News-Record.com

Hooold on a minute! John McCain, the Republican nominee-to-be, is taking his religious advice from Rod Parsley? The megalomaniac from Ohio that wants to turn America into a Calvinist theocracy?

Do these nutbars have a hold on EVERY Republican above the rank of freakin' DOG CATCHER??!!

" . . . even though Wright’s views are no more objectionable than Parsley’s."

This line from the cited article bears some scrutiny. First of all, I strongly beg to differ. I think Wright's views are far more offenseive - and dangerous to American national security than either Haggee's or Parsley's.

For one thing, both Hagee and Parsley are soundly American in their loyalties and sentiments - even though they strongly (and rightly) call for national repentance. Wright is an OBVIOUS neo-marxist who has OBVIOUS sympathies with Farakan and Islam. And what the heck does the term "black-nationalist" mean, except a hatred of middle class values, "rich white people" and virtually all American foreign policy (I disagree with some myself, of course).

What if the white candidate had been closely associated with a group that advocated "white nationalism" i.e. forming a separatist movement within the larger American nation that was hostile to black culture. I think we, and the media, are quite justified in having serious questions about this guy (Wright - AND Obama).

The thing is here, that regardless of the imperfections of my country, I demand a leader who is also totally loyal to her national history, ethos and interests. Wright (and logically and presumably Obama) are internationalist in their loyalties and policies; and as angry black men, are hostile to our cultural, religous and economic traditions; wanting to dismantle them and substitute God only knows what - for sure socialism and anti-white culture. If anyone has ever heard Farakan speak openly you KNOW exactly what I mean!

Personally, I wouldn't vote for Obama if my very life depended on it. He is a Trojan Horse of the worst sort, and would lead this nation into a morass of international and internal policy that would utterly destroy it as we have known it for over two hundred years. But there are a multitude of people in this nation today, having been tutored in our humanist, socialist educational system, who are frothing at the mouth over this wolf in sheep's clothing. I think those who see that the king has no clothes see through this thing.

As for McCain and Hagee-Parsley, they are/were not HIS pastor for 20 years, simply political supporters. As for Parsley being McCain's "spiritual guide;" I could not image a weaker corollary to Obama's repeated statements and history of Wright's intimate and powerful influence in his thinking. And I am NOT a theological fan of either of these guys, and disagree with them on many points.
I would have advised other, more solid Christain leaders to seek endorsements from that these; but this IS an election year, and any major endorsements are hard to resist.

But I must also say, that it would be patently unfair to EQUATE Wright and Obama, and I do not. But the tie is palpable, long-term and of great concern from both a racial and national security standpoint. We'll see how he fares today.

The previous post calling Obama a Trojan Horse is clearly a person who is racist and would not vote for a person of a different race in the first place.
I think it is time the right take a look at every speech and sermon their evangelical supporters and preachers give every Sunday across the nation. They say America is damned because of our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters and that America is evil and warn of imminent destruction. Reverend Wright's "controversial" comments were mild in comparison. John McCain spoke at Liberty University - is he going to be judged on the late Jerry Falwell and all of his hatred? Our best friends, neighbors, teachers, mentors, heck even our parents and grandparents can have some very different opinions than us. Does that mean we disavow them, not take any of their advice based on a few ideas we may not share? Unless these pundits and politicians are willing to judged and to take responsibility for comments every influential person in their lives has said, we need to stop this hypocrisy right now and start a new debate - how we bring this country together and stop dividing it.

"The previous post calling Obama a Trojan Horse is clearly a person who is racist and would not vote for a person of a different race in the first place. ... we need to stop this hypocrisy right now and start a new debate - how we bring this country together and stop dividing it."

Pot, kettle, black.

While I don't agree completely with Nikos' statement, labeling him a racist when he has said nothing of the sort is *precisely* the sort of divisive language that ensures that we will never have anything vaguely approaching "healing" over our racial divides in this country. You have no idea whether Nikos would vote for a person of another race, simply because he isn't sold on Obama. This type of demagoguery merely assures the old "gotcha" nonsense that is biting Obama now will continue unabated, particulary by those on the Left (who only have a problem with it when one of their own gets bitten).

One thing I agree with Nikos on: It's apples and oranges to compare a campaign advisor to a pastor who, by the candidate's own repeated statements, has been a formative influence on his thinking for more than 20 years. It does call into question Obama's much-vaunted judgment, particularly since his pastor a) visited Qadaffi in 1984, when the Libyan dictator was one of the world's most significant supporters of international terrorism, and b) has a longstanding relationship with the antisemitic hatemonger Louis Farrakhan. Parsley, Hagee, et al. have made more than their share of nutty statements, and I don't see eye-to-eye with much of their stated theology, either; but McCain isn't a 20-year member of their churches. (McCain has scads of blights on his character otherwise, however, and I'm as disinclined to vote for him as I am for the other two grandstanders in the coming presidential election.)

"The previous post calling Obama a Trojan Horse is clearly a person who is racist and would not vote for a person of a different race in the first place."

Kate,

Sam was correct when he said that you have no idea whether I would vote for a Black - or Asian, or Hispanic person.\; that you are reading into my POLITICAL opposition to Obama (and Hillary) your own unfounded deductions. Let me assure you that I WOULD vote for a America-loving, conservative, (preferrably Christian) candidate. I like
Allen Keyes, for example. Obama is clearly associated with a white race-hating cadre of leftwing radicals. I have grave concerns in this area, not his racial affiliation!

You know, I read an article today that says that you hear this sort of thing a lot in black churches.

But I can't help wondering about Christians' attitude toward this. In the Bible -- Old Testament, to be specific -- you see a LOT of "men of god" condemning their country on God's behalf. And you see them getting killed for being what we would call "unpatriotic." Put in that light, I wonder if good Christian folks would still be as down on Wright as they seem to be at the moment?

Namtac,
You raise an interesting point, and it's true that quite a few evangelical and mainstream Christian leaders have warned or even condemned the U.S. over what they saw as our nation's departure from God's Word or Biblical standards. When I have agreed with their concerns, I have disagreed frequently with their application of Scripture, or with the general tone of their comments, and have said so. (Blaming Katrina, for example, on God's judgment against New Orleans for the city's legendary moral depredations is simply wrong-headed theologically; we don't know exactly what God intends by allowing any act of nature to destroy to the extent it does, or by allowing wickedness to flourish wherever it does. We simply know that all wickedness will be judged, period--"we" being Christians, in this case.) As for the OT prophets you refer to, they're condemning the actions of their country, not Israel itself. Along with the condemnations of those actions (all of which fall under the rubric of "turning away from God and His law") come pleas for God's mercy and for a wave of repentance to sweep through the hearts of the children of Israel. Wright, on the other hand, merely condemns -- especially those of us who happen to be white. So the man running for president who promises transcendance over the old racial battle lines has, in fact, been listening intently to exactly the opposite for 20 years. As Ben Wallace-Wood of Rolling Stone noted in a profile a while back, Obama is the most radically rooted presidential candidate we've seen in years, I'd say perhaps since Eugene Debs.

What bothers so many about Wright is his obvious hatred of his own country; how else to explain the bizarre interpretations of historical events, the unmoored paranoia, the verbal cheap shots. (For example, comparing Hiroshima and Nagasaki to 9/11 is the worst kind of equivocation. The atomic bombs we dropped were aimed at bringing an immediate end to a bloody war that threatened to get even bloodier once the U.S. invaded the Japanese home land, to say nothing of the many thousands of POWs the Japanese would've slaughtered as they were ground down in defeat. We can argue in retrospect about which would have been worse, the A-bombs or the upshot of the invasion; what we can't argue about is the context for the decision that Truman made. Historian Paul Fussell, for example, makes a detailed case that the A-bomb saved many more lives than were lost in those two bombings.) And aside from lunatics, does anyone believe that the U.S. deliberately infected African-Americans with HIV/AIDS? Or that the U.S. is responsible for the domestic drug trade? Please.

It's certainly not limited to these clips from his sermons; the man has made a habit out of identifying closely with Farrakhan and his ilk. Visiting Qadaffi in Libya in 1984 (with Farrakhan), while the Colonel was the most active supporter of terrorism (remember Lockerbie?), was just one more example of how twisted Wright's political views are. That Obama saw no problem with all this -- indeed, that he decided to make this church his home for the past 20 years, and this man his spiritual mentor -- calls into question his judgment, to put it mildly. Then there's the other cadre of wingnuts Obama has traveled alongside, including Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, both Weather Underground terrorists who ducked the law until the statute of limitations ran out on their crimes ... upon which they pursued academic careers. (Of course.)

Don't get me wrong here. I do not support Hillary or McCain, either. I have grown very leery of the messianic view many have taken of Obama, however, and am a little relieved to see that at long last the press is starting to take its rose-colored glasses off and examine the man's character and judgment.

Well put Sam.

I do think that critics have a certain point in comparing Wright to Parsley/Hagee types. I think your contrasts between the OT prophets and Wright and his ilk, was very astute.

A couple more points. Wright's membership in a VERY liberal, even heretical denomination, coupled with his connections and pulpit rhetoric, seriously undermines his claim to be "a Christian" with all that means in terms of regeneration, doctrinal orthodoxy and religious associations - and thus his ability to "hear from God," in a peophetic sense.

If there were a genuine conversion somewhere back there, it has certainly become greatly obscured and compromised by black nationalist radicalism and heretical theology.

I thought it was interesting the clips they played on the tube illustrating Parsley's and Hagee's "more offensive" rhetoric than Wright's. To the liberal, permisive mindset they undoubtedly were offensive. but they were NOT anti-American vitriole or anti-black. I have serious problems with these guys sometimes; especially with their strident dispensationalism, and naive pro-Israeli harangues - and thier often doctrine-light charismatic histrionics. But. of course, McCain is simply trying to garner all the support he can from the evangelical block in what is to be a close race.

There certainly is, Namtac, a place for prophetic condemnation of sin, corruption and unbelief. I get a little "prophetic" at times on this blog; but there is vast difference between godly, righteous indignation and radical, neo-marxist tirades, using gutter language and rabble-rousing emotionalism. (Yeah, I know, Parsley gets 'em worked-up too)

In the end, all things taken into account, it's just NOT the same thing - as much as liberal defenders would love for it to be - and will try to make it be. Obama is simply a political and ideological problem child, and no circling of the wagons and excuse-making can pull the curtain back on the once-mighty wizzard of odds.