Watched Father Michael Pfleger's rant. I remember him only a few weeks ago making a monkey of the local Fox News reporter. He was lauded for his directness and cleverness. So today we see clips from his address to Trinity and he hear the dramatic flourishes to some point he is making about denial of responsibility or conscience. ANd he is scorned.
I don't know what to think about him. It isn't as though I have never heard intensely, emotionally based sermons before and realized they were never intended to make me think, but to act. But it seems to me these clips show the main congregational response was to laugh. Was it dark and cynical laughter? Evil conniving laughter? Haughty and disdainful laughter? Miserable and helpless laughter? Maybe they were just laughing at him, not what he said.
Posted by gtash at June 1, 2008 06:10 AM
Just Words(tm)
Posted by Sharon at June 1, 2008 06:19 AMThis is in response to Turkana's post below (there are now 172 comments on it, so any response added now will be lost).
Yes, I agree, the rules committee just made it up when they agree to the 69-59 delegate split. True.
However, Harold Ickes is full of crap. The MI election results are useless. Every statistical analysis shows that the vote was hopelessly distorted by the absense of 4 candidates and the fact that the election was known in advance by the voters to be meaningless. We cannot know what the results of a real primary would have been, but we can know that the mythical "real" results would not have been the 55-40 edge that Clinton held over "uncommitted".
Under the rules, the only reasonable result was to seat no delegates at all, as there was no fair basis for allocating them. Hence the proposal to split the delegates 50-50 between the two (now) remaining candidates, which received majority (14-13) support on the committee -- which is the same as seating no delegates, only it allows MI to have some representation.
The 69-59 split was a compromise. One of those ugly compromises that happen in politics.
It is fine to be upset with the system -- it stinks. It is fine to be upset with the result -- it stinks too. But for a Clinton fan to argue that she "earned" 55% of the votes in that election is a sign of complete loss of objectivity. Worse, to argue that she should get part of the "uncommitted" vote, as Lanny Davis did, is the sign of extreme bias.
Finally, for those to argue that Obama blocked a revote I can only say that you are wrong. The revote rules, as written at the state Democratic level, required only permitting those who voted in the first Democratic primary to revote. Certainly Obama opposed that formulation -- based on the demographics of his voters -- but it turned out that it this formulation wasn't possible under state law, because the Democratic party wasn't allowed access to the names of those who voted in each primary (violates the secret ballot privilege).
Posted by Anonny at June 1, 2008 06:57 AMI didn't see the priest's sermon, so I can't comment in a specific way. I am, however, concerned about what I see as disturbing trends in our religious discourse.
It has always been the case that certain christian subgroups used the pulpit as a rallying instrument to GOTV for their issues,e.g. abortion, gay marriage, etc. This apparent violation of 'separation of church and state' has never IMO been adequately enforced, which encourages some places of worship to flagrantly violate that constitutional standard by openly advertising their 'positions'. Case in point: small churches in NC and SC put anti-Obama rehetoric on their signs.
This certainly a complex issue that involves interpretations of the First and Fifth (i.e. 'equal protection') Amendments; and perhaps more importantly interpretation of IRS codes on what constitutes a charitable trust.
I think that when a pastor or visiting member of the clergy criticicizes a specific candidate or Party on the pulpit, that the organization should be investigated by the IRS. This will not happen until the IRS is given reasonable funding to investigate complaints.
Also troubling to me is the increased use of 'code words', 'doublespeak', and innuendo on the pulpit which can only be curbed by self-control.
Posted by pragmaticprogressive at June 1, 2008 07:12 AMCan somebody please tell me what Hillary lovers are crying about now?
Did they really expect FL/MI to be fully seated, and for Obama to be shut out in MI?
Posted by Janet Reno at June 1, 2008 07:20 AMThe Priest did refer to Sen Clinton specifically in part of his presentation and used her "crying" incident in a primary to suggest she was moved to cry because she felt cheated of a victory (as nominee) and the "cheat" was a Black man. He sets her up as Entitled White and then knocks her down.
I saw a guy in the pulpit playing it for a joke in much the way a stand-up comic would try to. It was over-the-top, hurtful and tasteless. But audiences laugh at tasteless jokes all the time. I think of " Uh...no WMD's under the desk" as but one example.
Whether the congregation gets regular diet of this or not, I don't know. The media has certainly done its best to suggest this. It's kind of hard for me to imagine a regular diet of this in any church. Father Pfleger's guest appearances might be few-and-far between. He certainly is a loose-cannon.
---or "loose canon".
Posted by gtash at June 1, 2008 07:41 AMConsidering all the "problems" that candidates have had with their churches (and that doesn't count the virtual blackout on Reverend Coe and H. Clinton and those prayer circles) can we be far away from the "spiritual but not religious" box to be checked for political candidates.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at June 1, 2008 08:13 AMSimple question for which I can't seem to get an answer anywhere.
If Trinity church brought Obama to Jesus 20 years ago, who or what if anything did he worship in his formulative years?
Does anyone know, or do I have to wait for the GOP to fill in the blanks?
Posted by TIKI AL at June 1, 2008 09:12 AMMy understanding is that until he was "brought to Jesus" or whatever the phrase is, Obama was an atheist like his father before him.
(At least he was never - horror of horrors - a (gulp, shiver) MUSLIM!)
Posted by Shirin at June 1, 2008 09:42 AMIf Trinity church brought Obama to Jesus 20 years ago, who or what if anything did he worship in his formulative years?
Obama being a young heterosexual man at the time I bet he worshiped a nice rack and a tight butt.
(At least he was never - horror of horrors - a (gulp, shiver) MUSLIM!)
Nor a member of The Fellowship. Now that's a little Nazi worshipping elitist group if ever there was one.
Posted by phidipides at June 1, 2008 09:54 AMphidipides,
Have you wondered why the mainstream media, which is supposed to have been so unfair to H. Clinton, doesn't talk about The Fellowship? I mean, the fellow who investigated the group (I think he authored the Mother Jones article on Clinton's involvement) was supposed to have a book out on it in May and yet I haven't heard word one on it.
Was the release date pushed back? Is the MSM, which was quite happy to talk about sermons delivered in a church when Obama wasn't even there, or even about McCain's wacky, murderous pastor buddies, won't touch The Fellowship?
My guess is that it reveals too much about Clinton's real allies in Congress and where her heart really lies. How about you?
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at June 1, 2008 10:06 AMYeah, thats right. Clintons media friends and allies who have been so incredibly helpful to her, and her close Congressional friends who have overwhelmingly supported her. Yeah. thats right.
Posted by Jammer at June 1, 2008 10:25 AMWe wouldn't be having this conversation if there was separation of Church and States, and any pastor preaching politics from the pulpit would lose their tax-exempt status.
Posted by Judith#1 at June 1, 2008 11:21 AMOK, now we are getting somewhere. Life long atheists usually don't "find Jesus" unless:
1. They somehow manage to paint themself into a corner that drugs and booze can no longer get them out of. They become desperate and can't think clearly like when the drunken Bush was being threatened with divorce proceedings by Laura.
2. They join a large church for social contacts for personal gain. (When I was a kid, my Lutheran church was full of devil worshipping insurance salesmen)
3. They are starving in the 3rd world, and are offered food if they take Jesus as part of the deal.
Has Obama ever stated a reason that in his 20s he felt the need to come to Christ? Was there some GOP friendly event we don't know about?
Posted by TIKI AL at June 1, 2008 01:07 PMThis popped up at Raw Story:
http://www.rawstory.com/news/mochila/Chicago_priest_apologizes_for_Clint_06012008.html
Posted by gtash at June 1, 2008 02:55 PM