guy getting excomminicated while pedophiles get transfered from parish to parish and settlements get paid out of the alms meant for the poor.

    Ironic but Not so ironic (5.00 / 0) (#180)
    by Saul on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:46:32 AM EST
    The church probably can live with the sins of pedophiles priest but to have one equal to Wright that is a no no.  You bet they can throw him under the bus just like Obama did.

    I'm waiting for the righteous indignation (5.00 / 0) (#113)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:26:00 AM EST
    that will come when Obama is asked how much he agrees with the specific points of this diatribe.

    The Audacity of Religion (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by This from a broad on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:28:11 AM EST
    Was this idiot ranting and raving about the catholic church's pedophiles?  No, he was conspicuously silent about that.

    He is accusing Hillary Clinton of being a racist?  Does he even know her?  This creep is outraged because a woman doesn't know her place.  

    For me, there's a far broader lesson - - - - (5.00 / 6) (#126)
    by wurman on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:29:49 AM EST
    I'm utterly fed up with the ignorant, unlettered, untutored, stupid preachers of the USA imposing their ridiculous religiosity on the political process.  Sen. Obama looks very much like George W. Bu$h xliii with all of the theological trash that came into the White House following him.

    How does Wright differ from Robertson?  In what way does Flieger differ from Dobson?

    I don't care how stupid Sen. Obama's "supporters" may be; it's that Obama even knows them that gets me ticked off.  This is just more evidence that the Obama campaign is partly another "faith based" charade for the spiritually impaired voters of the USA.

    racist than sexist?

    I can't decide.

    Nobody in that church seemed to mind, did they?

    God bless America.

    So, is Obama free of (5.00 / 3) (#158)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:39:02 AM EST
    "entitlement", Ok half of him is "entitled".  The other half, sort of has dubious issues.  It was the Moslem Africans if I am not wrong who were engaged in slave trade.   So, what is his responsibility.  I know you guys think it's horrible to use the word Moslem and Obama in the same sentence, but I don't think it is.  

    Can you imagine if an Imam was saying this kind of stuff in a Mosque, they would have deported the whole congregation.  

    Borderline offensive? (5.00 / 5) (#160)
    by No Blood for Hubris on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:39:33 AM EST
    "Mocking Clinton's tears and suggesting she was crying out of her sense of entitlement?

    No, sorry, that would be big-time sexism you're apparently unable to see.  He was mocking her for crying like a gurrrl.

    "Borderline offensive to me.  I wouldn't leave my church over it, but I might let the guy know it was a little offensive to me."

    Sexism doesn't bother people who don't see it, or don't see it as being offensive, or think it's just no frickin' problema.

    then, there's you know, the racist part.  just as ugly.

    Hannity (5.00 / 0) (#164)
    by gaf on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:40:16 AM EST
    Fox won't make much of this until Hillary is officially out of the race.

    Sadly, (5.00 / 0) (#178)
    by vicsan on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:45:28 AM EST
    I tend to agree. This will be shown along with the other 2 videos the republicans have under lock and key for the GE.

    UNITY (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by hedyanne on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:41:02 AM EST
    If we think that Obama will bring unity we are so wrong.  I have never in my lifetime seen so much divide in this country. It's time they moved on with this slavery talk.  How many years has it been that we have had slavery. I will not give up my trust fund because I never had one and my ancesters have never had a slave. So lets move on.

    I was set to give you a hard time for (5.00 / 0) (#186)
    by ksh on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:47:14 AM EST
    focusing on the church to get at Obama, but this guy is an ass.

    Can you say: (5.00 / 5) (#207)
    by joanneleon on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:52:10 AM EST
    "We're gonna lose"?

    Because that is what is going to happen.  In the year when it seems impossible that we could possibly lose the presidential election, that's what is going to happen when extremist, divisive stuff like this gets aired on the GOP campaign ads all summer and fall.  It's pretty hard to use the "guilt by association" defense when people are invoking your name and your opponent's name in the church, and campaigning from the pulpit for you.

    Evil works (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by OxyCon on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:52:14 AM EST
    No, I'm not a "religious nut" but I do have faith in Jesus and I'm really glad that I do. I do not regularly attend Church. In fact, the last time I was in church was for a Mass given for my deceased Wife.
    That out of the way, there is only one way to describe Trinity United - Evil. When a sermon is given in Church that appeals to the "baser sort", that runs counter to what God and Church is all about. When the parish at a Church erupts in celebration while their baser sorts are stoked, thats an act of evil. Evil is created and spread at Trinity United. It is not a house of God.
    I've been around Liberal blogs a real long time now, and I realize that their are many Atheists here, but this is my perspective.

    Exactly the speech that inflames the blue collar (5.00 / 2) (#217)
    by befuddledvoter on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:57:01 AM EST
    Blue collar/working class voter has no 401K. They won't be the beneficiaries of much and most were not here for generations either.  They do not feel they are the recipients/beneficiaries of the evils of slavery and they are not.  This is very bad, IMHO.  This will inflame those voters who support HIllary for the most part to start with.  

    Identity Confusion (5.00 / 4) (#234)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:05:20 AM EST
    Why I think Obama is not transformational.  He basically wanted to find identity and to use the identity for political gain.  In his efforts for identity he had to reject the "white" side of his family.  Jeralyn's great post this week about his discomfort with this "white" family history is a great starting off place.  

    Now he is telling us he is transformed and transcended.  Well, it does not work with me.  Cause he is not finished dealing with his personal issues of identity.  I know plenty of biracial kids that have a better sense of who they are and don't need to pick a side and absolutely reject the other.  

    When he talks about his white  family he either does not believe it or he knows by doing that he is betraying the people/the side that made him who he is.  The only people who don't get this conflict inside him and in the AA community, are the  creative class.  

    you're right these words by the Rev. (5.00 / 1) (#235)
    by kimsaw on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:06:27 AM EST
    are not Obama's words and he is not responsible for them. BUT Obama is responsible for his judgment. He sat in that church for 20 years and he chose to listen to hate speech and the praise of it.

    What has Obama done to change the offense? He gave a history lesson on race with no solution in an effort to excuse the offensive dialog of Rev. Wright.  He told Clinton she was "periodically" "likable enough" and don't forget every girl's dream is that he calls them "sweetie".  Obama's  own antipathy sanctioned everyone's a bitter, gun toting, bible slinging, typical white person, racist when they chose not to support him. Let's not forget his family values; he can throw his good old grandmother under a bus in a nano second to save his racist pastor. Then when the political heat is on high he can take the temperature down to tolerable by sort of denouncing the Rev.

    This just isn't about what's going on at Trinity, but what's gone on inside Obama's head. Obama's political road is cluttered with his own contradictions and divisiveness.  The media, his supporters and the worst of it, Obama, himself doesn't care and willingly keeps the contradiction and the division flourishing.  

    Obama's actions or lack there of, speak louder than his words. There is a message in his choices and it says alot about who he is. His historical acceptance of such speech by his ongoing attendance at Trinity tells this voter he's all about the win and not about change, hope, and definitely not about unity.

    I have to say the identity politics divide (5.00 / 1) (#242)
    by Faust on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:11:07 AM EST
    in this election has been absolutely excruciating for me. It's hard to see a way out.

    it might in the general... (5.00 / 0) (#258)
    by kredwyn on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:18:02 AM EST
    that guy speaking? One of Obama's advisors...who will, no doubt, make a quiet exit from the campaign sometime during the next few days..

    BTD, (5.00 / 1) (#260)
    by ding7777 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:20:52 AM EST
    If you find that there is "there is clearly something wrong at Trinity Church in Chicago" after only a few "sermons", why should Obama be given a pass for embracing this "theology" for 20 years?

    The "reparations sermon" is just a political agitation which is what  community organizers do, but the hateful personal attack on Hillary serves no political purpose - Obama has 95% of the AA vote - and a 527 showing this "sermon" will only hurt him in the GE.

    I once had to save Pfegler's life. (5.00 / 1) (#265)
    by Ben Masel on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:26:58 AM EST
    In the late '90s, he was on a crusade to get the Chicago Hempfest shut down. Waded alone into the middle of the event, ranting, and a bunch of younger attendees took the bait. I held them off until the uniforms arrived, and convinced Pfegler to picket us from across the street.

    What is wrong with male preacher dudes? (5.00 / 1) (#269)
    by goldberry on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:58:04 AM EST
    How come they have this incredible blind spot when it comes to the oppression of women?  I hate to say this but this election is going to be a referendum not on race but on gender.  The DNC is going to pay for the way they have handled this primary season.  We've been pushed to the back of the bus once too often, That 4%&^;s gotta stop and this year, it will.  

    I never.... (5.00 / 1) (#270)
    by Chesserct on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:16:07 AM EST
    could understand the reparations theory. It seems the American Indian would be just as deserving. Are we also to give the Indians back all of the land that was taken?

    Despite what is said to the contrary (5.00 / 1) (#273)
    by dugan49 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:40:28 PM EST
    this does have something to do with Barack Obama.

    These comments are a habitual pattern at TUCC and Obama retains membership in that church. TUCC exists for the purpose of psychologically separating blacks from the rest of American life, as we can see in comment after comment that comes from people associated with that church (Wright, Moss, now Pfeeger).

    If Obama was serious about racial healing , he would move away from this truly divisive enterprise and welcome an HONEST dialogue about race. His tacit approval of what goes on at TUCC actually should disqualify him , characterwise, for the Presidency. Race relations is one of the top social issues in the United States, if not THE top.

    What the hell is white entitlement...........? (5.00 / 1) (#275)
    by cawaltz on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:07:16 PM EST
    Being white hasn't gotten me any free rides. My father was incarcerated by the time I was thirteen. I had a mother who worked while my brother and I were responsible for the house. I worked from the time I was 15. Joined the military at 17. What exactly does Unity church think I have gotten from being white?

    Ok (5.00 / 0) (#276)
    by Evie on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:47:24 PM EST
    this video does not tell us anything about Obama, but it can and likely will be used against him in the GE.

    It's offensive and racist and sexist. And it can hurt Obama with his two toughest groups: white working class and women.

    What are the white working class going to think when they are told that they are held responsible for reparations? And mocking Hillary for having one moment of vulnerability was disgusting.

    How incredibly divisive.

    Hannity (4.87 / 8) (#24)
    by janarchy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:02:42 AM EST
    should be having a field day with this one.

    Does no one see the irony of a white Catholic priest ranting about the ills of white entitlement? Isn't the Catholic Church the epitome of white (male) entitlement? (My apologies to anyone who is Catholic here -- I'm referring to the hierarchy, of course)

    It's completely incoherent (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:04:15 AM EST
    You'd think he had no idea about what happened in South America, to give one instance.

    Not to mention (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by janarchy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:06:49 AM EST
    in Africa. But I guess its okay to kill and enslave people as missionaries?

    Catholic missionaries? (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Kathy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:30:43 AM EST
    My grandfather is of the opinion that missionaries ruined Africa.  They encouraged them to have too many children, to tithe what little resources they had and to take off the sabbath no matter what crops spoiled in the sun because of it.

    Of course, you can pretty much make a bad argument for anyone trying to impose their will or religion on others, from Nigeria to 9-11.

    The reparations talk is going to be damning on so many levels.  How long before Obama kicks this spiritual advisor to the curb?  Surely, the campaign has known about this video.  Have they just sat on their hands?  Why not say, "This is what happened, this is what he said, we are appalled, he is no longer part of the campaign" before the clip makes the rounds?  Stupid, stupid, stupid.


    I (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by kenoshaMarge on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:29:18 AM EST
     was raised in the Catholic Church and still go occasionally, weddings, funerals, baptisms, and I agree 100%. For "Father" Pflegler to speak of entitlement is rampant hypocrisy. However his kind never sees that. I find no need for an apology when one speaks the truth. (That's for me only, others may see things quite differently.)

    yup, if the father were really into (none / 0) (#149)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:35:39 AM EST
    equality as it were, he would be petitioning the catholic church for funds for the needy in his parish. he would be jumping up and down and making public demands for it. crickets???

    How do you know he isn't (3.00 / 1) (#206)
    by samtaylor2 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:52:06 AM EST
    What do you know about this guy, other then he said something about hiliary you don't like.  Does he help feed the poor, does he work with black families daily to get them out of poverty, does he open his door to people many us (including myself) walk by as though they are invisible.  Let's just slow down a bit on the vitrol.  
    If you live within a group and have for years, idenitfying with them and seeing the world through their lens is not wrong.

    Isn't Hillary winning the Catholic (5.00 / 0) (#162)
    by zfran on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:39:50 AM EST

    The Catholic Church is the gold standard (4.50 / 8) (#32)
    by tigercourse on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:04:51 AM EST
    of White Male entitlement.

    We won't even get into (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by janarchy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:09:12 AM EST
    the whole tithe and indulgence stuff. People should give up their trustfunds (because of slavery). Should they just give it to the Vatican instead? (I don't see them handing back all the money, art, property etc they've acquired over the centuries...)

    I guess I'll have to find my trustfund and all the ill gotten gains my (Eastern European peasant) ancestors got from slavery. Especially when none of them were in this country to prior to 1900s and I'm not sure where one could keep slaves on the Lower East Side of New York...


    That would be a resounding yes (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by MMW on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:12:21 AM EST
    When you have a city to yourself and a man driving around in a car made specifically for him, when your "treasures" came from the blood, sweat, and decimation of others. You ain't got a leg to stand on as far as entitlement or reparations.

    I'm calling you on this... (none / 0) (#236)
    by Upstart Crow on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:06:47 AM EST
    You haven't been to a church lately.

    The priests are Nigerian, Filipino, Vietnamese, and Salvadorian.

    Where have you been?


    Sorry, I'm calling you out on this one (none / 0) (#239)
    by Upstart Crow on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:09:28 AM EST
    You haven't been to a church lately, sport.

    The priests are Latino, Vietnamese, Filipino, Nigerian, and from everywhere else.

    Drop in sometime.


    White Catholic Priest (4.00 / 1) (#117)
    by befuddledvoter on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:27:23 AM EST
    I have read that his Cardinal has been trying to get rid of this priest for some time.  He is a nut (and Cardinal agrees), but has a very socially active, large parish (and I think his members are primarily black.).  Personally, I think this priest has "identity confusion."  He thinks he is an oppressed black.  I recall that he is the priest who honored Rev. Wright a couple of months back, post-Wright exposure.

    If The Cardinal doesn't like him.... (5.00 / 1) (#262)
    by kdog on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:22:37 AM EST
    he's doing something right.

    My great uncle was a priest, and I heard the Bishop hated him...something about my great uncle's silly belief that some of the collection plate money should go back into the community or something.


    He definitely goes too far (4.66 / 3) (#27)
    by Lil on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:04:12 AM EST
    I have trouble with most religious institutions, but this service (at least the part we see), does seem to have a cultish quality to it. As a white person, I know the value of confronting white privilege on behalf of people of color, but this guy takes it way too far, in my opinion. I can't imagine a clergy man doing a similar routine about Senator Obama and not being lambasted all over the place. This was bad.

    Too far, eh? (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by Upstart Crow on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:16:32 AM EST
    Wait! Jeremiah Wright's new book is coming out in the fall.

    And I think he will remember exactly what Obama said and when he said it.


    If anyone has the galleys for this book (none / 0) (#125)
    by blogtopus on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:29:42 AM EST
    Send it to the DNC YESTERDAY.

    Some part of me thinks that Cheetopia will start pointing fingers at the Clinton Campaign for releasing this, as opposed to actually addressing the issue here.


    That was revolting (4.60 / 10) (#17)
    by vcmvo2 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:58:38 AM EST
    It was quite bad even before he brought Hillary into his heavy breathing sermon! Just disturbing!

    can't bring myself to watch (none / 0) (#5)
    by ccpup on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:52:07 AM EST
    could someone give me a quick crib-notes version of what's being said at Trinity now?

    I can't listen to streaming-anything (none / 0) (#14)
    by katiebird on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:56:34 AM EST
    right now.  So I agree -- a summary would be great.

    When white people say that it wasn't (5.00 / 6) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:01:49 AM EST
    them that participated in slavery they are copping out of their own personal responsibility.  White people must give up the benefits they have because of what their ancestors did in order to settle the debts.  I hope you won't be too crestfallen, but he says you must give up your trustfund!  As soon as I find mine I'm giving it up ;)  Also,  when Hillary cried on the campaign trail it was because she was entitled to the nomination.  She was Bill's wife and she was white and then Barack Obama showed up and started taking it away from her. She felt she was entitled to it so she got tears in her eyes.

    nice (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by ccpup on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:08:42 AM EST
    thanks, Militarytracy.

    Yeah, I'm sure the SDs are gonna LOVE this!  Nothing better for bringing over Latinos, Women, Older Voters and Democrats than some good ol' fashioned Hate and Stupidity.

    The Media may not follow this, but rest assured that those SDs who are already nervous about an Obama candidacy -- in the light of post-faint-and-swoon February -- will be VERY aware of this and what the Republicans will do with it ... and the million other gaffes and unfortunately footage Barack and Trinity have provided for them.



    The other part (5.00 / 6) (#57)
    by janarchy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:11:24 AM EST
    was that it was a Black Man who made her cry because Hillary thought "A black man is stealing my show!"

    It was more racial division -- and from a white Catholic priest nonetheless.


    well if there's one thing white Catholic (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by lilburro on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:15:17 AM EST
    priests are good at, it's hating women.  What a joke.

    Ouch! (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:22:05 AM EST
    You are bringing back memories of my Catholic marriage counseling.  I flunked ;o)  I flunked so badly we didn't even get married but boy howdy was there sure one red faced yelling crazy things with spittle flying priest gawking at me through hysteria.  Yowza!  All I said was that I couldn't sign that paper that said I was raising my children Catholic even though I wasn't one.  I think people have to follow their own spiritual paths.  I was 23 and I didn't know whether I needed to be frightened or just bust out laughing.

    Okay, I left out some of the racial divisiveness (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:18:30 AM EST
    I can't help it, it is personal flaw I have.  I ignore most racial acting out around me and focus on their justifications for it.  Acting out to me is acting out.......even when I'm the one doing it.  We are all human, but acting out is our four year old selves.  I view his racist bullhonk as his four year old self and I like to address him with my 43 yr old self if I can manage it ;)

    Normally, I'd overlook it too (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by janarchy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:31:28 AM EST
    But I am so tired of hearing about Unity and how post-racial Obama and his associates are. This just once again shows their hypocrisy. I can't overlook people acting like 4 yr olds, especially when they've been strutting around pointing fingers and reminding everyone just how mature they are as compared to everyone else.

    If this is what post-racial America looks and sounds like, I guess they're all right. I am a racist. (Actually I'm vehemently against intolerance from anyone about anyone and I take this crap as the worst kind)


    it was catholic priests in s america (5.00 / 5) (#90)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:19:15 AM EST
    who first led the way with liberation theology. cone then manipulated it for his own purposes into what we see today. if someone wants to worship in that church in that manner, i say fine, have at it. but if a member actually thinks they want to lead the whole nation and supports this for 20 years, i say no thanks.

    I belonged to a liberation theology church (5.00 / 1) (#215)
    by befuddled on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:56:06 AM EST
    in the US, a mission church during the El Salvador war. They were for ending the war, aiding the dislocated, promoting democratic elections, feeding the hungry and housing the homeless, basic human rights. My church wasn't Catholic but we were tight with some and had a resident nun social worker. It was the total opposite of this "liberation" theology. And we were very conscious and careful of the IRS, especially after the FBI infiltrated and bugged us. That TUCC seems to be flying free bothers me.

    And what about Obama (5.00 / 1) (#264)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:24:43 AM EST
    Does he only have to give up HALF of his trust fund?

    Thanks Tracy (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by katiebird on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:11:58 AM EST
    I continue to believe that this will be a very interesting summer.  I think we'll be hearing about a lot of people who have nothing to do with Obama.

    Well, I have a trust fund and I can (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:21:25 AM EST
    prove it had nothing to do with slavery. The family money was made after the Civil War. Of course, one of my cousins did order the cannons to fire on Ft. Sumpter, so I guess I am responsible for starting the Civil War. Oh well.

    Father Pfleger should look into the Church's past..his own Church. They not only practiced slavery, they had the Inquisition which was as cruel as any slavery. The Coptic Christians, an original Catholic sect in Africa, had a great deal with the local Muslims. It is against Muslim law to castrate someone, so they had the Coptics do it for them when they needed a eunuch slave. In exchange, the Coptics were permitted to practice their religion and maintain a monastery. The Coptic monastery where this was done is still in existence and occupied by Coptic monks.

    If Father Pfleger is going to bring up the past to flog the average American with, he should look into the past of the Church of which he is a member. It is not a pretty one, and replete with hideous crimes against humanity.

    And if he thinks that people are going to vote for Obama because of guilt over slavery, he doesn't know much about people.


    Don't go there. (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Fabian on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:30:00 AM EST
    As the oldest, continuous political power, The RCC has done everything that any political power has ever done - lied, stolen, killed, tortured, incited wars, so on and so forth.   Politics is ugly, no matter who is playing the game - sinners or "saints".

    I know, that is why I said (none / 0) (#175)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:44:06 AM EST
    he shouldn't accuse others of the same thing. And I was raised Catholic, and am a history buff. I found out about the Inquisition when I was 12. And as I delved more into history, and the Catholic dogma, I didn't like what I found. So when I left the Church it was for good and tangible reasons, including their treatment of women, and the idea that as long as you go to confession every week, you can do whatever you like. My grandfather, a Methodist by upbringing and Episcopalian by marriage, used to recite a little rhyme to me. Goes like this...

    Old John Jones was a very good man,
    He went to church each Sunday.
    And when he died, he went to Hell
    For what he did on Monday.

    I have always remembered that rhyme. It is an excellent argument for behaving oneself all week. Heh.


    C'mon (none / 0) (#223)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:01:21 AM EST
    and the idea that as long as you go to confession every week, you can do whatever you like.

    OT - that's not true.  You go to confession, you are supposed to be truly sorry and promise not to do it again. At least, that's what you are taught. Now, what is practiced may be a different manne.


    Yes, it is what you are taught, (none / 0) (#252)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:15:58 AM EST
    but not what is practiced by many Catholics. The born-again Christians have the same thing in their "Jesus saved me, so I am cool no matter what I do". And I have heard that stated in those words on several occasions by born-agains. I used to sit in church and look across and see a man I knew to be an adulterer get communion every Sunday. He was sleeping with one of my neighbors every Tues. and Wed. afternoon. I had personal knowledge of this due to an errand I was sent on by my mother. But since he went to confession on Sat. he could take communion on Sunday. I asked a priest about that in confession, and got the answer that God forgives if you confess and ask for forgiveness. No mention of not doing it anymore. That didn't seem right to me and it was my first disillusionment with the Church. Many more followed. So preaching and practice differ in all religions. The Catholic Church just has it down to a science due to centuries of practice.

    My ancestors definitely had nothing to do (5.00 / 0) (#114)
    by felizarte on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:26:57 AM EST
    with slavery!  And no one alive can put that guilt on me.  What a priest! Did he design his sermon for the audience?

    More like she went "Wah,Wah,Wah!" (none / 0) (#101)
    by Joan in VA on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:22:01 AM EST
    Started out (none / 0) (#8)
    by Lahdee on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:52:53 AM EST
    as a bad James Cagney impression and got worse from there.
    Don't think there any question that Father Mike believes payback is a MF.

    if its on youtube (none / 0) (#19)
    by Edgar08 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:00:33 AM EST
    can someone post the link.

    here (none / 0) (#51)
    by jes on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:10:42 AM EST
    USA great! (none / 0) (#40)
    by abiodun on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:07:23 AM EST
    So a "white" catholic priest does a tango, and Obama is responsible?

    he supported it for 20 years and claims (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by hellothere on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:20:25 AM EST
    this guy as an advisor, daxx straight he does and is.

    It does sound like (none / 0) (#55)
    by Lil on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:11:02 AM EST
    he is a surrogate for Obama, according to what I read.

    Excuse me (none / 0) (#85)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:17:50 AM EST
    I wrote EXPRESSLY Obama is NOT responsible.

    Stop lying about what I wrote.

    Indeed, you are suspended.

    comment no further.


    Hmmm.... (none / 0) (#61)
    by mike in dc on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:12:00 AM EST
    ...criticizing the sense of entitlement many white people feel, and ridiculing their lame "don't hold me responsible for what my ancestors did" by pointing out that they are still the beneficiaries of it?

    Not offensive to me.  It is provocative, but it's also a very legitimate critique of that point of view.

    Mocking Clinton's tears and suggesting she was crying out of her sense of entitlement?

    Borderline offensive to me.  I wouldn't leave my church over it, but I might let the guy know it was a little offensive to me.

    (I'd also point out that these were snippets of a much longer sermon, which means the video editor selected what they felt were the most controversial or offensive comments in the whole thing.  Similar to the "G D America" sermon, which it turns out is considerably less offensive when viewed in its entirety.)

    Selective video (5.00 / 0) (#79)
    by pie on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:16:16 AM EST
    is exactly what the republicans will use.  

    Ugh. He's going to be toast.


    Context? (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:16:32 AM EST
    Are you freaking arguing context?



    Yes... (none / 0) (#106)
    by mike in dc on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:23:52 AM EST
    ...with respect to the first portion of the video.  I don't find it particularly offensive for him to point out an "inconvenient truth" (many whites who distance themselves from the acts of their ancestors are nonetheless still the beneficiaries of those acts).  

    The Hillary comments, as I said, were borderline offensive, and should Obama be asked about them, he should condemn them.

    Is it to be the case that any criticism of white culture should be interpreted as "hate speech"?
    I find that canard offensive, actually.

    By the way, I noticed that Larry Johnson's blog posted this late last night.  Taylor Marsh has not, and I haven't seen it elsewhere.
    Where did you get it from originally?


    Look over there! (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by pie on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:28:28 AM EST
    This is getting funny.

    What is the point of your question? (none / 0) (#137)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:31:38 AM EST
    What if I were to tell you my personal friend Hillary Clinton sent it to me? What would that mean to you?

    [this is not what happened, but I want to here Mike  play the game he is about to play]


    Answer my question... (none / 0) (#144)
    by mike in dc on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:34:23 AM EST
    ...and I'll tell you what it means to me.

    BTD's secret source is (none / 0) (#155)
    by eric on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:38:23 AM EST

    It's not front-paged on YouTube... (none / 0) (#176)
    by mike in dc on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:44:49 AM EST
    ...and would require a deliberate search in order to find it.

    However, there is ONE particular blog where it's prominently posted.


    Soi ask enm straight out (none / 0) (#191)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:48:53 AM EST
    Did I see this at No Quarter. The answer is no.

    I DO believe it is likely that the person who sent it to me MAY have seen it at No Quarter. I have no way of knowing.

    Ok, now answer my question, what is the point of YOUR QUESTION?

    What if  I found it at Daily Kos? Would that make it different for you?


    For what its worth (none / 0) (#213)
    by eric on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:55:37 AM EST
    the only deliberate search that is needed is "Barack Obama United Church Christ".  Came up first for me.

    You first (none / 0) (#161)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:39:44 AM EST
    Tell me why it matters to you how I got the video.

    I just want to know... (none / 0) (#168)
    by mike in dc on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:40:57 AM EST
    ...if you're a frequent visitor of Larry's blog, that's all.  

    No (none / 0) (#182)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:47:02 AM EST
    I almost never visit it. I did not see the video at No Quarter.

    Fine. (none / 0) (#210)
    by mike in dc on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:52:32 AM EST
    I'm wondering where you saw it then, because I haven't seen it posted(yet) on any major RW blog, either.  

    Just Larry's blog.

    Yes, it can be found on YouTube, but that's a heavily edited/clipped version of the sermon, and for all I know, Larry posted it on YT.

    Doesn't matter, I guess.  But I wonder why this was thread-worthy.  Pfleger isn't Obama's pastor and has no official relationship with his campaign, as far as I'm aware of.


    Answer his question (none / 0) (#166)
    by blogtopus on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:40:32 AM EST
    and he'll tell you why your answer has nothing to do with his question. Rinse, Repeat.

    On Rev. Wright, didn't Obama say that (none / 0) (#248)
    by zfran on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:14:35 AM EST
    he is from another generation who still feels as they did back then? If so, then this guy is preaching the same kind of "hate" and the young looking parishoners are jumping for joy. How is that not passing it down through the generations, oh except he wasn't affected at all.

    It's a lousy critique. (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by Fabian on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:19:47 AM EST
    What holds most people back or moves them up isn't whether their particular ancestors were slave, free, or slave owners.  

    And if you are going to criticize people for their "entitlement" then Obama is one of the entitled with his well educated parents and grandparents and comfortable life and top notch education.  Obama is no child of ghettos.

    Ironic, no?


    I would like someone who knows (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:34:16 AM EST
    how to find the addresses that Obama lived at and post pictures of the homes he grew up in. And juxtapose them with the claims he has made. Like the "my mother was on food stamps" claim that sounds like he was too. Show the house on Mercer Island where he was living with his grandparents while his mother got her graduate degree, which is when she was on food stamps. Show the house he lived in in Indonesia, the one owned by his step-father, the oil company executive. If these things were properly brought to the public's attention, they would see that Obama's claims of a poverty-stricken childhood are totally false.

    And don't forget the condo in Chicago that was a mile from the unheated, un-repaired slums his friend Rezko put up. Contrast those two places to live and point out that he didn't bother to walk the mile down the road to see how they were living. But he had the time to work on Rezko's defense when Obama's constituents sued him to get heat and repairs. Obama is a phony, and people should know about his lies about a past that doesn't exist, and how he treats the people he is supposed to represent and look out for.


    In Indonesia (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Fabian on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:40:47 AM EST
    even the middle class have servants.  It's highly likely that his family did as well while he was living there.

    It's more a statement of a huge income disparity than anything else that domestic help is so pathetically underpaid that even middle class families can afford them.


    I know..My dad was a diplomat.. (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:47:28 AM EST
    and we always had 8-10 servants when we were stationed in Asia. But middle class isn't the poor background, complete with street urchins, that Obama has claimed for himself.

    you left out the most offensive part.... (5.00 / 4) (#138)
    by p lukasiak on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:31:53 AM EST
    it wasn't a sense of general entitlement that was the problem...

    He described Clinton as feeling entitled to it by virtue of being White -- and that here tears were because what she was entitled to because she was white was being "stolen by a black man."

    I have no problem with 'reparations' and 'responsibility' talk.  And talk about Clinton's sense of 'entitlement' is just garden-variety Hillary-hate.

    Where this crossed the line was in its presentation of Clinton as thinking she was entitled because she sees the presidency as a "white entitlement"


    You may not have a (5.00 / 1) (#238)
    by frankly0 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:08:25 AM EST
    problem with reparations talk, but I guarantee you that it is political poison.

    Let Obama come out and defend this talk, and explain it away as "context".

    My guess is that the issue of reparations is going to become an absolutely major topic by the Republicans if Obama becomes the nominee. His church, and possibly his wife, seem to be very much into that concept.


    The part about Hillary is what's offensive (5.00 / 4) (#154)
    by Joan in VA on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:38:03 AM EST
    and sexist and untrue. This continual crying meme because she teared up once talking about her country is sexist. Trying to paint her as a crybaby is dishonest. Using the black man to make the white woman cry is racist and unacceptable. It's amazing that you find it "borderline".

    "borderline"... (none / 0) (#163)
    by mike in dc on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:40:09 AM EST
    ...in terms of "would this make me leave that church?", yes.  I do find it offensive.  In this instance it's simply insulting and presumptuous(to suggest that she was crying out of a sense of entitlement), but not necessarily sexist (or at least, that's not really the thrust of the remarks).

    Okay. I guess you don't see sexism (5.00 / 1) (#266)
    by Joan in VA on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:29:36 AM EST
    because you're a guy. Fair enough. I see it because it has been a theme for months and especially from black men(this guy seems to identify as one). JJJr., Doug Wilder, etc. have used cying as a way to minimize her. It doesn't have to be the thrust of the remarks to still be insidious. It is just wrong but you are not alone in not noticing it. It's still an acceptable "ism" in our society.

    Sickening! (none / 0) (#67)
    by felizarte on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:13:11 AM EST
    Venom for the whites and Hillary as a representative of the race. I can never understand how someone who profess to be Christian can think and express these these notions and for people to applaud?!

    Is this on You Tube? If so link please (none / 0) (#140)
    by Saul on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:32:32 AM EST

    Just click on the video (none / 0) (#150)
    by andgarden on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:35:53 AM EST
    That always works w/youtube embeds.

    Liberation Theology as I know it (none / 0) (#194)
    by Stellaaa on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:49:28 AM EST
    So, ok this vile stuff has been Liberation Theology which I find rather a stretch.  I worked and work with this man.  This man is a Franciscan and he and his brothers and sisters work in the front lines every day.  

    HIs work is not just overseas, he works here in America as well with the homeless and the poor.  

    This is Liberation Theology.  His masses are filled with love, tenderness and compassion.  

    Probably (none / 0) (#195)
    by takxdp on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:49:29 AM EST
    the Obama campaign will not be happy about this video and will try to suppress it - or make it disappear. They are trying to get a new base, this church was his old base.

    but that's BTD's point... (none / 0) (#211)
    by Truth Partisan on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:54:34 AM EST
    I believe--this kind of ranting is NOT going on in "most" churches.
    The most evangelical church I know did sometimes have somewhat animated sermons--but they were about YOU the person attending the church being better and searching YOUR soul to do right and be better to others.

    The best thing Obama said (none / 0) (#249)
    by Upstart Crow on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:14:36 AM EST
    I wasn't bowled over by BHO's great race speech, and I didn't think it was another Gettysburg address, but one of the smart things he did say in it is that a lot of white folks are struggling, and don't feel their race has garnered any privileges for them.

    That's his response to this joker.

    Don't let (none / 0) (#256)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:17:09 AM EST
    William Donohoe of the Catholic League (a wacky, IMO, conservative on TV all the time) get a hold of this.

    Hoo boy!

    What's also interesting... (5.00 / 0) (#259)
    by cmugirl on Thu May 29, 2008 at 10:19:20 AM EST
    Is many of the fiercest MSM Obama-supporters are Catholic (Chris Matthews, Maureen Dowd, Tim Russert).

    Of course, I believe Hannity and Scarborough are also Catholic.

    Can't wait for the fireworks!


    I repeat, out loud this has nothing to do (none / 0) (#271)
    by votus on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:26:35 AM EST
    with Obama, yet we know it has everything to do with Obama, being one of his non lobby lobbies. Trinity may tip its hat to Silicon Valley for raising up Obama, as the spotlight broadens to include.  Here are just members of the "movement" enjoying their moment of ownership.

    Foundry Church, 17th st, nw wash dc (none / 0) (#272)
    by andrelee on Thu May 29, 2008 at 11:27:35 AM EST
    is the church President Clinton was a member of and went to when he was in the White House. Whenever he went, 17th st from q st to p st was closed. If BO is the president of the United States of America and is a member of UCC will he be attending services there? That is the question, among others, which will make tons of people uncomfortable with the idea of OB as  their Pres. , while he is also a member of and supporter of this church. Who thinks that is not an issue? The Pres. of the US... in the audience ...listening to these sermons...nodding his head. As we say in the hood, '(blank), please'!!!! They will certainly be reunited with Rev. Wright under the bus in no time flat.

    I"m going to check out Intrade, and (none / 0) (#274)
    by MarkL on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:51:35 PM EST
    then I'm going to Orangistan, where I'll read the CORRECT interpretation of Pfleger's remarks.
    Prepared to be re-educated when I return.

    I suspect the good father... (none / 0) (#277)
    by Susie from Philly on Thu May 29, 2008 at 07:19:11 PM EST
    might be part of Axlerod's "astroturf" consultancy.

    Axlerod was retained to smack down community opposition to the Chicago Children's Museum and guess who showed up accusing opponents of racism? You guessed it:


    Axelrod's ASK is the politically-connected muscle behind the CCM's campaign. You can see the Astroturf under its fingernails in the hijacking of a community meeting on the proposal last year where museum supporters, of whom few, if any, appeared to be from the community, filled up the auditorium and forced the actual residents, overwhelmingly opposed to the CCM's plan, into side hallways. The gutter politics continued with Father Michael Pfleger who, based on an encounter with a single person attending the meeting, began echoing the canned message refrain that museum opponents were acting out of racist motives. Astroturf, in abundance. Will Axelrod's operatives succeed in placing their Astroturf blindfolds over the eyes of Plan Commission members?

    It's not unheard of for professional astroturfers to have a few community leaders on the payroll. I guess the question is, how tightly are all these interests intertwined?

    Guess what! (none / 0) (#278)
    by Disco on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:21:54 PM EST
    This was Sean Hannity's leading story today, over the Scott McClellan book. And guess what? The segment ended with guests screaming "I don't want a racist black man for president!"
    Guess other people think this is tied to Obama, even if you don't.

    Conservative Comment (none / 0) (#279)
    by Steve2000 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 09:15:16 PM EST
    I am a conservative, i read the responses here and the story. I have to say, i have not been too pleased with my president the last 4 years, and I'm not thrilled with McCain as a nominee, however. I think Obamma is going to be the nominee for the dems, and if i were a dem, well lets just say that this affilliation with liberation theology is going to be a real dealbreaker with the folks that reside in the middle of the poloitcal spectrum. I had basically resigned myself to the fact that it would be a Dem president, givent the fact that my party really has done a awful job with spending and the war, but that said, i think that Obama may provide a window of hope for McCain that didnt exist several months ago.  It didnt help that Hill and Barry have been crushing each other for the last 3 months either..   How about running Sam Nunn for presidnet, i could vote for him.. hopefully my comments wont be considered trolling as i am really trying to be respectful of the opinons here.