Obama's Ties To Church Examined

(AP)  A then 26-year-old Barack Obama walked down the aisle of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ, knelt beneath a cross suspended from its rafters and, as he later explained it, committed himself to God after years as a religious skeptic.

In those early days at the self-described "unashamedly black" church, the future Democratic presidential candidate was moved to tears by a sermon from its activist pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., whom he has portrayed as his spiritual mentor.

Two decades later, Obama himself would be Wright's topic of the day — but not for reasons either man would have hoped.

At a recent Sunday service, following media coverage of Obama's last-minute decision not to have Wright speak at the senator's presidential announcement last month, Wright warned his flock not to believe any reports of a rift between him and the church's best-known member.

"Barack and I are fine," Wright, 65, on an out-of-state trip, said in a recorded message played to about 2,000 attendees. "The press is not to be trusted. ... Don't let somebody outside our camp divide us."

The erudite if blunt-speaking pastor also said Obama had apologized for withdrawing the invitation to speak at the Feb. 10 announcement in Springfield.

Obama had taken "some bad advice from some of his own campaign people who thought it would not be a good idea for me to be in front of the cameras on the day he announced," Wright said, adding that he and Obama had "moved on." Wright attended the announcement, but he did not speak.

His impassioned comments came after some conservatives questioned Obama's links to Trinity, which embraces what it calls a "Black Value System." Others criticized Obama for appearing to distance himself from the church and its leader.

Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton said that's not the case.

"The senator appreciates the continued prayers of his pastor," Burton said, adding in a statement that the invitation to Wright was withdrawn because Obama wanted to "avoid having statements and beliefs being used out of context and forcing the entire church to defend itself."

Wright declined to comment.

But in an interview with PBS's "Religion & Ethics Newsweekly" recorded just before Obama's February announcement, Wright said he warned the senator that their association could pose political problems, partly because of his history of supporting Palestinian causes.

Wright also told The New York Times in an interview published March 6: "When his (Obama's) enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli" with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan to visit Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, "a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell."

The roughly 8,000-member church has often championed liberal causes, from gay rights to opposition to the Iraq war. It also emphasizes its African roots and asks parishioners to accept the "Black Value System," which includes tenets such as "commitment to the black family," "dedication to the pursuit of education" and one critics have seized upon - "disavowal of the pursuit of 'middleclassness."'

• 1
• 2
• Next Page »

[us_infidel]

When blacks own 99% of the country, then I will worry about black churches. It's not about association, it is about POWER.

Got it?
Posted by j0hnwi11iams at 01:39 AM : Mar 21, 2007

Well, blacks only make up about 16% of the US population. I would argue that they already yield a disproportionate amount of power....and they want more. Get that?

[MendelPotok]

Get what? That you are afraid of Black people and are content with them having a small voice? Minorities inherently need a higher profile, it's the only way we can address how they have been marginalized. And it does matter what church Mr. Obama belongs too, something so personal as a religion defines much of a person's character.

http://mylonging.net/

[j0hnwi11iams]

When blacks own 99% of the country, then I will worry about black churches. It's not about association, it is about POWER.

Got it?

[grazinggoat]

In front of sheeps, a politician is a sheep, in front of cows, he is a cow, and in front of pigs he is a lard. Why do some politicians have to be identified to a church, a synagog, or a temple? Politicians should declare neutrality and to a certain point agnostic, which is hard. Be declared a believer in a Creator would be more than enough. Leave the details of worshipping to the people, followers of the religious institutions. They just are institutions, with members, like unions or association of consumers, a hurd of goats, grazing...

[kansas1946]

As a "swing" voter, and an independent, I would vote for Obama and I would vote for Edwards. I would not vote for Hillary. As to this piece about Obama's church, I think it is much ado about nothing, and a silly fluff article. Isn't everyone getting a little tired of the "My church is more Godlier than your church" ***. Who cares what church someone belongs to or doesn't belong to. As long as they don't want to force their religious beliefs on the rest of us, they are entitiled to their beliefs.

[agnim]

"Oh yes, blame the media and minority community leaders for the racial divide...

Posted by huskerarmy at 05:14 PM : Mar 20, 2007"
Take it easy, buddy, just the media.

It is the racist media morons who are always hounding Obama about race and racial issues, a tactic the racist media morons do not do with white candidates!

And with the whites being the majority population in the country and the ones promoting racism for centuries, seems like the white candidates are the ones the racist media morons should be asking about THEIR WHITE RACISM, yes? LOL

[scott4261]

And expounding on the primary thought:
I am greatly concerned that too many states having early primaries will give us the nominees by the end of February. This is likely to amount to a popularity contest and not really allow for the issues to drive who gets the nominations. I have no problem whatsoever with a populous state like California setting the tone for the nominees, but front-lading too many states on February 5th is a mistake, in my judgment.

I almost wish for the old days when we had a breather from politics before the year of the election, the candidates all campaigned in that year, and then the nominees were chosen at the conventions.

[scott4261]

Not since Bobby Kennedy's run for the presidency in 1968 have I seen a candidate with as much genuine interest in the issue of poverty as I see in John Edwards. Since that is an issue I'm very passionate about, he has won my support.

I will vote for the next Democratic nominee, no matter who it is. But if it's Hillary Clinton, I'll have to hold my nose as I'm voting - much like I did when I voted for John Kerry in 2004. I hope the Democratic primary voters will select someone who will stand up for average Americans and quit this nonsense of trying to pick the "safest" candidate, because that is a proven strategy for disaster come election day.

[scott4261]

blrichard, that's looking more and more likely.

hopetrumps, what about Edwards/Richardson? I know you have your criticisms of Richardson, but his foreign policy experience is unmatched in the fields from either party. And if he isn't on the ticket, I certainly hope he ends up in the next ptresident's cabinet.

[blrichard]

I'm wondering whether Clinton and Obama or going to destroy one another and give Edwards an opening.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czM-wRuUyyE

[scott4261]

I don't think Al Gore would settle for being VP a second time around. On the other hand, I don't think anyone would say no to being Gore's VP. Gore/Edwards sounds good to me, but the point is moot because I don't think that Gore will run. Now, Bill Richardson...that's a guy who has more experience than Hillary, Obama and Edwards combined and I wouldn't bat an eye if he were to emerge as a contender in the top tier.