Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Palin, on the other hand, left the Rev. Kalnin<< After 3 years. Three years. Or 156 Sundays. Not the next morning, the way you're trying to make it sound.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Yes, three long years. Now, I have no idea how many of those Sundays Sarah Palin was in the church, nor how many of those the rev. Kalnin was preaching. Nor do I know if he was immediately delivering these offensive sermons. I do know that the decision to leave one's church is not taken lightly. If one has spent more than 30 years in one, it's particularly difficult. Regardless, Sarah Palin did decide, without prompting from a hostile national press or a groundswell of criticism, to do just that.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I do know that the decision to leave one's church is not taken lightly.<< No doubt. And it's a personal decision. But in the case of Obama, we get to assume the worst, no matter how many times and how many ways he said he didn't agree with Wright's sentiments. Palin, apparently, gets a different consideration. Hypocrisy, it's a wonderful thing.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>After 3 years. Three years. Or 156 Sundays. Not the next morning, the way you're trying to make it sound.<< Bingo. We don't know why Sarah Palin left the church, but we can probably assume it wasn't cause she didn't like the new pastor, given that she stayed for three years after. As for Obama, we still have yet to see any evidence that he was present when the statements from Wright that caused the uproar was made. Furthermore, there is this uncomfortable inability among white conservatives to understand the culture of the black church and its importance in the black community. Without going into the details, it's a very different thing than an Evangelical white church. But it's much easier to be outraged that Obama didn't leave after 20 years, than understand these cultural differences.
Originally Posted By Lisann22 Holy moly, we are spinning it now. How can this stuff get written with a straight face?
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>...in the case of Obama, we get to assume the worst, no matter how many times and how many ways he said he didn't agree with Wright's sentiments.<< Obama may have said it over and over again, but the fact is that he continued attending Trinity Church for TWENTY YEARS, and spoke warmly of the Rev. Wright as a friend and mentor. It was only after the Rev. Wright became a political liability that Obama suddenly decided to forswear him. >>Palin, apparently, gets a different consideration.<< Based on the actual facts of the matter, it IS a different consideration. But the writers of this hatchet job did their best to obscure the facts.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Holy moly, we are spinning it now. How can this stuff get written with a straight face?<< That was pretty much what I thought when I read the original article. That it is being accepted as anything more than the poorly composed hatchet piece that it is is baffling to me.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan and spoke warmly of the Rev. Wright as a friend and mentor<< And as he explained, sometimes people we love say things we wish they wouldn't. The Christian thing, in my estimation, would be to understand that explanation. Instead, Obama is mocked for it, cynical doubt that he really means it. While Palin gets the opposite treatment -- understanding, acceptance, benefit of the doubt... You know, it's almost as if partisan politics has a hand in this...
Originally Posted By Lisann22 You mean like every time my abuelita called a certain group of people colored, that kind of whincing?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>It was only after the Rev. Wright became a political liability that Obama suddenly decided to forswear him.<< You don't know how many Sundays Sarah Palin sat in the church for 3 years, yet you're pretty darn sure that Obama was there when Wright made the offending comments that drew so much attention? If you can prove it, the national media would love to hear from you.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>You know, it's almost as if partisan politics has a hand in this...<< It certainly is.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>You mean like every time my abuelita called a certain group of people colored, that kind of whincing?<< Or things my grandma said. Obama used the example of his grandmother, and i think most people could identify with that. It was immediately spun by the right as Obama "throwing grandma under the bus" but for the rest of the country, it was an example that rang true. That's why, except in far right corners, the issue went away. People got it.
Originally Posted By mawnck I think you have to either condemn both of them for going to questionable churches or applaud both of them for finally leaving. Anything else is double standard. When you're committed to a church, you don't just stomp out because you're ticked with the current pastor's latest sermon. Most church people would stick it out and try to steer the church back onto the right path, often by getting the bad pastor removed. It's only the TV churches that are cults of personality. Most churches hire the pastor, rather than the other way around, and they can fire him too if he turns out to be a kook. I'd only leave my church if it looked like it was headed irrevocably in the wrong direction AND there was nothing I could do to stop it.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>That's why, except in far right corners, the issue went away.<< Went away? Then why is the Huffington Post and our own OP dredging it up again? Be careful what you wish for.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> It was only after the Rev. Wright became a political liability that Obama suddenly decided to forswear him. << That's not entirely accurate, and these events were only a few months back, so the memories are still fresh. Obama was under heavy pressure to denounce reverend wright for his fire and brimstone sermons from the pulpit. Instead, Obama gave a deeply thoughtful speech about the role his church plays within his own life. In essence, he defied the pressure to capitulate and leave the church, and explained why he did. Once again, he took the high road. Only later when wright's comments turned on Obama himself, did Obama sever his ties with the church. And you're right - I'm sure the decision didn't come easily - for Obama OR Palin. Doug's version of the story leaves out the best parts and reduces it to Obama jumping ship at the first opportunity. And that just didn't happen.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Doug's version of the story leaves out the best parts and reduces it to Obama jumping ship at the first opportunity.<< No, I made it rather plain that Obama did not jump ship at the first opportunity, but rather had to be all but backed into the corner. But why take my word for it? Here's what I actually said, all of an hour ago: "Obama, who stayed with Rev. Wright and Trinity for TWENTY YEARS disavowed him only when it became crystal clear he was a political liability."
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Sarah Palin, however, made a painful, private choice that ripped at hear heartstrings. (Cue "Little House on the Prairie" music here)
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I think you have to either condemn both of them for going to questionable churches or applaud both of them for finally leaving. Anything else is double standard. When you're committed to a church, you don't just stomp out because you're ticked with the current pastor's latest sermon.> Bingo. Can we not just accept that people OTHER THAN THE CANDIDATES made these statements, in both cases? And we have no idea in either case if the candidate was present for them? This trying to blame people for what other people say is lame, lame, lame.
