PDA

View Full Version : Frank Shcaeffer weighs in on Obama


NewChief
03-17-2008, 08:39 AM
That's the son of Francis Schaeffer

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/obamas-minister-committe_b_91774.html?view=print

Obama's Minister Committed "Treason" But When My Father Said the Same Thing He Was a Republican Hero
Posted March 16, 2008 | 04:23 PM (EST)
Read More: Barack Obama Jeremiah Wright, Francis Schaeffer, Jeremiah Wright, Obama Church, Obama Church Faith, Obama Faith, Obama Jeremiah Wright, Obama Pastor, Obama's Pastor, Breaking Politics News


Buzz up!

When Senator Obama's preacher thundered about racism and injustice Obama suffered smear-by-association. But when my late father -- Religious Right leader Francis Schaeffer -- denounced America and even called for the violent overthrow of the US government, he was invited to lunch with presidents Ford, Reagan and Bush, Sr.

Every Sunday thousands of right wing white preachers (following in my father's footsteps) rail against America's sins from tens of thousands of pulpits. They tell us that America is complicit in the "murder of the unborn," has become "Sodom" by coddling gays, and that our public schools are sinful places full of evolutionists and sex educators hell-bent on corrupting children. They say, as my dad often did, that we are, "under the judgment of God." They call America evil and warn of immanent destruction. By comparison Obama's minister's shouted "controversial" comments were mild. All he said was that God should damn America for our racism and violence and that no one had ever used the N-word about Hillary Clinton.

Dad and I were amongst the founders of the Religious right. In the 1970s and 1980s, while Dad and I crisscrossed America denouncing our nation's sins instead of getting in trouble we became darlings of the Republican Party. (This was while I was my father's sidekick before I dropped out of the evangelical movement altogether.) We were rewarded for our "stand" by people such as Congressman Jack Kemp, the Fords, Reagan and the Bush family. The top Republican leadership depended on preachers and agitators like us to energize their rank and file. No one called us un-American.

Consider a few passages from my father's immensely influential America-bashing book A Christian Manifesto. It sailed under the radar of the major media who, back when it was published in 1980, were not paying particular attention to best-selling religious books. Nevertheless it sold more than a million copies.

Here's Dad writing in his chapter on civil disobedience:

If there is a legitimate reason for the use of force [against the US government]... then at a certain point force is justifiable.


And this:

In the United States the materialistic, humanistic world view is being taught exclusively in most state schools... There is an obvious parallel between this and the situation in Russia [the USSR]. And we really must not be blind to the fact that indeed in the public schools in the United States all religious influence is as forcibly forbidden as in the Soviet Union....
Then this:

There does come a time when force, even physical force, is appropriate... A true Christian in Hitler's Germany and in the occupied countries should have defied the false and counterfeit state. This brings us to a current issue that is crucial for the future of the church in the United States, the issue of abortion... It is time we consciously realize that when any office commands what is contrary to God's law it abrogates it's authority. And our loyalty to the God who gave this law then requires that we make the appropriate response in that situation...
Was any conservative political leader associated with Dad running for cover? Far from it. Dad was a frequent guest of the Kemps, had lunch with the Fords, stayed in the White House as their guest, he met with Reagan, helped Dr. C. Everett Koop become Surgeon General. (I went on the 700 Club several times to generate support for Koop).

Dad became a hero to the evangelical community and a leading political instigator. When Dad died in 1984 everyone from Reagan to Kemp to Billy Graham lamented his passing publicly as the loss of a great American. Not one Republican leader was ever asked to denounce my dad or distanced himself from Dad's statements.

Take Dad's words and put them in the mouth of Obama's preacher (or in the mouth of any black American preacher) and people would be accusing that preacher of treason. Yet when we of the white Religious Right denounced America white conservative Americans and top political leaders, called our words "godly" and "prophetic" and a "call to repentance."

We Republican agitators of the mid 1970s to the late 1980s were genuinely anti-American in the same spirit that later Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson (both followers of my father) were anti-American when they said God had removed his blessing from America on 9/11, because America accepted gays. Falwell and Robertson recanted but we never did.

My dad's books denouncing America and comparing the USA to Hitler are still best sellers in the "respectable" evangelical community and he's still hailed as a prophet by many Republican leaders. When Mike Huckabee was recently asked by Katie Couric to name one book he'd take with him to a desert island, besides the Bible, he named Dad's Whatever Happened to the Human Race? a book where Dad also compared America to Hitler's Germany.

The hypocrisy of the right denouncing Obama, because of his minister's words, is staggering. They are the same people who argue for the right to "bear arms" as "insurance" to limit government power. They are the same people that (in the early 1980s roared and cheered when I called down damnation on America as "fallen away from God" at their national meetings where I was keynote speaker, including the annual meeting of the ultraconservative Southern Baptist convention, and the religious broadcasters that I addressed.

Today we have a marriage of convenience between the right wing fundamentalists who hate Obama, and the "progressive" Clintons who are playing the race card through their own smear machine. As Jane Smiley writes in the Huffington Post "[The Clinton's] are, indeed, now part of the 'vast right wing conspiracy.' (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/im-already-against-the-n_b_90628.html )

Both the far right Republicans and the stop-at-nothing Clintons are using the "scandal" of Obama's preacher to undermine the first black American candidate with a serious shot at the presidency. Funny thing is, the racist Clinton/Far Right smear machine proves that Obama's minister had a valid point. There is plenty to yell about these days.

Frank Schaeffer is a writer and author of "CRAZY FOR GOD-How I Grew Up As One Of The Elect, Helped Found The Religious Right, And Lived To Take All (Or Almost All) Of It Back

dirk digler
03-17-2008, 09:32 AM
Yep I read this story yesterday and considered posting it. This has been going on for 30 years yet no denouncing or rejecting from anyone on the right so I guess this means they believe the US is like Hitler. :)

Messier
03-17-2008, 09:39 AM
That's really good. It bothers me that this story is growing when it should be dying down. I can see it already turning into, "Obama must hate white people!" kind of stuff. Just like the, Obama is a Muslim stuff. Obama has done everything I would hope and expect him to in regards to this story.

patteeu
03-17-2008, 10:45 AM
Yep I read this story yesterday and considered posting it. This has been going on for 30 years yet no denouncing or rejecting from anyone on the right so I guess this means they believe the US is like Hitler. :)

Which one of those presidents spent 20 years in the pews of the Shcaeffer church? How many of the current Obama supporters have been outraged by conservative ministers who have talked like this only to grow silent now that their candidate has a 20 year, intimate relationship with one? If there is hypocrisy here, it lies on both sides of the partisan divide and it lies much more heavily on the Obamists, IMO.

NewChief
03-17-2008, 11:00 AM
Which one of those presidents spent 20 years in the pews of the Shcaeffer church? How many of the current Obama supporters have been outraged by conservative ministers who have talked like this only to grow silent now that their candidate has a 20 year, intimate relationship with one? If there is hypocrisy here, it lies on both sides of the partisan divide and it lies much more heavily on the Obamists, IMO.

Francis Schaeffer is one of the leading and most influential theologians of this century. I've actually lived and studied at one of his L'Abri study centers. The guy was amazing.

BucEyedPea
03-17-2008, 11:03 AM
Which one of those presidents spent 20 years in the pews of the Shcaeffer church? How many of the current Obama supporters have been outraged by conservative ministers who have talked like this only to grow silent now that their candidate has a 20 year, intimate relationship with one? If there is hypocrisy here, it lies on both sides of the partisan divide and it lies much more heavily on the Obamists, IMO.

Didn't Obama say it was the early 90's (iirc 90 or 92) that he began attending this church? That's what I saw him say on FOX last week. That's less than 20 years. He did claim to have met the man earlier.

patteeu
03-17-2008, 11:12 AM
Francis Schaeffer is one of the leading and most influential theologians of this century. I've actually lived and studied at one of his L'Abri study centers. The guy was amazing.

I'm an evangelical illiterate. I've never heard of him. I even copied your typo in the title because I didn't know any better until this post where you typed his name and I went back and checked the article.

dirk digler
03-17-2008, 12:25 PM
Which one of those presidents spent 20 years in the pews of the Shcaeffer church? How many of the current Obama supporters have been outraged by conservative ministers who have talked like this only to grow silent now that their candidate has a 20 year, intimate relationship with one? If there is hypocrisy here, it lies on both sides of the partisan divide and it lies much more heavily on the Obamists, IMO.

It appears all the right wing presidents did and they bought all his books and said how great he was. Damn even his own son even says this.

I am not outraged at all because I am not overly religious so I really don't care what any minister or preacher says because IMHO they are all pretty much hypocrites.

patteeu
03-17-2008, 02:48 PM
It appears all the right wing presidents did and they bought all his books and said how great he was. Damn even his own son even says this.

I am not outraged at all because I am not overly religious so I really don't care what any minister or preacher says because IMHO they are all pretty much hypocrites.

His son doesn't say anything of the sort.

dirk digler
03-17-2008, 02:54 PM
His son doesn't say anything of the sort.

Really?


We were rewarded for our "stand" by people such as Congressman Jack Kemp, the Fords, Reagan and the Bush family

Dad was a frequent guest of the Kemps, had lunch with the Fords, stayed in the White House as their guest, he met with Reagan, helped Dr. C. Everett Koop become Surgeon General. (I went on the 700 Club several times to generate support for Koop).

Dad became a hero to the evangelical community and a leading political instigator. When Dad died in 1984 everyone from Reagan to Kemp to Billy Graham lamented his passing publicly as the loss of a great American. Not one Republican leader was ever asked to denounce my dad or distanced himself from Dad's statements.

HolmeZz
03-17-2008, 03:02 PM
You're only allowed to celebrate hate-spewing nutjobs if you didn't know them previously.

And that totally makes so much sense.

patteeu
03-17-2008, 03:44 PM
Really?

Yeah, really. How does what you quote come anywhere close to being a 20 year member of the guy's church, choosing him to marry you, asking him to baptize your kids, naming your best-selling book after one of his sermons and dedicating it to him, and considering him family?

dirk digler
03-17-2008, 03:58 PM
Yeah, really. How does what you quote come anywhere close to being a 20 year member of the guy's church, choosing him to marry you, asking him to baptize your kids, naming your best-selling book after one of his sermons and dedicating it to him, and considering him family?

My point is pat that just because this guy spends time at their houses, stays in the White House, is acknowledged as a American hero doesn't mean that I think Reagan, the Bushes, or Jack Kemp think America is like Hitler. This guy's father had a 30-year personal relationship with the most influential conservatives in the country.

But you somehow equate having a personal relationship with someone automatically means that they have the exact same views.

Pitt Gorilla
03-17-2008, 04:05 PM
How many of the current Obama supporters have been outraged by conservative ministers who have talked like this only to grow silent now that their candidate has a 20 year, intimate relationship with one? If there is hypocrisy here, it lies on both sides of the partisan divide and it lies much more heavily on the Obamists, IMO.13. Oh, and why does it lie "much more heavily" on the OBamists?

patteeu
03-17-2008, 04:22 PM
My point is pat that just because this guy spends time at their houses, stays in the White House, is acknowledged as a American hero doesn't mean that I think Reagan, the Bushes, or Jack Kemp think America is like Hitler. This guy's father had a 30-year personal relationship with the most influential conservatives in the country.

But you somehow equate having a personal relationship with someone automatically means that they have the exact same views.

No, I think Obama is a duplicitous panderer who tells people what he thinks they want to hear. I think his church membership is first and foremost a political play to establish himself in his community and maintain his viability. Now, when his association with the church is becoming something of a double-edged sword, he's trying to find a way to distance himself from the controversy without being forced to disavow the church altogether because that would hurt him with the black demographic. IOW, he may or may not have believed in the church's separatist message (his wife sounds like she does though), but there's no reason for us to believe anything about his damage control measures now.

His personal relationship makes his damage control ring hollow.

HolmeZz
03-17-2008, 04:26 PM
No, I think Obama is a duplicitous panderer who tells people what he thinks they want to hear.

So you're saying he's got your vote?

http://www.ibabuzz.com/politics/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/romney.jpg

patteeu
03-17-2008, 04:29 PM
13. Oh, and why does it lie "much more heavily" on the OBamists?

13?

Because those defending Obama's intimate relationship with his spiritual leader are, in many cases, the same people who have criticized more casual relationships between conservative politicians (like GWB) and controversial religious figures (Bob Jones University founder, whoever he is). Surely you can agree that some people would distinguish between the two cases on the basis of the degree of relationship and that no one would say it's worse to have a casual relationship with controversy than an intimate one.

patteeu
03-17-2008, 04:31 PM
So you're saying he's got your vote?

Haha. You misunderstand Mitt Romney. I guess that's not uncommon. If fewer people had misunderstood him, maybe he would have won the nomination that should have been his. He'll have to work on that if he wants to run again after McCain leaves office.

HolmeZz
03-17-2008, 04:34 PM
Haha. You misunderstand Mitt Romney. I guess that's not uncommon..

If you 'understood' Mitt Romney, why did it take you so long to get behind him?

patteeu
03-17-2008, 05:00 PM
If you 'understood' Mitt Romney, why did it take you so long to get behind him?

Was there some kind of hurry? I did my homework. No reason to rush into an endorsement before the first votes are being cast. Don't get me wrong though. Romney wasn't the perfect candidate, he was just the best one in the race.

Pitt Gorilla
03-17-2008, 05:07 PM
13?

Because those defending Obama's intimate relationship with his spiritual leader are, in many cases, the same people who have criticized more casual relationships between conservative politicians (like GWB) and controversial religious figures (Bob Jones University founder, whoever he is). Surely you can agree that some people would distinguish between the two cases on the basis of the degree of relationship and that no one would say it's worse to have a casual relationship with controversy than an intimate one.Do you have evidence to support that, in many cases, these are the same people? I think that would be helpful.

patteeu
03-17-2008, 05:21 PM
Do you have evidence to support that, in many cases, these are the same people? I think that would be helpful.

:rolleyes:

If you don't criticize conservatives for their associations with controversial evangelical preachers you don't have to worry about being in the target demographic. If you want to see examples of people who fall into that demographic, I'm sure you could find a few by searching the ChiefsPlanet DC forum for posts about Falwell/Robertson and Bush/McCain. If you really need evidence, you haven't been very observant.

Pitt Gorilla
03-17-2008, 10:44 PM
:rolleyes:

If you don't criticize conservatives for their associations with controversial evangelical preachers you don't have to worry about being in the target demographic. If you want to see examples of people who fall into that demographic, I'm sure you could find a few by searching the ChiefsPlanet DC forum for posts about Falwell/Robertson and Bush/McCain. If you really need evidence, you haven't been very observant.I'm sorry, I thought you said "many cases." Surely, you could provide at least 10 (although that still wouldn't be "many," considering the thousands of supporters that he has, it would be enough from this board, if that was your intent.)

Perhaps my mistake was in thinking that you could support your claim.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-17-2008, 11:05 PM
patteeu,

How can you even take yourself seriously?

At what point does the switch for blind partisan shilling turn off and critical thinking turn on?

Logical
03-17-2008, 11:22 PM
No, I think Obama is a duplicitous panderer who tells people what he thinks they want to hear. I think his church membership is first and foremost a political play to establish himself in his community and maintain his viability. Now, when his association with the church is becoming something of a double-edged sword, he's trying to find a way to distance himself from the controversy without being forced to disavow the church altogether because that would hurt him with the black demographic. IOW, he may or may not have believed in the church's separatist message (his wife sounds like she does though), but there's no reason for us to believe anything about his damage control measures now.

His personal relationship makes his damage control ring hollow.

Whoa, and I was completely convinced you were voting for Obama before this happened. This is a pure disaster.

'Hamas' Jenkins
03-18-2008, 01:56 AM
I seriously think that patteeu has created a new form of military strategy through his argumentation the last month:

The Pyrrhic Defeat.

bigfoot
03-18-2008, 03:55 AM
That's the son of Francis Schaeffer

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/obamas-minister-committe_b_91774.html?view=print

Obama's Minister Committed "Treason" But When My Father Said the Same Thing He Was a Republican Hero
Posted March 16, 2008 | 04:23 PM (EST)
Read More: Barack Obama Jeremiah Wright, Francis Schaeffer, Jeremiah Wright, Obama Church, Obama Church Faith, Obama Faith, Obama Jeremiah Wright, Obama Pastor, Obama's Pastor, Breaking Politics News.......................................

man, what got into Frankie?

Anyway shame on those guys for befriending Francis Schaeffer. Shame on Barak for espousing Rev Wright's views, including holding in high esteem Louis Farrahkan.

Baby Lee
03-18-2008, 07:18 AM
When Senator Obama's preacher thundered about racism and injustice Obama suffered smear-by-association. But when my late father -- Religious Right leader Francis Schaeffer -- denounced America and even called for the violent overthrow of the US government, he was invited to lunch with presidents Ford, Reagan and Bush, Sr.

Every Sunday thousands of right wing white preachers (following in my father's footsteps) rail against America's sins from tens of thousands of pulpits. They tell us that America is complicit in the "murder of the unborn," has become "Sodom" by coddling gays, and that our public schools are sinful places full of evolutionists and sex educators hell-bent on corrupting children. They say, as my dad often did, that we are, "under the judgment of God." They call America evil and warn of immanent destruction. By comparison Obama's minister's shouted "controversial" comments were mild. All he said was that God should damn America for our racism and violence and that no one had ever used the N-word about Hillary Clinton.
It's one thing to denounce abortion. Whether you agree that a fetus is a life or not, there has to be a consensus that whatever it is actually is ended by a volitional act. There's not some conspiracy logic where doctors who perform a routine physical are supposedly performing abortions on the sly or something.
It's something altogether different to, as omitted by Junior, foment resentment on the back of nefarious and horrifying conspiracy theories.

patteeu
03-18-2008, 08:02 AM
I'm sorry, I thought you said "many cases." Surely, you could provide at least 10 (although that still wouldn't be "many," considering the thousands of supporters that he has, it would be enough from this board, if that was your intent.)

Perhaps my mistake was in thinking that you could support your claim.

Your mistake is in thinking you can make me dance to your tune. If you think I'm wrong about what I said, I don't care.

patteeu
03-18-2008, 08:03 AM
patteeu,

How can you even take yourself seriously?

At what point does the switch for blind partisan shilling turn off and critical thinking turn on?

Guide me, 'Hamas'. What am I missing here?

Taco John
03-18-2008, 10:47 AM
Was there some kind of hurry?


ROFL

Uh, yeah, there was "some kind" of hurry. You and your types waited so long before you finally resigned yourselves to supporting Romney that he was heading out of the race by the time you did it.

"Was there some kind of hurry!

That's good stuff right there.

patteeu
03-18-2008, 10:55 AM
ROFL

Uh, yeah, there was "some kind" of hurry. You and your types waited so long before you finally resigned yourselves to supporting Romney that he was heading out of the race by the time you did it.

"Was there some kind of hurry!

That's good stuff right there.

:spock: No votes had been cast when I endorsed Romney. He was the frontrunner in Iowa at that point and was polling strong in NH too. I don't think "my type" waited too long, although maybe many other conservatives did.

Oh, and at least my candidate was actually in the race at one point. :p

Pitt Gorilla
03-18-2008, 12:11 PM
Your mistake is in thinking you can make me dance to your tune. If you think I'm wrong about what I said, I don't care.Dance to my tune? :) pat, I just asked for a little evidence. I suppose I'm just used to evidence driving discussion, debate, and decision-making in my field; I shouldn't have expected the same from you and I apologize for requesting that you "dance to" my "tune."

patteeu
03-18-2008, 12:15 PM
Dance to my tune? :) pat, I just asked for a little evidence. I suppose I'm just used to evidence driving discussion, debate, and decision-making in my field; I shouldn't have expected the same from you and I apologize for requesting that you "dance to" my "tune."

Can you back that up with evidence? Proof that you're "used to evidence driving discussion, debate, and decision-making" in your field?

Pitt Gorilla
03-18-2008, 12:27 PM
Can you back that up with evidence? Proof that you're "used to evidence driving discussion, debate, and decision-making" in your field?Sure. In every paper that I've published, there is an extensive reference list grounding the perspective; statements are always supported in prior research and new data gleaned from the study.

In terms of programmatic direction, SOA data is always used to guide direction, along with other forms of assessment.

Anecdotal musings don't cut it in our field. As I previously noted, though, I shouldn't have expected you to support your statements here; that was my bad.

Carlota69
03-18-2008, 12:47 PM
Does anyone have info on Dubyas pastor? I heard he was radical, but I can't find any info. I found a few minsiters associated with Bush, but can't much of anything past that.

patteeu
03-18-2008, 01:50 PM
Sure. In every paper that I've published, there is an extensive reference list grounding the perspective; statements are always supported in prior research and new data gleaned from the study.

In terms of programmatic direction, SOA data is always used to guide direction, along with other forms of assessment.

Anecdotal musings don't cut it in our field. As I previously noted, though, I shouldn't have expected you to support your statements here; that was my bad.

I don't know anything about the papers that you've published and you seem to have left the link or any citations to examples off of this post. Why'd you even bother?

Besides, that would only prove that you are used to evidence-driven discussions in the most narrow of professional debates. What about all the other debates you surely participate in? Of course, if the back row sniping you do around here is any indication, perhaps you don't allow yourself to take a position on anything outside your professional work in real life. Maybe you just listen to others carry the discussion and pitch in with snide remarks that don't expose you to too much scrutiny in terms of factual assertions that could be challenged. :shrug:

Pitt Gorilla
03-18-2008, 02:35 PM
I don't know anything about the papers that you've published and you seem to have left the link or any citations to examples off of this post. Why'd you even bother?

Besides, that would only prove that you are used to evidence-driven discussions in the most narrow of professional debates. What about all the other debates you surely participate in? Of course, if the back row sniping you do around here is any indication, perhaps you don't allow yourself to take a position on anything outside your professional work in real life. Maybe you just listen to others carry the discussion and pitch in with snide remarks that don't expose you to too much scrutiny in terms of factual assertions that could be challenged. :shrug:Perhaps, but when I participate, I try to be informed. I've stated my "positions" several times on here. Following your own advice, I'd assume that you could find them if you really wanted to.

Radar Chief
03-18-2008, 02:43 PM
Perhaps, but when I participate, I try to be informed. I've stated my "positions" several times on here. Following your own advice, I'd assume that you could find them if you really wanted to.

You have? Only thing I’ve ever seen you do is bitch about others opinions. :shrug:

patteeu
03-18-2008, 03:19 PM
Perhaps, but when I participate, I try to be informed. I've stated my "positions" several times on here. Following your own advice, I'd assume that you could find them if you really wanted to.

Why would you follow my "advice" given your self-righteous statement about being "used to evidence driving discussion, debate, and decision-making"? So far in this entire thread you haven't backed up anything you've said. I'd call that hypocrisy.

Pitt Gorilla
03-18-2008, 04:44 PM
Why would you follow my "advice" given your self-righteous statement about being "used to evidence driving discussion, debate, and decision-making"? So far in this entire thread you haven't backed up anything you've said. I'd call that hypocrisy.I understand you wanting to sidetrack the discussion as far as possible, but I would like to step back to our original question, if only for a minute. You don't wish to provide evidence for your claim. Is that really because you don't want to "dance to my tune" or whatever or can you simply not back up the statement? Be honest, here.

Regarding my hypocrisy, you've lost me. If you'd like a copy of one of my articles, I'll gladly send you a copy. Shoot me your mailing address and I'll get you one. It may not be your cup of tea, but a couple of them are pretty good.

bigfoot
03-18-2008, 05:51 PM
http://www.catholicleague.org/catalyst.php?year=2007&month=July-August&read=2274

On June 3, Senator Barack Obama became the first contender for the U.S. presidency to launch a religious outreach website, faith.barackobama.com. On this website, Obama lists the testimonials of three controversial clergymen: Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., senior pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago; Rev. J. Alfred Smith Sr., senior pastor of Allen Temple Baptist Church in Oakland, California; and Rev. Michael Pfleger, a Roman Catholic Chicago priest.

On February 10, Rev. Wright was scheduled to give the invocation at the forum of Obama's presidential announcement, but the night before the event Obama rescinded the bid: the Illinois senator knew that his spiritual advisor was so divisive that he would cloud the ceremonies. The black liberation theologian has a record of giving racially inflammatory sermons and has even said that Zionism has an element of "white racism." He also blamed the attacks of 9/11 on American foreign policy.

Rev. Smith was honored by the notoriously violent Black Panther Party of Oakland in 1975, and in 1990 was given a community award by the Nation of Islam, an anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic and anti-gay group.

Rev. Pfleger has allowed Nation of Islam chief Louis Farrakhan to preach in his church; he has been arrested for defacing billboards; he has paid prostitutes to worship at his church; and in late May he staged an anti-gun rally in front of a gun store where he exhorted the crowd to hunt down the owner "like a rat" and "snuff" him.

While Obama is not responsible for the records of these three clergymen, he is responsible for giving them the opportunity to prominently display their testimonials on his religious outreach website. If Wright, Smith, and Pfleger are the kinds of clergymen Obama admires, perhaps it's best he shut down his faith outreach website and start all over again. It will take more than "God talk" to get Obama out of this jam.

(Some major editing of the website since this article surfaced-I'm sure Obama was unaware of any improprieties)

patteeu
03-18-2008, 07:07 PM
I understand you wanting to sidetrack the discussion as far as possible, but I would like to step back to our original question, if only for a minute. You don't wish to provide evidence for your claim. Is that really because you don't want to "dance to my tune" or whatever or can you simply not back up the statement? Be honest, here.

Regarding my hypocrisy, you've lost me. If you'd like a copy of one of my articles, I'll gladly send you a copy. Shoot me your mailing address and I'll get you one. It may not be your cup of tea, but a couple of them are pretty good.

I'll gladly answer your question right after you prove that you're really "used to evidence driving discussion, debate, and decision-making".

Pitt Gorilla
03-18-2008, 08:01 PM
I'll gladly answer your question right after you prove that you're really "used to evidence driving discussion, debate, and decision-making".I must have missed your address. Please post it again and I'll drop a copy of at least one article in the mail.

patteeu
03-18-2008, 09:01 PM
I must have missed your address. Please post it again and I'll drop a copy of at least one article in the mail.

:rolleyes:

I'll be watching for your next evidence based post. Don't keep me waiting forever.

Chieficus
03-18-2008, 10:34 PM
Francis Schaeffer is one of the leading and most influential theologians of this century. I've actually lived and studied at one of his L'Abri study centers. The guy was amazing.

Schaeffer's my favorite author and I have some of his work like "Death in the City" almost memorized by heart. It's been a while since I've read "Manifesto" and didn't pay as close attention to it as I did some of his other works, but I remember him discussing the things that Frankie brings up and I don't remember it being as harsh and damning in the overall context as Frankie tries to make it out to be in the "soundbite."

But that's part of the problem with our present culture: everything is a soundbite and instead of thinking in context we think in our own creations of context.

I only know enough about Wright to know that I have some major disagreements with points of his theology and practice as a pastor, let alone political issues; but itís impossible to bring a true judgment on his words without a broader context and itís certainly not proper to condemn Obama over his pastor's soundbites.

Yes, there was inflammatory rhetoric in the clips, but what's the broader picture of the man's views and life? The question in regards to Obama is in terms of what does he truly agree with and disagree with in terms of the rhetoric and its context.

And granted that I just saw soundbites while watching CNN earlier today, I was impressed with the clips I saw from Obama's race speech (assuming the entirety of it was similar, for context :) ). I'm still not going to vote for either him or Clinton, but I thought his speech did well to rise above the soundbite rhetoric of the day.

Logical
03-18-2008, 11:48 PM
Can you back that up with evidence? Proof that you're "used to evidence driving discussion, debate, and decision-making" in your field?
Since you don't want to give him your address will my word do? We once had a very serious discussion on a subject I have long since forgotten, but what stuck in my memory was all the references he provided. I was very impressed and I have had great respect for him ever since.

patteeu
03-19-2008, 08:39 AM
Since you don't want to give him your address will my word do? We once had a very serious discussion on a subject I have long since forgotten, but what stuck in my memory was all the references he provided. I was very impressed and I have had great respect for him ever since.

He said he's "used to evidence driving discussion, debate, and decision-making". You're describing a one time event. The fact that you have to go back so far to remember this example that you've "long since forgotten" the subject indicates to me that this may be a rare occurrence. Oh no, it's going to take a lot more than this to convince me. ;)

Radar Chief
03-19-2008, 08:48 AM
Since you don't want to give him your address will my word do? We once had a very serious discussion on a subject I have long since forgotten, but what stuck in my memory was all the references he provided. I was very impressed and I have had great respect for him ever since.

You sure youíre not talking about DanT? He was Mr. Information Overload. Miss that guy, wish heíd post more often.

I honestly donít ever remember seeing Pitt post an opinion of his own. Just sarcasticly bitching about everyone elses opinion. Though, Iíll also admit I donít have time to read every post on every topic so it is possible there is something of substance Iíve missed.

bigfoot
03-19-2008, 07:21 PM
The Obama website link to the New Black Panthers seems to be experiencing
technical difficulty.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/dashboard/public/gGrXCt





http://sweetness-light.com/archive/new-black-panther-party-supports-obama

patteeu
03-20-2008, 12:32 AM
The Obama website link to the New Black Panthers seems to be experiencing
technical difficulty.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/dashboard/public/gGrXCt





http://sweetness-light.com/archive/new-black-panther-party-supports-obama

I've got Malik Zulu Shabazz as my dark horse Obama VP.

Logical
03-20-2008, 12:49 AM
You sure youíre not talking about DanT? He was Mr. Information Overload. Miss that guy, wish heíd post more often.

I honestly donít ever remember seeing Pitt post an opinion of his own. Just sarcasticly bitching about everyone elses opinion. Though, Iíll also admit I donít have time to read every post on every topic so it is possible there is something of substance Iíve missed.

DanT is an amazing resource, but so is Pitt Gorilla if you treat him with respect. DanT is better, but only because he can obtain reference data on such an amazingly diverse range of topics. Pitt is more limited to his area of expertise.

Logical
03-20-2008, 12:51 AM
He said he's "used to evidence driving discussion, debate, and decision-making". You're describing a one time event. The fact that you have to go back so far to remember this example that you've "long since forgotten" the subject indicates to me that this may be a rare occurrence. Oh no, it's going to take a lot more than this to convince me. ;)Well heck PM him with your address, I will vouch he won't sign you up for porn or Democratic literature.:)