IcyPatriot

Interesting issue that came to light Tuesday.

Obama responds quickly:

Quote:

Cohen chronicled Farrakhan's long record of inflammatory statements, from denigrating the Holocaust, to accusing Jewish people of victimizing African Americans. He did stipulate, "It's important to state right off that nothing in Obama's record suggests he harbors anti-Semitic views or agrees with Wright when it comes to Farrakhan." But, he suggested, "Farrakhan, in a strictly political sense, may be a tough issue for him." The column spread like wildfire around the blogosphere -- especially on the right -- and, this afternoon, the Obama campaign responded with an unequivocal statement on it from the candidate himself. "I decry racism and anti-Semitism in every form and strongly condemn the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan," Obama said in the statement. "I assume that Trumpet Magazine made its own decision to honor Farrakhan based on his efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders, but it is not a decision with which I agree."

The ADL also jumps in quickly with this:

Quote:

http://www.adl.org/PresRele/NatIsl_81/5208_81.htm We welcome Barack Obama's condemnation of the anti-Semitic rhetoric of Minister Louis Farrakhan, and his making clear that he did not agree with his church's decision to honor Farrakhan with the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award. Issues of racism and anti-Semitism must be beyond the bounds of politics. When someone close to a political figure shows sympathy and support for an individual who makes his name espousing bigotry, that political figure needs to distance himself from that decision. Senator Obama has done just that.

There are many links now to many asking Obama to denounce and/or leave his minister and that church.

Several important issues now come to light.

1- Is it fair to tell Obama what to do concerning his religion?

2- Does Obama have an obligation to defend hus minister/church?

3- Is this issue an early test of Obama's mettle as asked below by Cohen in the Post article.

Quote:

I don't for a moment think that Obama shares Wright's views on Farrakhan. But the rap on Obama is that he is a fog of a man. We know little about him, and, for all my admiration of him, I wonder about his mettle. The New York Times recently reported on Obama's penchant while serving in the Illinois legislature for merely voting "present" when faced with some tough issues. Farrakhan, in a strictly political sense, may be a tough issue for him. This time, though, "present" will not do.

My reason for posting this came from an article I almost posted yesterday. Karl Rove's has laid out a blueprint to defeat Obama. The main idea of the blueprint is that he has only voted on 1 bill and otherwise has done next to nothing for us to judge him.

Is this issue concerning his church/minister a fair issue to judge him?

IcyPatriot

Is this issue concerning his church/minister a fair issue to judge him?
I think how he responds is crucial. he needs to show that he will not be bullied by the press and that he can make a decision based on what a President should be expected to do and say. How much respect can he expect to get for being bullied here. How many believe their religion is sacred? Obama should be given the same room here that any of us would expect IMO.

I believe his condemnation of the award was good ... perhaps a response to the beliefs of his church is off base IMO ... Obama is not his church. If we judged all candidates on their church then perhaps we would be best off electing an Athiest...right?

wistahpatsfan

He should leave his church and denounce the pastor as a fraud and a liar.
And so should everyone else!

Actually, he should do that. Just as soon as the other candidates do it. The Catholics should leave the church and denounce their bishops and priests for being accomplices in the systematic rape of children. The Mormon should leave the Tabernacle and denounce his deacons for banning blacks from their priesthood until the 80's....
You get the picture.

Obama has a chance to show some sack and tell the press to go fu-k themselves and keep religion out of it.

IcyPatriot

It's going to be a long race isn't it?
Well, anyways we agree ...

mtbykr

I will slightly disagree here. Obama shouldn't have to defend his religion, just like Romney shouldn't have to defend his, Huckster his, ect... However I do think this is more than that.

You gave the example of the catholic church. Let's say someone went to a church and their bishop/priest at that church had something to do with the rape of children (whether in the act or helping to cover up). If that person was their pastor, mentor, spiritual advisor, ect... then they should remove them self from that situation if he continues on in his role. We are not talking about someone in Obama's religion doing something stupid...we are talking about the man who he considers his 'spiritual advisor' and continues to be a member of his church.

Again, I don't think the crap that has happened in the catholic church applies to everyone...it is the responsibility of the people that committed the crime and/or tried to cover it up. However this example doesn't hold true with Obama since we are not talking about someone somewhere that has the same religion...we are talking about his 'spiritual advisor' and pastor. If I attended a church and my pastor did this (or something else i completely disagreed with) I would separate myself from the situation becuase I don't need to be under the teaching/advice of someone with those views....and failing to do so would say alot about my character.

__________________
"The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits". - Albert Einstein

DarrylS

He should do nothing, the press will play games and inflame it more than it should be..

__________________
"Being the best doesn't mean you always win. It just means you win more than anyone else".. tweet from Kurt Warner to Tom Brady.