Daily Dunklin Democrat

Observations -- Are there theological, philosophical reasons for leaving?

Posted Monday, June 2, 2008, at 8:01 AM
<< Previous | Read comments | Respond | Email link | Next >>

Well, I see that Barack Obama has removed himself from the Trinity United Church of Christ. I note with interest one of the primary reasons he gave for leaving the church.

In a story reported by Time magazine and CNN, Obama said that allowing Trinity to get back to tending its family was a key part to his resigning him membership.

Perhaps I have simply missed it, but what I'm particularly interested in is this: Does Obama have any theological, philosophical reasons for leaving the church?

I am not interested in whether he has left the church for political reasons. I am not interested in whether the church gets back to "tending its family." I am interested in what theological, philosophical reasons, if any, for Obama's leaving the church.

If he has no theological, philosophical reasons for leaving the church, that should tell everyone something significant!

Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

Amen!

-- Posted by grizz1 on Mon, Jun 2, 2008, at 9:55 PM

What does it tell us? Really? Is it significant? Good grief. Obama has to do this to distance himself from controversy every time Rev. Wright opens his mouth. Then his campaign has to spend the next few days addressing those statements. Why is it so shocking that a politician is doing something to try to improve his stature with voters? Is this so hard to believe?

-- Posted by oldtrougher on Tue, Jun 3, 2008, at 11:27 AM

I think voters would appreciate it more if he just came out and said "For obvious reasons I am leaving the church. Recent comments made by the minister have conflicted with the image I'm trying to present and are screwing with my political career."

(Okay, maybe not in so many words.)

Rather than some bs about "letting the church get back to it's family. Maybe he did? I don't know. Didn't read the article since I don't follow Obama's career...

And yes, it is significant to wonder/know if someone has any actual belief system in something, other than making it to the White House.

Why has he gone for years and dropped it? Just for politics? Says a lot about his character in my opinion.

-- Posted by vambfly on Tue, Jun 3, 2008, at 4:50 PM

After eight years of Bush/Cheney, I don't care what "actual belief system" a candidate has. The press pressure is a weird thing. I agree that Obama should have distanced himself from that church a long time ago, but at the same time. There was no controversy until he decided to run for President.

-- Posted by oldtrougher on Wed, Jun 4, 2008, at 8:48 AM

Why am I not surprised that someone would say he/she does not care about a person's "actual belief system?" I think you are in fact interested in it, oldtrougher, and that is why you do not care for the past eight years of Bush/Cheney. Their actions are reflective of their belief system, whether one agrees with them or not. Likewise, Obama's actions are reflective of his belief system. If he has been an active member and supporter of the Rev. Wright for 20 years and has similar beliefs, that should concern everyone - Republican and Democrat - and especially those of us who look at candidates first and party second.

-- Posted by Jack Rollins on Wed, Jun 4, 2008, at 2:38 PM

What? Jack. Come on. Obviously putting words in my mouth there. Does the "actual belief system" really explain why are went to Iraq and still are. To me this church thing and politics are two TOTALLY different things. Should politicians speak about religion to their constituents? No. Should your pastor discuss politics to their congregation? Heck no.

-- Posted by oldtrougher on Wed, Jun 4, 2008, at 3:27 PM

It's because so many people "don't care what actual belief system" candidates have that the country is going to heck in a handbag. Example. Legalizing gay marriage in two states (that I'm aware of.), legalized murdering of unborn children (abortion), etc. etc.

-- Posted by vambfly on Wed, Jun 4, 2008, at 3:58 PM

BTW- If you do have a belief system, it should encompass everything you do and everything you say - in my opinion. If not, it's not much of a belief system.

-- Posted by vambfly on Wed, Jun 4, 2008, at 4:02 PM

With the sorry choices of Obama or McCain this election cycle, it matters not a whit which is elected, tighten the cinch strap and mount up, we are in for a rough ride. A optimist might think things cannot get worse, but in Realpolitiks, they always can.

I have been disappointed and disagreed with the current president on many things, but with that said, I predict that before the next president's term is over, the nation will look back on Bush's tenure as the happy times.

-- Posted by Lived There Once on Wed, Jun 4, 2008, at 4:09 PM

Thanks vambfly. Nice to know it is my fault the the country is going to hell in a handbag. Has nothing to do with big oil. (Why the Exxon/Mobil merger was allowed to go through is beyond me.) My god we are opening a can of worms here. why is the legalization of Gay marriage such a big deal? You know, because the heterosexuxals are so good at the marriage thing......

-- Posted by oldtrougher on Wed, Jun 4, 2008, at 4:14 PM

Much is made of the people Obama chose to associate himself with? For me, the bigger question is, what did these very unsavory people see in Obama's character they could use to advance and promote their radical causes?

-- Posted by Lived There Once on Wed, Jun 4, 2008, at 6:18 PM

Um. Didn't say you specifically "oldtrougher". I said people with no morals who don't care if the people running the country have morals or not. If you're feeling guilty that's not my issue. And if you, as you've apparently admitted, are one of these people I feel sorry for you.

The problem with legalization of gay marriage is a big deal because it is biblically wrong, and goes against God, and God's design. But you know that, and obviously don't care so there is no point in arguing that with you. You'll answer to God- as will we all.

Lived There Once- GOOD point!!!

-- Posted by vambfly on Wed, Jun 4, 2008, at 6:40 PM

What's wrong with gay marriage?

I wouldn't even justify that with an answer.

Some good points brought up though.

Obama doesn't have my vote.

-- Posted by Unpopular on Wed, Jun 4, 2008, at 7:45 PM

vambfly...

OK, OK. Why the "you'll answer to god." I mean come on. I am a heterosexual male. To I have no morals is against God's plan and you'll answer to God... Sounds GREAT on a message board post, doesn't it.

Lived There Once....

To me Rev. Wright clinged to Obama like a leech and when he had this forum to make a name for himself, and his church, is the problem I find with Wright. Should Obama have distanced himself eariler, yes. But what's done is done, I guess. It is a totally different story if Obama himself said the things that Wright did.

-- Posted by oldtrougher on Wed, Jun 4, 2008, at 8:00 PM

Obama and Wright, joined at the hip for 20 years, birds of a feather do flock together.

While the good rev. Wright was G-D damning evil America, he and his church took fifteen million dollars of taxpayer dollars from that same America.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/02/...

-- Posted by Lived There Once on Wed, Jun 4, 2008, at 8:56 PM

You are exactly right! Another example is John McCain and Charles Keating. Birds of a feather.....

-- Posted by oldtrougher on Thu, Jun 5, 2008, at 9:13 AM

Um. I have no idea what you're talking about? "It sounds good on a message board post."

I suppose it does to you? It's also quite simply the truth. We all will answer to God for the decisions we make and the lives we lead.

Is that confusing to you?

BTW, I didn't say you were not a heterosexual. I didn't say you were a woman. I haven't said squat about you.

Why on the defense here?

-- Posted by vambfly on Thu, Jun 5, 2008, at 3:46 PM

BTW, YOU asked ME a question, if you recall, and I answered it.

-- Posted by vambfly on Thu, Jun 5, 2008, at 4:02 PM

Certainly not on defense. Don't flatter yourself. Just letting you know I am not homosexual. So, being in favor of gay marriage is something I am going to have answer to God about?

Be careful to not hurt your finger thumping that bible......

-- Posted by oldtrougher on Thu, Jun 5, 2008, at 4:27 PM

LOL

You're too funny. I could care less if you're a homosexual, a heterosexual, or man, a woman, black, white, blue, or polka-dot. You asked me a question and I answered it. And you are on the defense, anyone can see that. That's not "flattering" myself by any means.

How would it be?

Now, do you seriously want me to answer that question as well? Since previously answering a question from you, you have done nothing but make a fool out of yourself, made it clear that you can't handle the truth, or have an adult "conversation" without resorting

to childish behavior.

I'm not "bible thumping". I'm stating fact. Although if you want to call me a "bible thumper" there are far worse things you can call me.

GOD BLESS YOU AND YOURS!

-- Posted by vambfly on Thu, Jun 5, 2008, at 5:22 PM

http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p100/...

-- Posted by Lived There Once on Fri, Jun 6, 2008, at 1:00 AM

Thanks, vambfly. You are so right. We should all be just like you, as a model of humanity to keep our moral compass pointed in the correct direction.

Please answer anything you want for me. You are obviously way more intelligent than I am.

It just must be God's plan to have you as a superior person. Congratulations. I am done on with this thread. This is going nowhere.

-- Posted by oldtrougher on Fri, Jun 6, 2008, at 9:38 AM

On the other hand, I do have one last thought.....

The question I asked above is "what is wrong with gay marriage?" Guess that is the wrong question. Way to broad. Since the statement above of "legislating gay marriage (in two states that I know of)". I should have said, why does this act need to be regulated? The only answer that I got from vambfly is that goes against God's plan. That answer is irrelevant. Since there is the whole separation of church and state thing.

We are all promised the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Who is the federal government to deny anyone the right to marry the person that they love? If churches don't wish recognize the unions as a marriage, they should not have to. But the government should. We have separation of church and state for a reason. To protect religion from government and government from religion.

Really sorry to you guys to keep dragging this on. I just don't appreciate being called a "child" and that I am making a "fool out of myself".

I am wise enough to understand that we are not going to solve this issue on an internet message board. I was just simply passing the hours at work by generating conversation.

Thanks again for all of your input.

-- Posted by oldtrougher on Fri, Jun 6, 2008, at 10:02 AM

"We are all promised the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

- old trougher -

THERE ARE ALOT OF PEOPLE IN PRISONS THAT HAVE PURSUED LIFE LIBERTY AND THEIR OWN FORM OF HAPPINESS. LET 'EM LOOSE BOYS! WHO IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO DENY ANYONE THE RIGHT TO WHAT EVER MAKES THEM HAPPY?

-- Posted by Unpopular on Fri, Jun 6, 2008, at 2:17 PM

You keep making my point. I have never said I was more intelligent than you, or superior. You can do nothing but make false assumptions about me- which could be construed as childish. If you recall, I said a long time ago that this was pointless to discuss this any further. I'm glad you finally came to the same conclusion!

You asked me a question, as I've said, and I answered it. The answer I gave to you is not in any way irrevelant to me.

You're getting yourself all worked up over an answer to a question that you asked!

Hopefully you are done, as this verbal sparring is going nowhere.

HAVE A BLESSED DAY! ;)

-- Posted by vambfly on Fri, Jun 6, 2008, at 2:46 PM

It's peculiar that the idle of so many slave descendants, and guilt-tripped "progressives," is an Arab, not an African-American in any usual sense. In fact, his father has as ancestors Kenyon slave traders, who were victimizers and dealers in the damnable slave trade. Obama has never suffered from slavery, post-civil war cruelty, Jim Crow, the demeaning spiritual affliction of segregation; nor can he claim anything (in his personal experience) in common with those who were beaten like dogs in Selma and Montgomery. He is an opportunist with a superior education who saw, early on, that the way to political prominence was through Rev. Wright's "hate America" congregation. He left that church because of the "philosophical" observation of thinking Americans that "Birds of a feather�.."

-- Posted by Skeptisch on Sat, Jun 7, 2008, at 8:37 AM

He clearly said he disagreed with the Wright and Pfleger comments. I think that stands as a philosophical reason.

The church has 8,000 members and is one of the biggest in Chicago. I know a few members. Many of them probably agree with Obama about Wright's and Pfleger's comments. Many churches have had pastors who said things not all the members agreed with. Anyone who has been around churches much knows this.

-- Posted by wbkelley on Sat, Jun 7, 2008, at 9:55 AM

While it is true that many people disagree here and there with things their pastors have said it is indeed interesting that he has been going to this church for what I've heard is many many years, and that now that his reverend is in the media spotlight saying things I'm sure he's said for many many years, NOW is when Obama decides to leave. It has clearly nothing to do with his beliefs or whatnot, it has everything to do with Rev. Wright's opinions not meshing with what/who America would want as a president. It's clearly a political move not simply just a disagreement with the Rev's comments. One could not seriously think that after ministering for years at this church all of a sudden the spotlight is on him and he pulls these "opinions" out of his hat. He has been preaching these things for years. NOW Obama wants to pull out?

-- Posted by Unpopular on Sat, Jun 7, 2008, at 1:55 PM

People in democracies often for unknown reasons get caught up in the mantra of change without really understanding what that change may entail. Many now see Obama as their messiah for change, without unforeseen issues, he will likely be elected.

As H.L. Mencken once said:

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

-- Posted by Lived There Once on Sat, Jun 7, 2008, at 10:25 PM

Well, I am glad the blog has generated so much discussion. I think the discussion is good, personally. I think this is a very good way of learning and "stretching" our minds!

Regarding the "separation of church and state," I hope those who argue for it really understand what was meant by it when our forefathers put it in the Constitution. I fear most do not understand it.

Regarding Obama'a changing things in Washington...if anyone really believes he is going to change anything and they are basing a vote upon that....well, all I know to say is "God bless you," because Obama has changed nothing in this campaign process, he has changed nothing since being in the U.S. Senate, and, as far as I can tell, as changed nothing anywhere. If a desire to have things changed in Washington is a reason for voting for a candidate, one must vote for McCain, who has been behind many changes.

I agree with Lived There Once, we're in for a rough ride no matter who "wins" this upcoming presidential election!

-- Posted by Jack Rollins on Sun, Jun 8, 2008, at 3:11 PM

Oops! I correct myself. The only thing Obama has changed since being in the U.S. Senate is his mind!

-- Posted by Jack Rollins on Sun, Jun 8, 2008, at 3:12 PM

Jack, I think we might agree again.

The Constitution does not call for "separation of church and state". Instead, that metaphor evolved from what the founding fathers wrote in the constitution, with the help of people like Madelyn Murray O'Hare.

The founding fathers wrote that: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." There is ample evidence that our nation was founded on Christian principles, and I won't belabor that. My read on the above clause is that Congress may not make laws regulating religion nor may they prohibit any religious practices. It does NOT say that all aspects of Christian principles (or any other religious principles, for that matter)must be purged from the government. The founding fathers were trying, in great part, to avoid a re-run of the persecution of anyone practicing religion that was at odds to the Church of England.

This country was founded on Christian principles, and I, for one, would very much like to keep it that way.

-- Posted by SenathDavid on Sun, Jun 8, 2008, at 4:53 PM

I agree SenathDavid with what you have said about "separation of church and state." That our Founding Fathers, and those who have followed them in positions of leadership until relatively recently, never, never, never intended to remove all evidence of Christianity from the government is abundantly clear. Those who think otherwise should simply walk into the buildings of state governments and the federal government. In every capitol I have been in there have been inscriptions of The Ten Commandments somewhere. The idea was NOT to keep "religion" out of government, BUT to keep the government out of religion. The more those in government attempt to keep religion out of government the more they are actually inserting government into the free exercise thereof. Prohibiting the free exercise of religion is what our Founding Fathers wanted to prevent. How sad that so many of our citizens have no idea of this and simply swallow hook, line, and sinker, the ramblings of those now who misuse the concept altogether.

-- Posted by Jack Rollins on Mon, Jun 9, 2008, at 1:12 PM

Just thinking out loud here, but haven't there been some courts at the state, and maybe even federal level at has ordered the 15 (I mean 10..... History of the World Pt. 1...sorry had to throw that in) commandments be removed from state offices? I too think that is a little crazy. I mean, people are so sensitive and easily offended. I could be wrong with the above question. I think I remember something in the news a year or two ago about courthouses in Alabama or somewhere where this was an issue.

Thanks

-- Posted by oldtrougher on Mon, Jun 9, 2008, at 2:13 PM

Correct Oldtrougher, a federal court ordered removal of the Ten Commandments monument from the rotunda of Alabama's state judicial building. Been a year or so back.

-- Posted by SenathDavid on Mon, Jun 9, 2008, at 2:22 PM

Thanks found a story about it archived on CNN. think it said 2003 or something.

Also found this, gotta love youtube. The 10 commandment parody....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L940yIeVZ...

-- Posted by oldtrougher on Mon, Jun 9, 2008, at 2:33 PM

"Respecting the establishment of religion" means "concerning the official adoption of religion." Which means that, although churches and religious people (as well as irreligious people) have as much right as anyone else to participate in government and to argue for whatever their views may be, it's unconstitutional for the government to officially endorse or assist a view about religion simply because it's a view about religion. There has to be some other sufficient ground for government to take a position.

"Separation of church and state" is simply shorthand for this principle. If all it meant were that government couldn't tell churches what to do (but churches were free to take over the government and run it as if were a church), there'd be no need for the second clause about "prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That second clause is the one that prohibits governments from telling churches, or people, what to do about religious matters. The first clause is the one that tells churches, and people, they can't make the government into a church.

-- Posted by wbkelley on Tue, Jun 10, 2008, at 11:29 PM

Nice story Mr. Jack....that says alot in my opinion.

-- Posted by TheFlash on Tue, Jun 10, 2008, at 11:53 PM

This country was founded on Christian principles, and I, for one, would very much like to keep it that way.

Amen to that! =)

-- Posted by vambfly on Thu, Jun 12, 2008, at 1:01 PM