Thanks for the insight.

I attended a Catholic church in my neighborhood because my wife was Catholic. She went there because it was also the location where the kids went to school. They went there because it was as good as several other parochial schools in the town, and very close.

"Parochial" concerns topped the list.

I think we can all agree that it's compromising to get political to the extent of mentioning candidates.

Svengali continued. Sorry, I'm a neophite, or whatever, and don't know how to get all of this into one box.

But he must, for his political ambitions, try to distance himself from his mentor (who is no longer the pastor of his church). But as we all know, to cannot break away from a Svengali relationship. So what is he going to do, (speach coming tomorrow) where we will finally understand.

Fiction, of course, but absolutly as plausible as
"I never heard him say those things, which I now reject, which I have been made aware of today, while I have been busy in the Senate voting"

Somehow I doubt 5% of your congregation visits for the sermon, judging from your blog post I'd imagine it's probably far far higher. This is also coming from an atheist. Too bad you are not in the Pasadena area, if I happen to be in the right part of Texas on a sunday I'll have to find your church.

This is a little tongue and cheek but why on earth hasn't Obama renounced his Democratic party?! Your post does a good job of explaining this obvious answer. I often talk with my friends and I'm often saddened to hear that they know very few people who disagree with them. It makes me understand our divides a little bit better. The single biggest reason I support Obama is that he is able to engage with people of all ideologies.

This is a really helpful post, from someone who actually speaks from a background of knowledge about the dynamics of pastors and their congregations.

I'm not a student of religion, so I can't test your theory about the extent to which different churches encourage dissent from the pastor, but it sounds right to me. It also sounds like a good reason for all of the Wright/Hagee/Parsley/Pope comparisons to stop; not only are the levels of involvement and subjects of disagreement between various candidates and members of the clergy incomparable, but the same standard of what "disagreeing" means (pretending to agree? shutting up? having a nice healthy debate?) can't be assumed to apply to all.

The one thing that struck a wrong note for me was this:

"I also believe that, while the God of the Bible does talk about 'blessing' and 'curse' for the nations, surely Rev. Wright must have known that invoking 'God Bless America,' and contrasting it with damnation of any kind, was inviting a reaction so strong that many listeners would not be able to hear that central message. It shows questionable judgment on his part, in my opinion."

I have no idea how this sermon was received, but I don't think we have any clear evidence that his listeners couldn't "hear the central message." To object to such a statement is fair, but to call it a miscalculation when it may have worked perfectly well for that congregation is guessing. The idea that "anyone" would object to such phrasing is nothing more than an approximation of "anyone I know," and since in my experience the tone of preaching in the black church is far more intense, the use of opposition and repetition far more frequent and forceful than in more mainstream preaching styles, I wouldn't be confident making that guess.

Certainly the "listeners" outside of TUCC have found the wording offensive, but they're not the intended listeners, and I would assume that a preacher with Wright's reputation for oratory would probably know his congregation pretty well (even to the point of knowing when and how he might WANT to provoke them). It's awfully hard to say anything about it without any information about what the message of this sermon actually was.

"I also believe that, while the God of the Bible does talk about 'blessing' and 'curse' for the nations, surely Rev. Wright must have known that invoking 'God Bless America,' and contrasting it with damnation of any kind, was inviting a reaction so strong that many listeners would not be able to hear that central message. It shows questionable judgment on his part, in my opinion."

As anyone who watches the tape knows his congregants did not have any issues with what Wright was saying. As a minister it seems you would be able to hear the clear call for America to redeem herself for her moral transgressions. That is what Wright meant when he say God Damn America.

Why would individuals disenfranchised from the American dream and America's ideals find his statement radical? If anything Wrights words were an affirmation of the ongoing daily injustices they endure living in a society that condemns people to poverty, injustice and intolerance on the basis of skin color.

There is nothing that that group of individuals wants more than for America to repent and see the wrongness of her ways.

Wrights tone would have been pitch perfect to their ears and his vehemence would have been justified based on the depth of their frustrations and despair from battling racism daily. His anger would have resonated with the spiritual discord they live with as blacks in America.

The most fervent hope of the group would be for America to be damned so that she would repent as that is the only way they believe they TOO will receive salvation while living under the racial intolerance in America.

Let's face it. The rest that 11 o'clock on Sunday is still the most racial divided hour in America is because people of color have far greater spiritual needs than white citizens that have no encountered the barriers on the basis of race that exist in this country.

This point was driven home to me when I saw a Nigerian man check out a book entitled "Racism in America'...he was an adult and had was completely baffled and unable to understand his lack of acceptance in America despite outstanding performance and hard work. He could not understand why he was not getting ahead why he was socially ostracized and how he was mistreated and disrespected as a human being on a daily basis.

You see in his country his skin color had never been a barrier and he beleived in the American ideals yet he had not made progress based on individual merit and was now forced to reading and learning about racism.

Those who cannot hear Wright's message or believe he crossed the line simply are unable to comprehend the profoundly disabling realities and battered spirit that racism inflicts on Americans who happen to be people of color.

The one thing I do agree with you on is that people do stay with their church as it is a community of faith independent of the quality of sermons or differences with their pastors opinions. I am certain that Obama was there for the numerous ministers of community service that he could engage in.

You seem to assume that Wright's message was intended for a national audience instead of his congregates.

Well, you're arguing that we should view people's religious choices as just another consumerist choice. But... why not? To do otherwise creates a kind of religious exceptionalism that's a real problem in our discourse.

We do use people's choices over who they associate with, how they spend their money and how they spend their time, as a clue that tells us who people are.

If you can judge people by what kind of car they drive or where they live (and you can make useful judgments based on that data), then you can judge them by where they go to church and why.

I just don't believe that people's religious choices should be judged any differently than their movie renting choices. It's just a preference, nothing more.

Josh Marshall had a great TPM video yesterday about the Fox-centric Wright attacks and how obvious it is that they're leading the charge on this. It's still on TPM's front page.

The fact that this debate is still going on shows just how successful Fox has been at affecting the media's coverage of it and subsequently your very own conversations and concerns.

Why are there no video clips of Hagee's sermons floating around or why were there no Huckabee sermon's scrutinized by the media?

Robert Greenwald of Brave New Films has produced another of his ongoing watchdog films follwing his documentary "Out-Foxed" titled "Fox Attacks Obama Part 2." Take a look:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjvNSpsPu1k&eurl=http://crooksandliars.com/

Moveon.org has a petition to sign to bring the Fox-manipulated media's attention to themselves.

Well, first, Obama isn't "black" in the sense of growing up on the South Side. He grew up without really knowing his black father and instead was raised by his white mother and grandparents (and briefly an Indonesian step-father) in a multi-ethnic Hawaii and 4 years in Java. So presumably this guy of such a world view should realize that those outside the South Side would find these sermons at a minimum controversial?

Second, he's running for President of all America, and he doesn't have the judgment/common sense to realize this could damage him, from the time he decided to run some 3 years ago or so? He couldn't prepare better for this moment, even though Rev. Wright anticipated it a year ago? When Farrakhan got Wright's man-of-the-year award in December?

Third, Hillary gets grief for her 6 years on the WalMart board and not changing their anti-labor policies (even though she pushed environmental and gender issues). But Obama was with his church for 20 years - what did he push? Oh wait, he didn't even notice. Even though In his 1993 memoir "Dreams from My Father," Obama recounts in vivid detail his first meeting with Wright in 1985. The pastor warned the community activist that getting involved with Trinity might turn off other black clergy because of the church’s radical reputation. Apparently no one mentioned to Obama the contents of Wright's post-9/11 speeches or Wright's Spiegel interview last year where he notes that some white people even "don't have time to lynch people", I suppose a major new world development. But presumably, if Obama had noticed, he wouldn't have just voted "Present" but would have done something about it.

Fourth, hasn't some of this rubbed off on Michelle ("mean America"), or more importantly, on his children? What exactly are the factors that keep Obama in this church and not some other? This article gives Obama the benefit of the doubt of "listening even when he disagrees", even though Obama said he didn't notice the hateful tone. ("Obama the Great Listener" is some mythical meme unfolding before us on numerous fronts). Barack joined this church the year he met Michelle - is this just a wife's thing, he'd rather be at home watching the Bears on tellie? Barack didn't have his first kid until 1998, but say when the kid's 4 or 5, don't you start paying attention to what she's hearing every Sunday? When do you change the channel?

Anyway, it's nice that people are so considerate to think up excuses for Obama so he doesn't have to.

Hi Searay-

If you're interested in how Obama started attending Trinity, you might consider reading his book "Dreams from my Father" in which he devotes a couple chapters to exactly this subject.

Cheers!

Here's my problem with Obama staying at his church.

First of all, I don't believe for one minute that he never heard Wright speak the way we have all heard on the videos. After 17 years and a close relationship with Wright, Obama had to know Wright's beliefs and feelings. Otherwise, Obama is not nearly as with it as people seem to think.

Second, unlike people who have lifetime family memberships attached to specific Catholic churches or Jewish synagogues, or any other religion that is based greatly on traditions and ritual, most UCC's are just your basic Christian church, of which there are many more, not necessarily called UCC, but basic Christian churches. (Trinity is a very unusual UCC). If that's what Obama was looking for, he could have found any number of them in Chicago that are not so divisive, racially. Plenty of them have wonderful pastors with racially mixed congregations. For a man with high political aspirations, I question the judgment of a person who chooses this kind of church with this kind of pastor, with this kind of message, which seems to me to be, "I am my brother's keeper, but only if my brother is Black."

Before you decide I am a racist for saying this, I am equally appalled at white churches with the same message in reverse, of which there are many. And I question the beliefs and judgments of those white politicians who attend them as well.

Since Obama is running this race based on his "judgment," it is fair to ask what kind of judgment he has exercised in other parts of his life, such as the Rezko relationship, his church choice, and other judgments we don't yet know about in his past other than an uninformed vote on the war. At least 1/2 of the country was also against the war. That doesn't make just anyone eligible to be President.

I'm writing as an Edwards supporter who was heartened by Obama's speech today. It was honest and nuanced. I'd recommend people listen to it, end to end, regardless of who your preferred candidate is.

In Obama's first book, it's pretty clear he felt his role as an outsider, as never fully inside any group keenly. It helped him develop listening skills, as well as a rather precocious understanding that the world is a complex place. He was often in places where he had to look for the good aspects, the common threads though they may have been few.

I can't explain why they would choose to give children their first lessons on life and the world in such a church, but I am not them. I don't share their religious conversion. I also don't know what gets discussed at home after services, and neither do the larger we.

Maybe for them, there is a larger good - the neighborhood they live in is their church, and every neighborhood has its character, even an occasionally kooky mayor. People come together to be together, to commune in the moment (sorry for sounding so transcendentalist).

You can say the same for politics and other pro-actively chosen affiliations - we join together around what we feel passionately, or for closeness; to fill the gap of a family far away or never had; for the central idea or goal is to compelling to ignore. And they take the rest with a grain of salt.

I just wish the sides would lay down their arms, sit, and listen to some of the posters that came forward to say why they are in favor of their chosen person, and why it's important, regardless of the candidate, to unite for something greater in November, something that demands much of us to attend to, to repair.

maybe the more appropriate question may be why did obama join that church in the first place. perhaps his own words may give us a clue.

from his book DREAMS FROM MY FATHER:A STORY OF RACE AND INHERITANCE.

"To avoid being mistaken for a sellout,I chose my friends carefully.The more politically active black students.The foreign students.The Chicanos. The Marxist Professors and the structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets. We smoked cigarettes and wore leather jackets. At night,in the dorms,we discussed eocolonialism, Franz Fanon,Eurocentrism,and patriarchy. When we ground out our cigarettes in the hallway carpet or set our stereos so loud that the walls began to shake,we were resisting bourgeois society's stifling constraints. We weren't indifferent or careless or insecure. We were alienated."


so if he wanted to start a career in chicago politics, and he didn't want to appear to be a sell out, if he wanted to perhaps establish himself as being black enough, what church would he choose? also if one one wants to start a career in chicago politics, what better church to join than the one with 8,000 members. by his own words he clearly makes choices according to an adgenda.


is that too cynical? i don't think so in light of his own words. according to what he wrote, he chose his friends based on appearance and purpose. why not chose his church the same way? perhaps he never thought it would come back to haunt him when he wanted to play in the big leagues.

as chris mathews recounted tip o'neil saying:

"there's only one thing you can do when you're a politician when you hear the minister say something like that, that's politically unsellable for so many reasons. you walk to the center aisle, you do a 90 degree turn, and you walk striaght out of the church in front of everybody." it's not a religious question it's a political question. it's a legitimate response for someone who wants to run for the president of the u.s.