Today, Early Show covered Wright interview, but didn't ask McCain about Hagee
SUMMARY: NBC's Today and CBS' The Early Show both aired interviews with Sen. John McCain while the candidate was in New Orleans, but in neither case asked McCain about controversial comments that one of his endorsers, Pastor John Hagee, recently made about Hurricane Katrina, though both programs discussed controversial comments made by Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
The April 25 editions of NBC's Today and CBS' The Early Show both aired interviews with Sen. John McCain while the candidate was in New Orleans, but in neither case did they ask McCain about controversial comments that one of his endorsers, Pastor John Hagee, recently made about Hurricane Katrina. By contrast, on the same day, both programs discussed controversial comments made by Sen. Barack Obama's former pastor, Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. As Media Matters for America noted, Hagee said in 2006: "I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they are -- were recipients of the judgment of God for that." As the blog Think Progress noted, on the April 22 edition of Salem Radio Network's The Dennis Prager Show, televangelist John Hagee affirmed his 2006 comment about Hurricane Katrina; host Dennis Prager asked Hagee: "[I]n the case of New Orleans, you do feel that God's hand was in it because of a sinful city?" Hagee responded, "That it was a city that was planning a sinful conduct, yes."
As Media Matters has documented, on the April 20 edition of ABC's This Week, McCain stated that it was "probably" a mistake to solicit and accept Hagee's endorsement and stated: "I condemn remarks that are in any way viewed as anti-anything." Nevertheless, McCain said: "I'm glad to have his [Hagee's] endorsement."
The lead story on the April 25 Today was a preview of PBS host Bill Moyers' interview with Wright, scheduled to air in full on the April 25 edition of Bill Moyers Journal. During NBC's report on the Moyers interview, NBC News chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell aired controversial statements that Wright had previously made. She then asserted of the Moyers interview: "At the very least, this is an unwelcome diversion to Obama's campaign." Mitchell also aired Washington Post editorial writer Jonathan Capehart's assertion: "The Reverend Wright interview hasn't set questions to rest that people have about him or about Senator Obama. If anything, it's resurrected them, and depending on the full interview, might even raise even more." After the report, Mitchell said to Today co-host Matt Lauer that Wright is "more concerned right now about his own legacy and his own reputation, but clearly this is not helpful to his former parishioner, Barack Obama. Not at all." Moreover, during her interview with McCain, co-host Meredith Vieira aired part of a North Carolina Republican Party advertisement, including a video clip of one of Wright's controversial comments.
On The Early Show, before airing her interview with McCain, co-host Maggie Rodriguez said Wright's "fiery words hurt Obama's campaign and may do so again in North Carolina. ... The controversy over Reverend Wright came up in my interview with Senator John McCain, who campaigned yesterday in New Orleans, courting voters in a largely Democratic region." After airing the McCain interview, co-host Harry Smith said, "More now on the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, speaking out on the controversy that hurt the Obama campaign and may cause it new headaches." After his report on the Moyers interview, CBS White House correspondent Jim Axelrod said, "Obviously, this will revive a story that the Obama campaign badly wanted to see die, especially as Obama begins his next push in North Carolina and in Indiana."
Media Matters has documented (here, here, here, here, here, and here) the disparity between the media's extensive coverage of controversial comments made by supporters of Obama and their coverage of controversial comments made by Hagee and other supporters of McCain. While there have been media reports on McCain's repudiation of Hagee's comments related to Catholics, the media have largely ignored remarks Hagee has made about Hurricane Katrina, Islam, women, and homosexuality.
According to a Nexis database search, Today has not mentioned Hagee since August 3, 2006, and has never reported his Katrina comments. The March 1, 2008, edition of CBS' Saturday Early Show was that program's only mention of Hagee's Katrina comments. During that show, CBS senior political correspondent Jeff Greenfield noted that Hagee "has offered some highly provocative views on a variety of subjects; for instance, linking Hurricane Katrina to the gay rights movement."
From the April 25 edition of NBC's Today:
MITCHELL: Just when the Obama campaign thought that the controversy surrounding the Reverend Jeremiah Wright was dying down, Obama's former pastor is back on the national stage, defending himself for the first time.
[begin video clip]
WRIGHT: Oh, how I love Jesus!
MITCHELL: It's been six weeks since Jeremiah Wright's fiery sermons transfixed the Democratic campaign.
WRIGHT: No, no, no. Not "God bless America."
MITCHELL: Now Reverend Wright tells Bill Moyers on PBS that his controversial remarks were snippets, taken out of context.
[...]
MITCHELL: At the very least, all this is an unwelcome diversion for Obama's campaign.
CAPEHART: The Reverend Wright interview hasn't set questions to rest that people have about him or about Senator Obama. If anything, it's resurrected them, and depending on the full interview, might even raise even more.
MITCHELL: Although showing a different side of Reverend Wright could take the sting out of the controversy.
WRIGHT: I continue to be a pastor who speaks to the people of God about the things of God.
CHUCK TODD (NBC News political director): The Obama folks do need to have Reverend Wright not seen as a crazy preacher, but as a thoughtful minister.
[end video clip]
MITCHELL: And Reverend Wright is not going quietly. He's scheduled to speak at the NAACP convention and also at the National Press Club and is giving a sermon in Dallas -- Matt.
LAUER: Andrea, I'm just curious. This story, as we mentioned, has been making headlines for about a month or so now. Why did Reverend Wright -- did he even mention why he chose to speak out and give this interview now?
MITCHELL: I think he wants to make himself heard and put himself in the context -- he feels that he was taken out of context. He's more concerned right now about his own legacy and his own reputation, but clearly this is not helpful to his former parishioner, Barack Obama. Not at all.
LAUER: All right, Andrea Mitchell for us this morning.
[...]
VIEIRA: And now back to politics. As the Democratic presidential candidates battle on, Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, is on what he is calling, "It's Time for Action" tour, reaching out to so-called forgotten Americans. On Thursday, I spoke to McCain, shortly after he toured the devastated Lower Ninth Ward in New Orleans. And I started by asking him what he told residents of that city, who are still angry about the government's botched handling of the Hurricane Katrina disaster.
[begin video clip]
McCAIN: I'm telling them: Never again will such a mismanagement of a natural -- national -- natural or man-made disaster take place in America when I'm president.
VIEIRA: The Democratic National Committee has said, "Don't believe the rhetoric. The fact is McCain has a history of denying the Gulf Coast aid when it needs it most and a record of outrageous votes to show for it. Instead of helping the area rebuild after Hurricane Katrina, McCain actually voted to deny emergency funding for the area, voted against giving victims of Katrina access to Medicaid and unemployment benefits." And then it cites your voting record. What do you say to that?
McCAIN: The fact is that the governor will attest, and others, that I have been helpful. I've been down here. I've supported every effort that I could.
VIEIRA: You know, Senator, the DNC also began running an ad this week that questions your judgment when it comes to the economy. They're beating up on you, sir.
[...]
VIEIRA: OK. I want to switch gears here and talk about the latest controversy. It's over an ad in North Carolina, coming two weeks before the Democratic primary.
[begin video clip]
NARRATOR: For 20 years, Barack Obama sat in his pew, listening to his pastor.
WRIGHT: -- and then wants us to sing "God Bless America"? No. No. No.
[end video clip]
VIEIRA: The ad says Obama's, quote, "just too extreme for North Carolina." Now, you have called this ad degrading, and you've asked the state party to pull it, but so far, they've refused to do that. Why do you think they're not listening to you, A, and why do you believe they would continue to raise questions about Senator Obama's patriotism?
McCAIN: They're not listening to me because they're out of touch with reality and the Republican Party. We are the party of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan, and this kind of campaigning is unacceptable. I have said that. It will harm the Republicans' cause. And I've done everything that I can to repudiate and to see that this kind of campaigning does not continue. I have engaged in and will continue a respectful campaign of either Senator Obama or Senator Clinton.
VIEIRA: Senator Obama said that if you wanted to, you could get that ad pulled because you are, after all, the nominee and the standard-bearer. So, if you can't get the ad pulled, does it raise any questions about your leadership?
McCAIN: I don't know exactly how to respond to that, except that I would hope that Senator Obama would repudiate and apologize for his remarks concerning the heartland of America where some kind -- where his elitist remarks indicated that people who are hardworking, dedicated people who fought -- who harbor traditional values and principles and value their religion and the Second Amendment of the Constitution would not be treated in an elitist fashion. I hope he'll apologize for that.
VIEIRA: I know that you have questioned his comments about small-town voters being bitter and clinging to their guns and religion and called that remark elitist.
McCAIN: Hmm-mm.
VIEIRA: You obviously know the Senator through the Congress --
McCAIN: They are. They are.
VIEIRA: -- and because he may be the nominee, I assume that you've sort of looked into his record, both working within the inner city of Chicago and also as a state legislator. Anything that you have seen that gives you evidence that as a member of the public service that he was out of touch with real Americans or is out of touch with real Americans?
From the April 25 edition of CBS' The Early Show:
RODRIGUEZ: But first, this morning, one of the most controversial figures of the 2008 presidential campaign has been Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama's former minister. His fiery words hurt Obama's campaign and may do so again in North Carolina. But Wright is now slamming those who he claims misrepresented him. We'll have more on that in a moment.
The controversy over Reverend Wright came up in my interview with Senator John McCain, who campaigned yesterday in New Orleans, courting voters in a largely Democratic region.
[begin video clip]
McCAIN: Well, I'm here to talk to the people, with their great governor, who happens to be a Republican, by the way, and I want to assure them that this will never happen again. Never.
RODRIGUEZ: When you say "this," are you referring to how the government handled Hurricane Katrina?
McCAIN: Yes. The mismanagement of this disaster will never happen again, whether it's natural or man-made. It will never happen again.
RODRIGUEZ: Senator, I know that you plan to have Mike Huckabee along for part of your trip. Are you considering him, or anyone for that matter, as your running mate?
[...]
RODRIGUEZ: The Republican Party of North Carolina is planning to run an ad bashing Senator Obama. I know that you oppose that ad, but they're running it anyway. So, what does that say about you? That you haven't opposed it strongly enough or that your own party is blatantly disregarding your wishes?
McCAIN: It means that the Republican Party of the state of North Carolina is dead wrong. They are an independent organization. I'll do everything in my power to make sure not only they stop it, but that kind of leadership is rejected. And the overwhelming majority of Republicans in North Carolina share my view.
RODRIGUEZ: But as the Republican nominee for president, couldn't you pick up the phone and call the head of the North Carolina GOP and say, don't run it?
McCAIN: I have communicated that in every possible way, and I will continue to communicate that.
RODRIGUEZ: Senator, you have criticized Senator Obama and continue to do so, calling him out of touch and elitist. Someone on the outside looking in might read into that -- might think maybe he would prefer to go up against Senator Clinton in the election.
[end video clip]
[...]
SMITH: More now on the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, speaking out on the controversy that hurt the Obama campaign and may cause it new headaches. CBS News correspondent Jim Axelrod reports.
[...]
AXELROD: Obviously, this will revive a story that the Obama campaign badly wanted to see die, especially as Obama begins his next push in North Carolina and in Indiana. And we are not done hearing from Wright. He will appear at the National Press Club, here in Washington, next Monday to speak with reporters.
Now I have said I am over both of these pastors, back to their respective pulpits for both of them, I say.
But the only way this particular instance is not comparing apples to oranges is if both candidates were being specifically interviewed and one was asked, and one was not. Not sure if it makes my point stronger or weaker?, but it only seems fair.
Obama was not interviewed. McCain was.
This thread is not about the debate, it is about the Today Show and the Early Show. And I did say the ABC debate was a travesty, which I still think it was.
This thread however is not addressing the debate, nor did I.
Ah, the literal defense. But you are ignoring that there really is a clear link between the debate and an interview. Over and over we see Obama getting this pastor thing flung in his face while McCain gets a free ride. That's the real point here tommy, this is about bias in the media. In that regard it is fair to bring up the debate and several other instances of bias regarding Wright and Obama to prove that there's a problem.
That's where I was coming from, Tommy.
So, it's ok when you want to expand the thread to include other instances to make the broader point you want to make, but not ok when someone else does it you disagree with politically?
Come on Snoop, this is not about the debate or media bias in general. It's about what it's about. Sorry, I don't agree.
Snoopy, I think the difference is Wright was BO's personal pastor. That can mean a lot of things depending on what denomination you're in.
As far as I know Hagee isn't McCain's personal pastor and I'm not even sure if JM has even attended his church.
I think points on his (Hagee's ) support are valid.
Yes, yes. We've heard the apologists bellyache about all that before.
I fail to see how it makes any difference.
All I see here are two candidates with two religious nuts for supporters. One candidate (Obama) gets nothing but grief from the media. The other (McCain, duh) gets a pass.
One (according to some) blames America for 9/11.
One (according to some) blames America for Katrina.
The only significant and relevant difference between the two, to my mind, is that one candidate (and one religious nut) is black, and one is white.
And even by your lame metric ("Oh, Obama's waaaay closer to Wright than McCain is to Hagee!") you would think the media would mention Hagee at least long enough to make such a specious argument. But no. McCain wasn't even asked. It's all Wright, all the time.
For the third time...FAIR POINT. It still doesn't change the FACT that an endorsement is different from being an active MEMBER in said congregation of said preacher that makes nutbag statements.
Just curious Solon. Have you ever been an ACTIVE member of a congregation like Wrights or Hagee's?
On February 26, McCain appeared at a campaign rally in Cincinnati with the Reverend Rod Parsley of the World Harvest Church of Columbus, a supersize Pentecostal institution that features a 5,200-seat sanctuary, a television studio (where Parsley tapes a weekly show), and a 122,000-square-foot Ministry Activity Center.
McCain, with Parsley by his side at the Cincinnati rally, called the evangelical minister a "spiritual guide."
"If I were call for the sterilization or the elimination of an entire segment of society, I'd be labeled a racist or a murderer, or at very best a Nazi," says Parsley. "That every single year, millions of our tax dollars are funding a national organization built upon that very goal -- their target: African Americans. That's right, the death toll: nearly fifteen hundred African Americans a day. The shocking truth of black genocide."
"Right now our own government is allowing organizations like Planned Parenthood to legally take the innocent lives of precious baby girls and baby boys and even footing the bill for it all with our tax dollars, turning every single one of us into accessories to murder," he says. "You know who their biggest fans must be, that must be the Klu Klux Klan, because the woman who founded this organization detested black people.... African Americans were number one on Margaret Sanger's list. So this 'Lady MacDeath,' as I like to call her, studied the works of Englishman Thomas Robert Malthus, and embraced his plan of eugenics."
Parsley? Why are you quoting Parsley? Why don't you dig up some controversial quotes from Dan Yeary?!? In case you don't have time to actually look up any, here's a couple;
Yeary said: "I believe that abortion is wrong and I believe that it is a very, very poor choice ... I believe it should be outlawed."
Yeary adheres to the Southern Baptist belief that gay marriage and homosexual relations go against Biblical scripture. "The Bible is pretty clear about it, in my opinion it specifically calls it a sin. I also am a sinner and you are a sinner. ... Did Jesus Christ love homosexuals? I'm sure he did." Yeary said.
Oh my, those are disgusting quotes! Did he actually say that? Why hasn't the mainstream media and/or liberals picked up on ANY of these horrible, hateful statements? Let me offer a guess, because if they actually cared what John McCain's pastor (Dan Yeary) had to say they would. However, it's better to whip up hatred by using someone else's pastor to equalize Obama's pastor being quoted.
Have you EVER thought of getting quotes from Dan Yeary to counter quotes from Jeremiah Wright? No? Hmmm, you may want to try. If you want to go through EVERY person who "endorses" a candidate there could be thousands to go through. BUT, since the controversy is concerning the pastor of the church that Obama attends, you should counter that controversy with comments made by the pastor of the church McCain attends.
Personally, I don't see how comparing a racist (wright) to a homophobe (yeary) will achieve anything positive. But, I'm not a liberal and you people like to compare worms to birds, thinking they are equal.
you people like to compare worms to birds, thinking they are equal
No, you're wrong. We've never elevated you as being equal to a bird.
Did Jesus Christ love homosexuals? I'm sure he did." Yeary said. (Philib)
Are you/ is he calling Jesus a fag?
Hi Tommy,
I agree with you that neither of these guys should be in the limelight, but I do have a question. Can you think of any parallel stories (religious advisors in both camps being controversial) where the spotlight has been on the Republicans, and they have been hammered relentlessly, when the Democrats have had a similar issue? Offhand, I can't.
But the Rev. Wright flap is mainstream and cable daily news. I believe in equality for Sen. McCain. This negative hype concerning Obama is above and beyond since he has answered the questions over and over. But the Arsetriches on the Right are not happy with those answers.
On our local looney radio station, KDKA, Rev. Wrights' sound bites are played day and night as promotions. Over and Over.....when the ConMen discuss Rev. Wright and Sen. Obama, no calls are permitted about Hagee and Parsley because that is not the topic...too bad, "pastors" in politics are the topic. So this thread is not controlled by the ConMen of KDKA so all "pastors" are fair game.
Nuttiness from the religious right is highlighted constantly by the mainstream media. -Tommy
You appear to live on a different planet than the rest of us.
Here on Earth, your statement would be more accurate if you changed "highlighted" to "embraced."
Religious windbags are constantly given a venue in the mainstream media to vent their spleens about some perceived injustice or another. 9 times out of 10 it is without counterpoint or even reasonable scrutiny by those conducting the interview.
Cases in point: James Dobson & Bill Donohue
Nuttiness from the religious right is highlighted constantly by the mainstream media.- tommy
Yeah, they're experts on Fox, but nobody gets to present the other side.
One that comes to mind is (take your pick) Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell vs Jesse Jackson.
All made outlandish claims during the 70's, 80's, and 90's, but the MSM only made hay over the Religious Right claims/statements. Rev Jackson only started taking heat when RW radio came onto the scene.
Don't discount the importance of what one's preacher is espousing in certain circles. Preachers are considered part of the family especially in southern churches (ask me how I know! ), and therefore guilt by association is sometimes the norm.
Not saying it's fair, but just how it is for certain denominations.
Absurd.
Jackson has been a media punching bag at least as far back as the late '70s (when I was old enough to remember hearing his name on the news.)
"Can you think of any parallel stories (religious advisors in both camps being controversial)"
That could be a good question, IF this was a story that was parrallel. But since the controversy is about Obama's personal pastor and someone who endorses McCain, I don't think this is a "parallel story". Each has it's own distinct and seperate concerns. 1- Why hasn't Obama explained why he continued attending a known racist church for 20+ years? 2- Why hasn't McCain explained why he accepts endorsements from controversial figures?
Not very parallel, huh?
PHILIB, I believe that he has answered ALL questions about Wright and the church over and over and over again. I think the question should be put to everyone..Do you believe his answers or not? If you believe him and wish to vote for him, do so. If you don't believe him and wish to not vote for him, fine, vote for someone else. But to say he has not answered the questions is just plain FALSE. If you are a Republan, you have enough to worry about with Sen. McCain. There is a group going around the country as we speak, gathering information on every Republan running for office and thier connections with their church and minister/priest/rabbi etc. I hope they will all have the answers to certain questions....time after time after time after time. RLC
"PHILIB, I believe that he has answered ALL questions about Wright and the church over and over and over again."
Yeah, all but 'why he stayed at that racist teaching church'. If you have evidence of him answering that one, I'd be interested in his answer. Do you have that evidence?
I do have an answer but the question is flawed. What racist church are you talking about?....I would need references from non-Limbaugh/Hannity/RightWingut sites to verify this is a racist church. You see, I am confused because both white and black attend. Do they have duels and jousts in this Church? Help me out here. WHAT RACIST CHURCH?
P.S. HINT: Shouldn't every person decide which church they attend or are the Righties in charge of that aspect of life?
Yeah, all but 'why he stayed at that racist teaching church'. If you have evidence of him answering that one, I'd be interested in his answer. Do you have that evidence?
First, we apparently need to point out to you once again that Obama's church has never been shown to be racist. That is just an irrational talking point of right-wingers who are scared by assertive African Americans.
However, as for your core question about why Obama stayed in the church, the answer is yes, he did answer it.
Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Rev. Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church?
And I confess that if all that I knew of Rev. Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and YouTube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way
But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. The man I met more than 20 years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor.
He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine, who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth -- by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.
Obama goes on for several more paragraphs answering your exact challenge in more detail. The simple fact is he stayed in the church because the reality of it bears no resemblance to the idiotic parody of it being promulgated by the dishonest right-wingers who are using it for smear purposes as opposed to honest debate.
"That is just an irrational talking point of right-wingers who are scared by assertive African Americans."
I'm no more scared of "assertive African Americans" than you are of assertive European Americans (KKK ect). I'm glad you brought up that critical difference.
So, his answer is; (generalized) 'being taught racism of this manner is ok since everone gets to make their own choice of church to attend'.
You see why you cannot move on Philib...he answers the question, you dismiss it and demand that he answers it again. To be honest, Sen. Obama owes you NO answers but he did give his answer...As I have stated many times, Republans/Conservatives suffer from hearing problems. Why you may wonder? I have the answer to that also. Thier ears are filled with bulls#it supplied by Oxy, Hannity the Nazi lover and a variety of money grabbers who talk and talk and talk. The only thing that comes out of thier mouths is bulls#it...ergo, filling the ear canals of thier devoted follower.
Philib, why not post this somewhere on the Con sites..."Mr. Limbaugh, why won't you address you arrest in Pittsburgh in the company of a male-prostitute?" OR.."Mr. Hannity, why did you lie about your knowledge of Mr. Turner?" You may get run off those sites....but here, you will never be asked to leave. Hell, they let me stay.
"why not post this somewhere on the Con sites..."Mr. Limbaugh, why won't you address you arrest in Pittsburgh in the company of a male-prostitute?" OR.."Mr. Hannity, why did you lie about your knowledge of Mr. Turner?" "
Simple answer; because none of THEM are running for the office of the President of the United States. When they do, I'll ask. Until then- who cares. Personally, I would prefer not having a president of questionable character (racism) as president. His weak answers don't work, for me. Perhaps they are good enough for you. But, if so, then Bush would be ok in your world, too.
"You may get run off those sites....but here, you will never be asked to leave."
That's not what I've seen of others who question liberal stances. And, I do post on another web site. It is neither liberal nor conservative. It allows both, but does not allow direct name-calling. With punishment being temp suspension of posting rights. Here?...permanent banishment for conservatives doing that, but liberals are allowed.
Personally, I would prefer not having a president of questionable character (racism) as president.
Luckily, that particular trait doesn't seem to be in evidence in any of the three remaining major candidates. So you may rest easy.
[Obama's] weak answers don't work, for me. Perhaps they are good enough for you. But, if so, then Bush would be ok in your world, too.
His answers were actually very strong, comprehensive, and affirming. They simply didn't cater to your particular prejudices. Those prejudices aren't about to change, so it matters very little whether you're satisfied. As for the WPE Bush comment, you're off your rocker. Bush is an incoherent, mealy-mouthed, dishonest, unjustifiably arrogant, incompetent failure. Obama is the complete opposite of that description.
"..permanent banishment for conservatives (for name calling), but liberals are allowed. "- philib
Who did that happen to?
There you go, colonel. The king of name-calling gives you the answer you seek. Have you ever been banned, solon, for all the name-calling you do? Hmmm. Go figure I'm able to prove that point so easily.
BTW, solon. I'm not calling Obama a racist. As usual you claim I am saying something I am not saying, but that is your usual tactic when you can't argue the actual point being argued. I have said he has a judgment issue for staying in a church (for 20 years) that teaches racism. I could probably repeat and repeat this over and over again and you still wouldn't understand, huh? Again...go figure.
Really? You didnt call Obama a racist? What did THIS mean?
I would prefer not having a president of questionable character (racism)...Are you claiming that Wright is running for President? I never claimed I didnt call names I said plenty of the conservatives here DO call people names and dont get banned. AND that Coop has been banned at least under three different names and HE was a liberal which blows your whole claim right out of the water. As usual it is YOU that dont get it. It is easier to seperate wet from the ocean than a wingnut from his delusions.
"..permanent banishment for conservatives (for name calling),(philib)
I hate to ruin your little fantasy that you've proved a point, but that would involve evidence of a conservative being permanently banished for nothing other than name-calling.Did you actually think anybody was going to fall for this lie any more than any other of your lies? You're ridiculous.
So, his answer is; (generalized) 'being taught racism of this manner is ok since everone gets to make their own choice of church to attend'
Change "generalized" to "fictionalized" and you would be correct.
If you guys aren't scared of their church, why are you imagining you see racism where none is actually in evidence?
Have any of you been able to find a transcript (or recording) of the entire sermon that the "snipets" have been taken from? I haven't and would be interested to hear them. It's said that these short quotes are taken out of context, so hearing the entire sermon would be helpful.
Without the entire context I will continue to believe he is teaching racism. From what I hear that's the only conclusion that can be made. Does anyone have any transcripts of ANY sermon that he's done? I'd be interested in hearing what a 'normal' sermon of his is like. Interesting that no pro-Wright person has been able to provide any, so far. Hmmm.
Here's more of one of the more famous sermon's. Here's part of another sermon. Here's another. And here's one more.
The fact is that Wright has been preaching for 36 years. Hundreds, if not thousands of hours of his sermons have been recorded, many of them available for sale by his church. All of this is well known. It's undeniable that most, if not all of those recordings have been reviewed by right wing smear merchants looking for something more they can use. And yet, we still only have those few seconds of his sermons plucked out of context.
Besides which, there isn't even anything racist in the little out of context snippets we've all heard over and over.
You might as well accept the facts. Wright is firey and occasionally controversial, but he is mostly inspirational and uplifting, as attested to by all of the members of his congregation whom I've seen interviewed. None of them believe the stupid snippets that ignorant sheep make judgments on truly represent what Wright preaches. I think I'd tend to believe those who are in the best position to know.
And your credibility continues to plunge.
"And yet, we still only have those few seconds of his sermons plucked out of context. Besides which, there isn't even anything racist in the little out of context snippets we've all heard over and over."
The first one you linked, (from the famous snipet) definately shows he is racist. I gave up watching it a couple minutes into it. I can recognize racism when I hear it. If you can't that isn't my problem. If I had heard anything near this at my church, I would have walked out and never returned. I do NOT need to be taught racism. Maybe you do, but I do not. If Obama can't recognize this after knowing the guy for 20 years then HE definately has a judgemental problem.
"You might as well accept the facts. Wright is firey and occasionally controversial, but he is mostly inspirational and uplifting, as attested to by all of the members of his congregation whom I've seen interviewed."
I bet Hagee get very "fiery" also. Yet many complain about him being 'problematic'. I'll bet the members of Hagee's congregation will attest that he is "firey(sic) and occasionally controversial, but is mostly inspirational and uplifting" also!! Yet, this mmfa article is all about how Hagee is a problem, yet Wright is not. How do you account for that? Is this another example of the hypocrisy of liberals??
Oh, wait, you've only got "snippets" of Hagee sermons/speaches also and have made your determination of his character based on that. Yet, complain that I'm making a character determination of Wright based on specifically recorded parts of statements that may be taken out of context. Liberal hypocrisy is too prevalent to be able to understand why you people even attempt to argue in favor of any position you hold.
Thank you for providing those snippets of his sermons.
I didn't provide you with snippets. Apparently you don't know what that word means. Big surprise. I provided you with several full versions and several substantial versions that would provide you with a more informed perception of Wright's sermons. That's what you pretended you were interested.
Yet, this mmfa article is all about how Hagee is a problem, yet Wright is not. How do you account for that? Is this another example of the hypocrisy of liberals??
No, that is NOT what the MMFA article is about. It is about the media presention of Wright as a problem contrasted with the complete disregard of Hagee as a problem. Therefore it is not an example of liberal hypocrisy. It's yet another example of poor reading comprehension on your part.
I'm amused that you pretend to be interested in hearing more of Wright's sermons so you can gain context but are only willing to listen to a couple minutes of one single sermon, selected specifically for its controversial nature, thereby completely failing to gain context. One would almost get the impression that you lied when you said you wanted context.
And you still are a complete failure at making a case for Wright's racism.
Personally, I couldn't care less about what Wright or Hagee preach. I'm not superstitious so I have no opinion on scripture. I'm going to judge candidates on their own words and actions. On that basis, Obama is far, far ahead of McCain.
"I'm amused that you pretend to be interested in hearing more of Wright's sermons so you can gain context but are only willing to listen to a couple minutes of one single sermon, selected specifically for its controversial nature, thereby completely failing to gain context. One would almost get the impression that you lied when you said you wanted context."
What you provided was a 6 minute video of a sermon (most do) that lasted 40 minutes. How am I to gain 'context' from a section that is only part of the entire sermon? Either way, I don't need to listen (in entirety) to racism being taught to know that racism is being taught. Have you ever listened to an entire message taught by a KKK member to know that they are teaching racism? Neither have I. Somehow I get that the message of the KKK is racist, even without hearing an entire message of theirs. Ditto for Wright.
Your analogy is flawed. Pathetically so. The KKK is founded on a racist ideology. One would expect their message to be racist.
I've yet to see evidence that Wright's church has a racist ideology. I see a lot of people making that claim, yet they never seem to provide any evidence. Where does the demonize anyone on the basis of race? Where do they ascribe negative character traits to a particular race? Where do they criticize anyone in any way solely on the basis of race? It's all of those things that are missing from the people who charge racism. You've been making the claim in post after post, hour after hour, and have yet to provide anything that is racist.
Oh, and as for the video links, Youtube doesn' seem to put out posts that long. There were a couple examples of Wright's sermons presented in full over several Youtube entries. Just how much do you need your hand held to find what you're dishnonestly claiming you want to see?
"Where does the demonize anyone on the basis of race? Where do they ascribe negative character traits to a particular race? Where do they criticize anyone in any way solely on the basis of race?"
Well, the 'about us' section of the church site says: "We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization.... We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community." http://www.tucc.org/about.htm . Does that sound like it invites non-blacks to be included in their worship services? It doesn't to me, unless the non-black person is willing to ascribe to only black ideals of for/about/through the black community ONLY. Do you really think that does not sound racist? Sounds to me like if you are not black then you get left out of the benefits of that church.
"despite your overwhelming inability to accept it."
Yeah, as much as you need to attend a KKK meating despite your overwhelming inability to accept it. I think I'll pass on that invitation, much like you (probably) would.
"and ministries which address the Black Community."
I'm sorry, mary. The person is trying to tell me this church helps all people when it says right in their mission statement that they have ministries that helps the black community. Does it mean they help 'only' the black community? Well, if not then they would have said they have ministries to help the community. I would like to ask you; "don't you agree?" but it's fairly obvious you don't think a church that is in the heart of a huge city and has ministries designed to help one racial portion of that city is a bit narrow minded and/or narrow centered. I would hardly call this a church that teaches the will of God. Unless God only cares to help those who are black.
In the sanctuary these days, there are many new white faces--a professor and his sociology students from a local university, teenagers from a church in a small rural town between Chicago and Wisconsin. These visitors are friends and supporters for whom the media controversy has inspired a journey of understanding. On a recent Sunday, Moss warned them that Trinity is a "hugging" church, and when the congregation paused from the service to greet one another, the visitors were swept into Trinity's collective embrace. Their presence is treated like the rainbow sign God sent Noah after the Flood.
But the most powerful response to the media storm surrounding Trinity is in the Sunday morning worship services. The choir sings as if attempting to pierce heaven. A wave of emotion washes over the singers, whose shouts of "Thank you, Lord!" are matched by those of the congregation, which sways side to side. The pastor's voice is as sturdy as God's trombone when he compares King to Joseph in the Old Testament, two men who suffered in this life because they dreamed of a better world. And in a display of the call-and-response tradition of the black church at its best, when Reverend Moss says, "What man meant for evil," the congregation, without a pause, replies, "God meant for good."
This is from an article in The Nation.
No, it doesn't sound racist. It doesn't demonize, mischaracterize or otherwise demean any other race. It isn't even exclusionary. Any of the church's large number of white congregants will affirm that fact. What it does is focus on a specific community that it seeks to serve.
You really don't even know what racism is, do you?
"What it does is focus on a specific community that it seeks to serve. You really don't even know what racism is, do you?"
So, if a Christian church seeks to exclude those who don't fit the profile that it seeks to serve, then they aren't racist? Considering that profile is black-only. I always thought Christianity meant people of all colors. I guess I was taught incorrectly.
So, if a Christian church seeks to exclude those who don't fit the profile that it seeks to serve, then they aren't racist?
False comparison. Wright's church isn't seeking to exclude anyone. All are welcome and a large number of non-whites do attend. There's a basic difference between focusing on specific issues and disallowing other issues.
Their profile is not "black only" as you claim. You really ought to work on those reading comprehension problems. Do you think all churches should focus equally on all issues all of the time? Or does it make sense to adjust your focus to the specific concerns or your congregants?
Beyond that, you're still failing to address any part of it that is racist. They don't criticize, demonize or mischaracterize anyone on the basis of race. Shouldn't some piece of that be necessary to make a case for racism?
I repeat, I don't think you understand what racism is.
"There's a basic difference between focusing on specific issues and disallowing other issues.... Do you think all churches should focus equally on all issues all of the time? Or does it make sense to adjust your focus to the specific concerns or your congregants?.... They don't criticize, demonize or mischaracterize anyone on the basis of race."
Oh come on!! You can't be serious? Answer this for me, then. If a church web site posted it's 'about us' statement that said this: 'We are a congregation which is Unashamedly WHITE and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the WHITE religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an European people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization.... We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a WHITE worship service and ministries which address the WHITE Community.' Would YOU consider that NOT to be racist church?? Get real, I know what racism is. If I saw that statement on a church web site, I would consider that to be a racist church. If you were black and saw that statement, what would you consider it to be?
It's all in the context, my ignorant friend; context means a lot. Yes, I might assume that white church to be racist, but that would be based on an assumption of exclusion, which is NOT in evidence at Wright's church. They are very inclusive. I might also assume an attitude of racial superiority in that white church. It's possible I could be wrong about your hypothetical white church, but I'd have doubts. I'd need to know more. Wright's church, on the other hand, has several decades of history behind it that is very inclusive and contains ZERO racist teachings. If they actually had a racist approach you'd have something solid to point to rather than the lame case you're presenting.
The difference is that Wright's church, while being fully inclusive of all, has chosen a focus on issues of their community, which is heavily African American. Only the worst head-in-the-sand types will pretend that there aren't issues that apply largely to the AA community. I can't think of any issues that need focus that largely affect the European American community. What issues would such a church focus on? I'm fully prepared to accept that such issues might exist, but I can't think of any. Therefore, I would assume a racist attitude.
To be honest, if I saw a new AA church starting up with the mission statement of Wright's church, I'd start out a little leary. I'd want to see in which direction they went. That's not necessary with Wright's church. Wright preached there for 36 years and so far no one, including you, has been able to point to anything he said during that time that was racist in nature.
His church has lived up to its mission statement without being racist. For some reason, that's driving some of the wingnuts crazy, when they should find it admirable.
"Yes, I might assume that white church to be racist, but that would be based on an assumption of exclusion, which is NOT in evidence at Wright's church. I might also assume an attitude of racial superiority in that white church. It's possible I could be wrong about your hypothetical white church, but I'd have doubts. I'd need to know more."
First, thanks for calling me ignorant just before you agree with my position. Second, well then what the heck do you expect me to base my assumptions on? Do you expect me to travel a thousand miles so that I can find out whether Wright's church is racist or not, even after you agree that it sure does sound racist if a white church did the same thing? I agree I would need to know more before making a decision to attend. But I would not simply walk in praying my assumptions were incorrect when the danger would be great for my family if those assumptions ended up being correct.
For my decision I have; their mission statement backed up by Wright claiming whites created AIDS to kill black people. Yes, it is fairly safe to assume that is a racist church taught by a racist. Did Wright ever say he spoke incorrectly about whites creating AIDS to kill black people? I don't think I've heard him say that, so that means he STILL believes it.
First, I didn't agree with you. You said that the mission statement was racist by its nature. I pointed out that it clearly is not. I'd need to know more.
You then went on to make an assumption of racism, claiming that you should assume it because you can't go to see firsthand. I stated that I would give the benefit of the doubt until I have more information. I have that extra information on the basis of the history of Wright's church. In a history going back decades, no one has been able to point to any teachings, actions or principles that are racist in nature. That is a long, non-racist history and it is enough for me to use as a basis of opinion.
Wright DID NOT state that whites created AIDS to kill black people. That is a loose paraphrase of his statements that twists and distorts the meaning of what he actually said. In other words, it's a lie. I don't believe Wright is correct in his charge, but it isn't racist. It doesn't demean, demonize, criticize or assert superiority or inferiority on the basis of race.
I think you still don't understand what racism is.
Philib,
Please stop. Bill has thoroughly made a case which clearly out shines yours. You have been unable at every turn to point to any instances of the preaching of racial superiority. Therefore, you cannot show any evidence of racism. You disingeniously insinuate that Wright said "whites" created the AIDS virus to kill Blacks. That tells me right off the bat that you have no interest in honesty and rationale discussion. All you have is a soundbyte from YouTube and you make a judgement about Obama based on that soundbyte from another man. Do you not see the deficiencies here in your arguments sir? BillJN has basically annihilated you in this debate. You have no chance to form a rationale rebuttal unless you can give evidence of racism (as racism is defined) by Wright, Obama, or that church. Your assumptions, based on the church's website and your information garnered from a extremely short soundbyte, to which you form your conclusions quite frankly show your inability to comprehend basic logic reasoning. BTW...Your credibility is fading fast. Show some valid evidence of racism (other than your assumptions) or just stop making yourself look foolish.
" I can't think of any issues that need focus that largely affect the European American community. What issues would such a church focus on?"
Um... hunger, housing, health, morality and the ever popular sexual sin. That is just the tip of the ice-berg. I take it you are being exclusive when you say whites don't have the same problems that blacks do. Isn't that a trait of being racist? And to think I'm the ignorant one.
None of the issues you mentioned are entirely or heavily weighted toward European Americans. In contrast, there ARE issues that are much more heavily felt by African Americans than by EAs.
I take it you are being exclusive when you say whites don't have the same problems that blacks do. Isn't that a trait of being racist? And to think I'm the ignorant one.
The problem with your statement is that I didn't say that. I pointed out that there are issues that are felt much more heavily in the AA community. So, yes, it is ignorant of you to pretend otherwise.
And if you want transcripts, you may look here and here. This has large portions of the God Damn America sermon. I found it interesting where Wright made the racist statement "All colonizers are not white. Turn to your neighbors and say that oppressors come in all colors." Oh, wait, that's not racist at all. This site has links to several of his sermons.
This stuff isn't that difficult to find. Is Google too much of a challenge for you?
And, I just want to point out that you failed to acknowledge that Obama did answer at length the question you claimed he hadn't. You also failed once again to provide any rational reason to believe that Obama's church is racist.
And here I was, thinking that your credibility couldn't get much thinner.
" You also failed once again to provide any rational reason to believe that Obama's church is racist."
Ok, here is the best example that I've been able to find, so far: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvMbeVQj6Lw
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone..."
There's even more and you can google Matthew 23 (or open your Christian Bible) to read it.
"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.
15"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.
16"Woe to you, blind guides! You say, 'If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.' 17You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred?
"OMG: I'm finding even more! Wright's mentor was much more radical! From that same chapter:"
I don't think those are from Wright's mentor. None of those statements are racist. Radical-yes, but not racist. So, this person is certainly NOT the rev Wright's mentor. I do believe Wright has a mentor, but he isn't the author of those statements you just posted.
Your judgemental attitude added to the sillyness of repeating what you CANNOT back up makes you a bigot and pretty much an idiot. Who appointed YOU to judge Wrights relationship with Jesus? I know God did not tell you that he needed you on a pedestal judging what is in Wrights heart. Since you cannot even read what he SAID with any comprehension I can only LAUGH at your attempt to read what is in his heart. I think if the Limborg hasnt instructed you to be Christian you certainly CANT be.
"OMG: I'm finding even more! Wright's mentor was much more radical! From that same chapter: "
Another problem with that. If this person is Wright's mentor, he also is Hagee's mentor. Are you in agreement with that? If so, then why haven't others learned to accept what Hagee says?
"the Hagees and Hannity's of the world unconsciously mimic the bad actors of Jesus' day. You can continue to follow these blind guides and it will get you just what you've asked for. Good luck."
You left out Wright's name in your short list. How is it Hagee follows the same mentor as Wright but somehow the message of Wright is not considered to be faulty? I suggest that both promote faulty messages. I follow neither 'blind guide', nor do I follow the message of Hannity. I do follow the message of Christ, so it was a breath of fresh air being able to read some of that message on such a liberal site. Again, thanks for sharing the good message for all who are lost to read (me included).
Perhaps this might be a false judgment on your part. I see a lot of Christ's preaching in Rev. Wright's sermons, but none in Hagee's railing against homosexuals.
"Perhaps this might be a false judgment on your part. I see a lot of Christ's preaching in Rev. Wright's sermons"
Perhaps, but considering what the church's mission statement says, I doubt it. There is a lot of Christian teaching by a fellow named Harold Camping. Have you ever heard of him? He does a Bible question/answer program on the world wide radio show he owns along with other Bible teachings/readings. However, he has a problem with 'predicting' the specific date that Christ will return. And has published books on that subject. Now, predicting that date is not a Christian thing to do. Does that exclude him from being a Christian? Or, does that make him a false teacher? What does Jesus think about false teachers?
""Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone..."
There's even more and you can google Matthew 23 (or open your Christian Bible) to read it."
Thanks, mary. Many, here, complain that I have no right to judge others and that only God can make judgements of character. You posted a verse that gives me the instruction to judge others for their character flaws. Do you mind if I refer to this verse whenever I am chastized for being judgemental?
"I see no such instruction for you here."
What did Jesus mean when He said: "and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done,"? It sounds like He says I should have 'done' matters of law, judgment, mercy and faith. But, I guess each of us are entitled to interpret the Word of God any way we want. Wright does, Hagee does, you do and I do. Is that my right of "judgment" being taught to me? Or is it when I make a judgment as to which person is teaching me a Godly message and that I should differentiate between a good teacher and bad teacher?
So, your arguement is that the word is translated incorrectly and NOT that those aren't instructions for me to follow to be a better Christian?
If I look up the word justice: 1 a: the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments.
I think that still gives me the right to make a determination of whether someone is performing evil or not. Do you agree?
Are you JESUS? That is JESUS judging them. Now I would agree HE was qualified. YOU, I would state categorically that you are NOT.
I'm not surprised that's the best example you could find. Now, would you be so kind as to point out what portion of it you found to be racist? Please don't feed us more of your "it just is, anyone can see it" type of argument. Thus far you've failed to provide any of Wright's words that are racist. You haven't come close. You've floundered and sputtered and blustered, but you haven't even tried to support your claims.
Is this the best you've got?
You think that you repeating a falsehood magically transforms it into the truth. Just because you have been instructed as a loyal hivemind member to repeat and believe his church is racist will NEVER make it so. WISHING also will not make it so.
>>Obama was not interviewed. McCain was.
So? The media is choosing to continue the Obama-Wright story and not the McCain-Hagee one. Or McCain's flip on Falwell and others.
Obama was not interviewed. McCain was.
Actually, Obama went on bothe Olbermann and FOX when the story broke and got interviewed over the Rev. Wright's words.
So, again, Tommy, you're wrong.
Moyers must be the closet conservative here. He's the one who choose to interview Wright and not Hagee.
Off to Gitmo with the traitor Williams Moyers or is it William 'Reagan' Moyers?
Yeah, that was quite an argument. Moyers actually talked to Wright, rather than play cherry-picked parts of his sermon on an endless loop. What would an interviewer talk to Hagee about?
"Why have you not been connected by the media to the presidential candidate you endorse,who is not pressured to denounce you?"
Odd that the so called mainstream news chose to pick up this Moyers story instead of the hundreds of others. Such as adminstration lies about the war for example.
I'd like to see the casualty list from the Iraq invasion played over and over on an endless loop. Maybe then you might see the results of your kind of thinking.
It's clear the enablers of this debacle would rather obsess over pastors. Has it ever occured to you that Americans who ignore or cheer for empire and "America first" are creating a damn-nation?
We certainly don't want our policies to be based upon falsehoods, and there is no indication that Obama (or for that matter anyone with any actual influence in government) shares the controversial political views expressed by Reverend Wright in the snippets from his sermons.
But what if those ideas did find their way into public policy? Help for AIDS patients and drug addicts? Civilians off limits in war?
If, on the other hand, Pastor Hagee's views were translated into policy, we might treat gays as second-class citizens and send billions of dollars of military aid to Israel.
And I realize this is probably a worst case scenario, but we might invade a country in the Middle East without a valid reason, with disastrous results.
NYT: Let’s talk about your much-quoted comment that Hurricane Katrina was God’s punishment for a gay rights parade in New Orleans...
JH: We’re not going down there. That’s so far off-base it would take us 33 pages to go through that, and it’s not worth going through.
Oh, was he misunderstood when he said that? Imagine.
Philib Recap
Here's what we've seen from Philib the last couple of days.
Philib claimed that Obama never said why he stayed in the church. It was shown to him that Obama answered that question at length and in depth. Philib failed to acknowledge his error and instead presented a paraphrase of Obama's statements that bore no resemblance to anything he actually said.
Philib pretended he wanted to see more of Wright's sermons to gain context. He was provided with several video links and several transcripts. He said he only listened to a couple minutes of the first one. When provided with volumes of information from which to gain context, he refused to do so.
Philib claimed that no one has been able to provide full content of any of Wright's sermons. He provides no response when it is pointed out that hundreds, possibly thousands of hours of Wright's sermons are available to anyone.
Philib repeatedly calls Wright and his church racist. When challenged to support this charge, he links to the same video I presented to him, which contains no racist content. He still has failed to provide any content from Wright to support his charge.
Philib claimed conservative posters are routinely banned from MMFA for name-calling while liberals aren't. When challenged by the Col. he has declined to provide an example.
Philib claimed the point of this article was "about how Hagee is a problem, yet Wright is not." When it was pointed out that that is not the point of the article, he ignored the correction of his false statement.
I knew there was little substance to support Philib's positions, but I'm still a little surprised that the amount he's been able to provide rests at zero.