« Why Does TPM "Post A Comment" Suck So Much? | astral66's Blog | Desidero solves Unemployment - Today's LOL Quote »

Thomas Jefferson on Obama's Minister


If there is anything that I hold a strong belief in, it is the separation of church and state. And I think Thomas Jefferson summed it up best:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

And:

"... no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

The first comment is from a letter Jefferson wrote referencing the First Amnedment of the Constitution, the second quote is from his famous Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.

As far as I'm concerned, it is no one's god-damned business what gets said inside anyone's church. But that's just my opinion.

If you agree with Thomas Jefferson, please hit the "recommend" button!

35 Comments

| Leave a comment

You are talking about separation of church and state and about the freedom of speech. I thought the issue at hand was the association between a presidential candidate and a racist pastor. The issue would have been the same if Wright was a child molester. It brings back the question of judgement.

"A racist pastor"

I didn't appreciate hearing Rev. Wright's views of America.

But I can't make the leap that he is a racist. That's not a conclusion I could make without knowing the man, without knowing the community, without knowing the Church, without even attending one complete service, nevermind 20 years of them.

I've never met any of its 8000 members.

I'm not able to say Jim Crow, Rev. Wright, what's the difference?

I have seen 10 minutes of Rev. Wright's life. 10 minutes culled together for the purpose of bringing some other man down.

I can't pass judgment on him based on pre-selected video clips.

I can't know him if I'm warned by people that I should never associate myself with him, because if I do, they'll hate me as much as they hate him.

If I grow up being told that people like him are all alike, who am I?

What have I become?


To make someone "suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief" is about as un-American as it gets. Obviously the GOP doesn't agree with this, the MSM doesn't agree with this, and a lot of Hillary supporters don't seem to, either.

Another reason why I support Barack Obama!

who's suffering and how?

>> I thought the issue at hand was the association between a presidential candidate and a racist pastor. The issue would have been the same if Wright was a child molester.

So .... if one of the candidates was Catholic and had been a parishoner where the priest had, um, behaved inappropriately ... then that candidate, too, should be disqualified?

I grew up in a very rigid, intolerant, ugly church, attended by all of my relatives. Some of my relatives were rigid, intolerant, and ugly in their behavior and some were the kind, wise souls that all Christians should strive to be. Yet they sat in the same pews and heard the same sermons for decades and decades. Puzzling, isn't it?

So .... if one of the candidates was Catholic and had been a parishoner where the priest had, um, behaved inappropriately ... then that candidate, too, should be disqualified?
----------------------------------------------------

If the candidate knew about it for 20 years and did nothing. And then on top of that called the priest his mentor who he went to for guidance. Than yeah, he should be disqualified.

The candidate should not be disqualified. This issue has nothing to do with separation of church and state and/or freedom of speech, as the original post implies.

The direct relationship between a man and his minister is the issue here. The private issue of Obama practising his religion in his church, and the media turning it into a circus of condemnation based on whether he was in church on what particular day and what he may or may not have heard in that church. You don't see that as making Obama suffer because of his beliefs and his attempts to practise his religion in private, out of view of the government, out of the view of the public, out of the view of the corporate media? You really can't see that?

He was his friend of 20 years. He was more than a minister. He was his moral compass.

Why do you keep on insisting on proving my point?

The candidate should not be disqualified. This issue has nothing to do with separation of church and state and/or freedom of speech, as the original post implies.
Could you please elaborate on this statement? I may be missing something, but I think the point is exactly that of church and state. I think about my pastor's sermon a couple weeks ago, where he could be quoted saying, "The church is dying, and that's a good thing." I would hate for this quote to be taken out of context, for it was part of a broader point that didn't fit the sound-bite zeitgeist of our society. Most sermons don't. It's the nature of sermons, they are tools to get people to make deeper, more thoughtful considerations. It's not good to leave the fate of our souls to sound bites.

Given the complete message, I can't repudiate or denounce the statement. Just as I can't repudiate or denounce Rev. Wright's statements, given in sermon, placed into proper context, backed up with more than your assertion.

If you are using this to defend hate speech, I'm assuming you're a Republican.

Very good point, Elizabeth. If we universally applied the standards being applied to Wright and Barack, we'd have to unseat 99% of all politicians at all levels of government.

user-pic

And if we all applied the standard that one should leave a church if the pastor disagreed with us on any matter then the pews would be empty allover America.

oceankat --- Actually, I totally agree with you that if a parishoner *knew* of child molestation and did nothing, they should be treated as an accessory to a crime - or worse! I was just reacting, out of exasperation, to the first post which put no such conditions on the type of 'association' that would be tainting. ---- Although, if all you knew was that a priest had been a child molester and the candidate had been a member of the congregation, how far would the public be entitled to inquire about what he knew and didn't know?? It is a question.

As to Wright's being a racist, anti-American, hate-filled minister ......... well,

--- Obama has stated that he did not hear comments such as the ones on the videotapes which he described as "more than controversial" and "profoundly distorting" and said that he would have left the church if that was a recurring tenor of the minister or the congregation. He acknowledged only hearing ones that would be considered 'controversial'

---- There are something like 270,000+ minutes of Wright sermon's on tape but only, what?, 40 seconds on the videotapes. I wonder what the rest of his work is like? (Apparently he's well-respected - so much so that I've seen reported that Bill and Hillary Clinton sought guidance from him during their time of crisis. Can't swear to the truth of that but saw it reported several places.)

------ I've found and read one other sermon by Wright which is not only non-controversial but is quite profound and moving and gives good guidance. That's the "Audacity of Hope" sermon.

--- Of the three sermons from which clips were taken for the video, one was immediately after 9/11 and the two others were in June and Dec. 2007, just before his retirement. Since none others have been brought forth, that at least raises the question of whether he might go 'over the top' only when highly emotional. I don't know. But, then, the people who are assuming that he spewed the same filth every Sunday for twenty years don't know either, do they?

Your last point truly drives home the issue.

Has American politics REALLY devolved such that less than 10 minutes of admittedly overblown hyperbole and teeth-gnashing by a political candidates MINISTER has turned into an indictment of the CANDIDATE.

O'Reilly had a Black minister on to discuss Wright's comments. One of BillO's betes noir was the Wright claim about the government, AIDS and minority populations. O'Reilly tried to corner the minister on how "ridiculous" the claim was, to which the minister replied, that the government ADMITTED to injecting Black men with syphillis. I'd say that provides some much needed context for Wright's assertion about AIDS, n'est-ce pas?

Seriuosly! The Tuskeegee Experiment. Black men infected without their knowledge with syphilis, just to see how it spread through the Black population. Yeah, Wright's a wacko for being suspicious of the US government. Keep deluding yourself people, keep deluding yourself.

user-pic

Agreed. I can see how Rev Wright would be suspicious of AIDS and its spread in the AA community using the Tuskegee history as a guide. It is not true for AIDS of course, but you can see that it is not some wild eyed hate assertion coming out of nowhere. It is truly heartbreaking, and appaling what OUR government did to these people as an EXPERIMENT.

This from the CDC:
The study initially involved 600 black men – 399 with syphilis, 201 who did not have the disease. The study was conducted without the benefit of patients' informed consent. Researchers told the men they were being treated for "bad blood," a local term used to describe several ailments, including syphilis, anemia, and fatigue. In truth, they did not receive the proper treatment needed to cure their illness. In exchange for taking part in the study, the men received free medical exams, free meals, and burial insurance. Although originally projected to last 6 months, the study actually went on for 40 years.

FROM THE TIMELINE
1936 Major paper published. Study criticized because it is not known if men are being treated. Local physicians asked to assist and asked not to treat men. It was also decided to follow the men until death.

1940 Efforts made to hinder men from getting treatment ordered under the military draft effort.

1945 Penicillin accepted as treatment of choice for syphilis

1947 USPHS establishes "Rapid Treatment Centers" to treat syphilis; men in study are not treated, but syphilis declines.

After the story broke in 1972, a investigative panel was created.

1972 The panel found that the men had agreed freely to be examined and treated. However, there was no evidence that researchers had informed them of the study or its real purpose. In fact, the men had been misled and had not been given all the facts required to provide informed consent.

The men were never given adequate treatment for their disease. Even when penicillin became the drug of choice for syphilis in 1947, researchers did not offer it to the subjects. The advisory panel found nothing to show that subjects were ever given the choice of quitting the study, even when this new, highly effective treatment became widely used.

http://www.cdc.gov/tuskegee/timeline.htm

HOW SCREWED UP IS THAT?

So while it is untrue about Wrights assertions about AIDS, think about the generation he comes from. This was REAL, happening in his generation.

So the AIDS conspiracy theory, while wrong, is not the ramblings of a madman. He had a reference in history that fueled this condemnation.

user-pic

Unfortunately, there are lots of people who have no interest in turning away from the seductive "distractions" that are so much fun to talk about, the ones that Obama warned against. Because in the scheme of things, what does it matter what Wright said or didn't say, and wouldn't it be better if we had a president who had friends from all walks of life and was acquainted with many different points of view? The couple of phrases that have been so overblown in the media have been condemned by Obama. The whole issue is just an excuse. It's the same thing that happened with Al Gore, now so beloved by every progressive. In 2000, I heard lots of Democrats trashing him, and holding their noses to vote for him, or voting for Nadir, because Gore looked funny in debates, or he was a nerd or a wonk or a [substitute junior high school epithet]. Now everyone wistfully wonders what the world would be like if only.... And here we are again. And there we'll be again, just like Obama warned.

Wow! If you are referring to child molesting, that is a different story. Child molesting is an unspeakable crime. The statements by pastor Wright could be ugly, and divisive, but are not crimes.

That was Lalo35adm that was trying to make the argument that standing up for religious freedom, and maintaining a separation of church and state, is somehow comparable to not reporting a child molestor. Pretty weak attempt if you ask me.

Hate speech has nothing to do with freedom of religion.

Really?

Have you never heard the story of the Nazi march on Skokie? It was a pretty well documented case.

Guess the religion of the attorney that insisted on defending their right to hateful speech? Yup - Jewish - a Jewish ACLU Attorney, his name was David Goldberger and he is currently an esteemed professor of law at The Ohio State University's Moritz College of Law.

"I got thousands of angry calls," Goldberger, a professor of constitutional and First Amendment law at Ohio State University's law school, recently told me. "I had to screen those calls." from this article

The Supreme Court Ruled 6-3 to allow the Nazi marches. If that isn't hate speech - please - tell me what is. That's how important it is to defend all forms of speech to the greatest degree possible. It is just one of the reasons why an educated populace is critical to the success of a free society.

I am not saying this because I am an Obama supporter (which I am), I am saying this because I am a relatively religious person. The relationship between a person and his/her spiritual mentor is very special. None of us can claim to know Rev. Wright as Obama does, and none of us can judge the relationship between Obama and his pastor. All I can say that if he has a relationship with his pastor in which they consider each other family, he is very fortunate and I perfectly understand why he is not distancing from the man.
And nobody can judge Pastor Wright from a 30 sec video, no matter what he said in there. The fact that Mr. Obama did not run away from his Minister tells me that his faith and his relationship with his Minister is deeper than many of those phony politicians (democrats and republicans) that go to Church for a photo-op and then never again. I don't have anything against those who do not follow any Faith, but I have it against those with fake Faith. At least with this, we know Obama is not a fake in this respect.
It is interesting to watch in this respect the interview with Mike Huckabee that went on MSNBC. (You can access it from the Real Clear Politics web site) Surprisingly, coming from a conservative, he was very understanding of both Obama and even of Pastor Wright. Respect to pastor Wright, he said that even when he (MH) was not an African-America,being born and raised in the deep South he understands where pastor Wright is coming from. It is worth watching.

I'm a 50 year old white atheist. I do know the Reverend Dr. Jeremiah Wright. I had the occasion to record at least 50 of his sermons in the 90's. He is a fine man, with a 36 year record of helping people who had no where else to turn. Let me repeat that - helping people who had no where else to turn. And I can assure you that what he said in the numerous sermons which I saw him give was always, always, in the context of the Bible. In fact, if you listen to the next sentence after "God Damn America", he says "It's in the Bible!".
You know, the ridiculous nature of this entire conversation is that some people are considering not voting for this talented man - not for something that he said, or that he believes, but for the words of someone else entirely. Now, when I was growing up, my father was very fond of saying "God damn this" and "God damn that" - cars, televisions, dogs, refrigerators, trains (he was particularly irritated by trains that kept him sitting in traffic), But you know what? I have a dog, and a car, and a television, and certainly a refrigerator, and I love them all, and I even like trains.
My point here is that words only change your mind if you let them. That applies to both Dr. Wright and Senator Obama. I've listened to Obama talk, and I really can't see where the firebrand, incendiary, controversial Reverend influenced Obama. I do see where the intelligent, inquisitive, and kind Dr. Wright that I know influenced him.
Dr. Wright isn't running for president. Barack Obama is. I think it might be better to talk about what he thinks, rather that what Dr. Wright thinks.
I can't imagine what could make Dr. Wright say those awful things. Maybe it was the German Shepherds. Or the firehoses. Or the billy-clubs. Or maybe it was serving his country in the Marines, and then coming home to be spit on.

Some people, huh? Go figure.

Before you condemn either of these men, may be you should listen to what they have to say. After that, you can make an informed decision. If you condemn them before listening, you are making an uninformed choice. No one should cast an uninformed vote. If you do, you might vote for an idiot.

Nah, couldn't happen in the greatest country in the world.

Thank you haremoor.

I hope you will take this post and circulate it more widely, not just here in the blogosphere; please send it to the comments sections of newspapers and the networks.

I have never beleived that Dr. Wright is a racist, nor is his congregation racist, but the sound-byte hit job needs to be addressed.

well, being a long term member of a fruitcake club with an often psychopathically angry, crazy, misinformed nutcase surely can't speak well of Obama. Churchgoers are idiots anyway, but man, oh, man, when i lived in a black neighborhood in NYC, my neighbors would tell me some of the crazy shit many African-Americans believe in, like the CIA created AIDS, and contraception is a conspiracy against black people, and the KKK owns Snapple, and the reparations tax exemption, etc etc. I tell you, many black people are appalling ignorant and prone to crazy conspiracy theories, and it seems to me Obama, behing his smooth veneer and tony educational pedigree, might have more in common with crazy black America than common-sense America.

Please take your racist drivel somewhere else, this isn't the forum for it.

Good morning all,

I would appreciate is someone could shed some lignts on the following. Do you know who is or was Clinton spiritual advisors?
Based on what I read, Billy Graham was her spirtual advisors in the 90s and I believe based on a "Time report", she consulted with him during the Monica Lewinsky. There are even some pictures. Now, I believe Billy Graham was also Nixon advisor, and spoke with anti-semitism remarks which were offensive, and his remarks were taped. So I am wondering why the media are not using the same standards. It is actually quite shocking how the medias behave.
I have listened to the 3 candidates, and there is no doubt in my mind, and that after Senator Obama last speech, he and him has a vision for the country, and that he and only him can unify the country.

MiloRad, you comment "I tell you, many black people are appalling ignorant and prone to crazy conspiracy theories, and it seems to me Obama, behing his smooth veneer and tony educational pedigree, might have more in common with crazy black America than common-sense America."

Yeah I guess ignorance i sonly in the Black community, huh? Yeah, there are no crazy wackos in the white community saying crazy things, oh wait what about that David Koresh thing must have been a black conspiracy! That entire thing in the South during the 60's with governors refusing to integrate, yeah that must have been a conspiracy too! Your comment are ignorant, however I know nothing about you so I will not call you a racist but let me say no racial group holds an advatage when it comes to ignorance we are all complicit in that category!

And by the way if you want to have a proper discourse about the subject of race in America I am more than willing to comment! By the way I am a caucasian living in the South!

I'm glad that the First Amendment protects us from people that decide that whatever they don't want to hear, constitutes their random definition of "hate speech".

Woo-hoo! Top of the chart! Thanks to everyone (well, almost everyone) for their comments. There are some great personal statements here. I'm guessing that this will disappear from the "Recommended" column soon, as stuff seems to be disappeared after about a day.

Thanks again! Stand up for your, and everyone's, Constitutional rights!

user-pic

Great job, astral66!

I have a question for Hillary supporters - if this infamous tape originated from her campaign, will you still support her, knowing that she plays the race card???

My guess is "Yes, we will!" I'd love to be disappointed, but this election cycle has been an eye-opener.

Based on last night's news reports, the Hillary campaign is still pounding on the Reverand Wright drum as the reason why the Superdelegates should support her. It's a shameful, pathetic, and un-American attack on her fellow Democrat. I don't know how anyone can support a candidate that stoops to that low level.

Again, why is Barack Obama being "made to suffer on account of his religious beliefs or opinions" in 21st century America?

I'm a Free thinker that was raised Cathloic, a few years back a step-brother of mine 'found religion' and implored me to attend a few services with him.
It was some 'non-denominational' country church outside of Delta (NW Ohio) Ohio. It was quite large for such a church.

One would have to be in denial to not class much of his church's sermons as hate speech as well. And then they have the nuts to sing about how they are all in the life of Christ. Gimme a break!

Leave a comment

astral66

user-pic

Following: 34
Followers: 38

Posts
Comments & Recommends


Favorites

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address