Friday, May 30, 2008

OBAMA'S CHURCH NOW HAS A NOT SO TYPICAL WHITEY TO WORRY ABOUT. NICE CHURCH OBAMA. LIBERAL RELIGIOUS FREAKS...WHODATHUNKIT?

19 comments:

Paul is a Hermit said...

I couldn't watch more than halfway. Give me, give me, give me is all that I've heard since the late 60's. Only by some but they are a hugely vocal group.

DB said...

"liberal religious freaks" ...no thanks, we don't want them. Especially this closet fiend. wtf? Seriously, this is the year religion has gone wild. Or has it always been this way and no one was paying attention?

Sandi said...

Wait a minute! This is a Saturday Night Live sketch, right?!?!?

Nikki said...

Paul, I thought it was hard to watch too. Obama has some explaining to do...to bad his friends are the ones ratting him out. :)N

DB, This is the year it all went wild. You'd expect this from McCain or someone else on the right I guess...but rumor has it this church has a lot of clout in Chicago and Obama joined it for political purposes in the 1st place...who knows. crazies. :)N

Sandi, you would think it was a joke from the sound of this guy. SNL should do a skit of it, it would be hilarious...:)N

Mike said...

It is against the law to demand a religious test for public office. This (and all such "scandals") is irrelevant.

Of course, conservatives will make as much hay as possible in a desperate attempt to head off the coming landslide this November. Won't do any good, of course.

Nikki said...

hey Mike, No religious test needed nor any being demanded...but I do think if this were a conservative preacher and the candidate being referred to were Obama, the outcry would be much greater than it is. The fact that this is a left winged religious nut is a hard pill to swallow for many a lib. I think the "religious right" and now the "religious left" is hilarious. Especially since the church in question is bringing politics into a sermon...aren't sermons supposed to be about Jesus or God? They invited the political discussion into their church so why not discuss it...besides we know Obama doesn't "cling" to religion, he only professes to and then attends a church that teaches politics on Sunday. :)N

DB said...

You'd expect this from McCain or someone else on the right I guess

Um, we are getting it from McCains side, but since it is hardly anything new it isn't a controversy. What is worse, saying god damn America, or saying Hitler was fulfilling god's will? Plus, the "religious left" is simply one church you keep referring to while the religious right has infected churches everywhere and Obama's church/rant party isn't lobbying national issues. I am not defending these douchebags, just pointing out they are far less lethal to this country than the other ones. In the end, if Obama is elected, we all know he isn't going to care about the opinion of this Church. They served their purpose for him and he is done with them.

Nikki said...

DB, Your point is well taken on the McCain is no contraversy because it isn't new, but don't fool yourself into thinking churchs like this are the equivelant to this one, of course there are more out there, and don't think they aren't lobbying national issues, I wouldn't call the Reverend Jesse's Rainbow Coalition small potatoes...I don't think this should be an argument about whose church is the whackiest or the most lethal. The problem is whether or not Obama shares the views of the church he attended for 18 years and contributed upwards of 20 thousand dollars to. This guy is a Catholic Priest, he isn't even Unitarian. He also is quite cozy with Louis Fairycon...I don't see this as the weak entity you described. The Worldwide Church Organization that this Church and other protestant Churchs belong to are backed by larger parent churchs that simply funnel money to these satelite churchs. Jeremiah Wright is retiring to a 6 million dollar mansion next to a bunch of freaking rich white people...the backing you claim for the religious right is just as well funded for the left. And there are plenty of churchs teaching politics in the form of gospel. :)N

Mike said...

Nikki, I'm not saying that there aren't religious freaks on the left, though I imagine that my definition of a religious freak differs somewhat from yours. :) I just think that the Republican party is desperate this year because they can feel the ship sinking beneath their feet. What this guy said is no different from what the political pundits have been saying for the past year, that Hillary felt entitled to the nomination. He was a little more in your face about it, but it's the same old blah blah blah.

In response to your later comment about the influence of the religious organizations, I think the solution is clear. We should only elect Atheists to public office. That way, we could be certain that there is no religious favoritism taking place.

What do you say, are you with me?

DB said...

Mike, you are getting a little extreme. Why would we elect atheists to office, even if they might have the same exact political views? Their morals aren't derived from any book and they are good simply to be good with no thought of reward or afterlife. They aren't bound to any doctrine and govern their lives through a secular view point with the goal for equality for all. Nothing can be scarier than that my friend. Polls show this country would sooner elect Muslims than Atheists and certainly would rather see a Bible literalist than anything else. You tread on eggshells my friend.

Nikki said...

Mike, interesting proposition. Do you think are atheist crazies? And what would you attribute the craziness of an atheist? And tell me your definition of a religious crazy, I am asking sincerely. btw I see your point about Pflegler...I myself have said the same about Hillary. I think that is a fair assessment, but the dude is still whacked. :)N

DB, what conservative ideal would you be willing to adopt to appeal to voters as an atheist? I would vote for an atheist, but it seems as though most atheists tend to go against judeo-christian tradition in social issues. To me it doesn't matter where you get your values just as long as you have them and that they are similar to mine(politically speaking) I would offer the argument that most religious people are far more harsh on eachother because of doctrinal differences even though politically they are the same or at least similar. Some Evangelicals would not vote for a Mormon even though Mormons are very similar politically. Atheism is to me as religion is to you. Do you know any conservative atheists? I know plenty of religious liberals. Religion allows for a much broader and diverse thought IMO than atheism does, but I may be wrong. feel free to correct. :)N

DB said...

Yes, I know a lot of conservative atheists (college is a breeding ground for atheists). Just like I know liberal Christians, conservative gays, black conservatives, liberal Mormons, gay Christians, etc. You can't really label an entire group of people one way or another. You are conservative who "happens" to be Mormon but not "because".

You will have to clarify your statement that religion allows for much broader and diverse thought than atheism does. How so?

Nikki said...

DB, I would disagree about the Mormon thing. Liberal Mormons surprise me. I do know some, but they eventually leave the church because the 2 philosophies really do not mix. I don't want to bore you with Mormon doctrine, but I will if you want me too, haha. Harry Reid may be politically liberal and can't and won't be ex'd from the church for his opinions but he is pretty far away from the church doctrinally on most of his political stances. I do believe that my religion influences my opinions. Gay marriage, pro-life etc. I would say that I am conservate "because" I am Mormon. I don't run away from it. Just clarifying I wasn't offended by your assessment. I don't think people should run away from labels. Though there are a few exceptions to most rules I would say the state of Utah who is 71% Mormon and red every election by a landslide because Mormons are conservative because of their religion. The state will go to McCain over 60% and the rest is either voting for a numbnut constitutionalist or voting democrat. Just an example.
Atheism to me, and I don't know anything on how one is an atheist so bear with me, doesn't embrace a whole lot of conservative thought IMO and not all conservatism is based on religious philosophy. While at the same time there are plenty who are religious who are also liberal. Gay marriage and pro-abortion can both be accepted by a religious person. But an atheist would have no reason other than a logical and proof driven opinion to oppose either one...if that makes any sense at all. Religion accepts some proof(science), some faith(God). It seems to me atheism accepts only what is tangible, so the thought process is limited to only evidence driven thought. I am only inquiring. :)N

DB said...

Again, being from Nevada, I know tons of liberal Mormons. In fact, not too long ago (April maybe) my wife and I had a Mormon couple (our age, BYU grads, super nice) over for dinner who were very liberal, yet very faithful to the Church. Maybe not in the Mormon stronghold of Utah, but liberal Mormons are out there...somewhere!

You have to realize that atheism is deeper than just non-belief in God. On the surface, yes, that is all they are...non-believers in the divine. Conversely, all a Christian is is someone who believes in the salvation offered by Christ.

But I assume you would argue Christianity (or Mormonism) is much deeper than just that, that it is a philosophy that guides ones life in a positive way. As is humanism, the atheist philosophy of living ones life. Like religion, atheists do have social philosophies that guide their lives in a moral way. They follow Humanistic oriented philosophies, which are not fact or science based, and do not fly in the face of the teachings of Christ, Buddah, or any other philosopher. Humanistic philosophies are no different than the teachings of other philosophies toward living ones life. They just meet a different conclusion on the end result, but what would that matter when it is them going to hell and not you? And these philosophies offer no reward or fear of punishment for strict adherence. It is done with pure sincerity.

While I can absolutely understand why you would not vote for an atheist because they are liberal, it makes no sense to not vote for one because they are atheist if they share the same value standards which you subscribe to. Just as I would never vote against someone simply because they are Christian or Mormon, it is the values they stand for and the issues they are pushing that make my decision.

I know you said you would vote for an atheist who shares your views, I am just validating the point. Unfortunately, 60% of our country would not be as open-minded as you even if the values offered were identical.

Nikki said...

DB, BYU Mormons. That makes more sense. Just kidding. I'm a University of Utah girl. Went to BYU for a semester in Israel. I would have to wonder where these BYU liberals went to church. I am not trying to "judge" but it would be like an atheist accepting the Sacrament on Sunday. I guess it would depend on what part of liberalism they embraced. I suppose some liberal ideas could coincide with Mormon Doctine, but very little.
Very interesting the "humanistic" approach to adopting a moral code. If I understand you correctly it is an energy of conscience so to speak. A golden rule approach. Mormons don't believe in hell so I wouldn't think anyone was going there. We believe in 3 degrees of glory and each is a place of salvation just differing degrees of it.
I thought it was funny that you said "our age" about the BYU couple...would you not have someone over for dinner who was "my age"? haha.
Find me an atheist who is against gay marriage, pro-life, will fight like hell in the war on terror, lower my taxes and that is my guy or gal. I will vote for a pony that has those ideals. :)N

DB said...

Humanism is a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appeal to universal human qualities — particularly rationality.

That is straight from wiki. This is why I have pointed out in past comments that atheism is not a religion, but the root of a philosophical ideal based on humanism. Now, many atheists who adhere to such a philosophy do tend to be socially liberal for obvious reasons, so in that sense, you are correct.

CHATTI PATTI said...

::::yawn::::
all these preachers are so "past tense."
time to move on to something else.

Nikki said...

Chatti Patti...not gonna move on. There is plenty more to read about on the blog if this is boring for you. Check out the alien pic, now that is sheer excitement! :)N

CHATTI PATTI said...

Nikki, Nicole!! I wasn't referring to your blog, I was referring to the whole "preacher" fascination in America!Seems like preachers in America are being targeted, taped, spied on, recorded, for the purpose of political hound dogs to pounce on, manipulate words, and trying to incite theories and meaning to their ordinary Sunday sermons.

PS. Nikki, Nicole....you know damn well your blog is NOT boring!! I wouldn't be here everyday if it was!!