<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d10515331\x26blogName\x3dUCCtruths\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dTAN\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttps://ucctruths.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://ucctruths.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d-6666421299467775599', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>


Every denomination needs one of these...

"Let's Talk About Race" Ad

Thursday, April 10, 2008

By Pastor Ted Weis, Congregational Church, Little River, KS

Coming in the Friday, April 11 edition of USA Today is another full page ad from the United Church of Christ.

In an advance mass e-mail, UCC President John Thomas writes:
Our ad invites the nation to enter a sacred conversation on race and asks other communities of faith to join our preach-in scheduled for Trinity Sunday, May 18.

Together, as we ready ourselves for this important preaching opportunity and the intentional dialogues that must follow in the months to come, this ad clearly puts the UCC on public record as a church willing to grapple forthrightly with difficult issues. Ours is a risk-taking church.
This newest one, which comes on the heels of last week's New York Times ad, is entitled, "Let's Talk About Race."

OK. I accept.

Let's talk about how this ad frames the question and sets the agenda.

First, notice how this ad doesn't mention the Barack Obama-Jeremiah Wright flap and more importantly, the UCC's relationship to it. Why is boldness suddenly shy? It's like the parent talking to their child about the birds and the bees, but too embarrassed to admit the part they played in bringing little johnny into the world.

If Obama and Wright were members of another denomination, there's no way the UCC jumps into the fray and places this ad.

So really. Why are we calling for a dialogue on race? And doing so now?

The ad's lack of full disclosure is telling. It suggests that one motive for keeping silent is denominational self-preservation.

Try saying with a straight face that you're Jeremiah Wright's denomination, you won't scold his outrageous statements, nor condemn his award to Louis Farrakhan, all the while insisting on the need to discuss race.

Difficult, huh? The general public won't buy it and I think our leaders realize this. Better then to avoid the connection and instead say this:
Sacred conversations are never easy, especially when honest talk confronts our nation's painful past and speaks directly to the injustices of the present day. Yet sacred conversations can, and often do, honor the value of diverse life experiences, requiring an openness to hear each others' viewpoints.
Instead of acting like the Old Testament prophets-- who told it like it was and willingly took the hit to their reputation-- the ad takes the soft sell route.

Never mind that we're the religious body that's home to this race controversy. Ignore the fact that none of our national leaders have the courage of Obama, who said in his race speech that Wright remarks were distorted and divisive. Forget that.

Instead, simply present yourself as the denomination that calls for a sacred conversation about race. That strategy raises the odds of the denomination looking much better in the public eye. We look spiritual, reasonable, and hip all at the same time.

If the average irreligious USA Today reader doesn't recognize the UCC connection to the Obama-Wright controversy, the strategy of the ad just might work to enhance our reputation.

Image is certainly on the mind of our President:
No single newspaper ad will ever fully capture our denomination's diverse story or our justice legacy, but as the media spotlight continues to focus on the UCC like never before, it is imperative that we be proactive in sharing who we are and what we're about, lest others continue to define us in narrow and distorted ways.
But for those in the general public who do know the UCC connection, who've read or seen Rev. Thomas' defense of Wright, and don't approve of Wright's remarks, the ad won't work.

The effect will come off like this: "A UCC pastor makes outrageous claims about race and then the UCC tells me that I'm the one who needs to have a dialogue about race? I'm the one who needs to be lectured? It's like being the innocent bystander who sees a fight on the school playground, but instead of the bully going to the Principal's office, I get sent."

Despite the flaws and motives of this ad, the truth remains that, "we have an opportunity to make America a better nation." Sometimes, when the family of an alcoholic is asked to sit down for treatment, they protest saying, "But I'm not the one who needs therapy!" And yet, if they choose to sit down and talk, they too can learn something valuable.

The American public may not feel like they have to sit down and talk about race. But if they do, I'm sure they'd learn something good.

Meanwhile, Rev. Thomas should be proactive in taking this risk-- the Friday before Trinity Sunday, May 18, go and talk about race on the O'Reilly Factor or Hannity & Colmes, and state clearly that Wright was wrong.
posted by Living the Biblios, Thursday, April 10, 2008


I, like most UCC members, fully support Rev. Wright and his ministry in Chicago. Thank you John Thomas for speaking for my congregation and the vast majority of the UCC!!!
commented by Anonymous David, 1:26 PM  
let me see if I get this. Rev Wright uses racism to preach/distort the gospel, Barack goes along with it. They are the good guys. John Thomas says we need a sacred conversation about race and spends a couple of hundred thousand to tell us. I am the one who has the problem but I can be fixed on May 18. Is that about it?
commented by Anonymous Anonymous, 2:53 PM  
I think you are missing an important point here. When Wright's sermon clips began running nonstop on cable news, a lot of the commentary amounted to incredulous white people (e.g., Sean Hannity) expressing their befuddlement that a black man in this day and age would be angry with the dominant culture. And that is exactly why we need a conversation about race -the Wright controversy revealed the enormous gap between complacent white folk who think everything is hunky dory and many (not all, but many) black folk who are still deeply hurting from past AND present injustice.
commented by Anonymous Anonymous, 3:26 PM  
You can "fully support" JW and the ministry of Trinity and still not approve of everything that he says. If we are unable to do that we might just as well pass the grape koolaid and call it day, shall we? Certain of his comments, like his ethnic slur against Italians, should be called to task. I know it would come my way if I were to have made the same kind of comment about African Americans. You can still like the man, love the ministry of the church, and still call him to task for the some of the strange stuff that comes out of his mouth.
commented by Anonymous Anonymous, 4:31 PM  
yeah, let's go on the O'Reilly Factor or Hannity & Colmes because they're great interviewers like Larry King who really let their guests talk and not try to put forth their own agendas.

great idea! or maybe... not.
commented by Blogger Luke, 5:00 PM  
The fact that your (ucctruths) interpretation of this ad and President Thomas' other actions are so diametrically opposed to most people I know is exactly why a "sacred conversation on race" is necessary. Unlike you, President Thomas' actions have caused me to be even more committed to the UCC.
commented by Blogger womanist63, 7:06 PM  
Perhaps the UCC should conduct a poll or a vote to see if the majority of UCC members really support Rev. Wright and John Thomas. It would be interesting to see the results. David said the vast majority are supporters, but how does he reach that conclusion? If he would include the many UCC dropouts, the opponents' numbers would be even greater. The conservatives and moderates are dropping out, leaving the left-wing democrats as majority members of UCC, a politically activist organization for left-wing social causes. And, by this ad, John Thomas is attempting to fish for more members, or a least limit his losses on the potentially damaging issue of racism at Rev. Wright's church.
commented by Anonymous Anonymous, 7:08 PM  
Sacred conversation as three card monte--the dealer always wins!
commented by Anonymous Anonymous, 7:39 PM  
womanist63 said; "Unlike you, President Thomas' actions have caused me to be even more committed to the UCC."

I thought nearly the same thing......only Thomas has caused me to be even more committed to Christ and less so to the institution called the UCC.
commented by Anonymous Anonymous, 8:32 AM  
"'A UCC pastor makes outrageous claims about race and then the UCC tells me that I'm the one who needs to have a dialogue about race? I'm the one who needs to be lectured?...'"

The technical term for this behavior on the part of the UCC hierarchy is "chutzpah."

... Joe Sixpack
commented by Anonymous Anonymous, 11:07 AM  
i fail to see how Wright's comments are outrageous in terms of race. we know and his congregation knows that he overstated the claim on the gov. inventing aids. but what does that say about wright? what does the fact that native americans weren't given blankets with small pox on them from the US government but yet still tell this story mean?

the stories we tell and hold onto say more about us than do the facts.

you guys really need to see this for what it is, a mud sling against Obama. ppl are afraid of his popularity and are working by any means to do this. it's a red herring.
commented by Blogger Luke, 1:16 PM  
You "know" no such thing, and neither do a fair number of folks in AA community. for that matter.
The "government caused AIDS" and the "government selling crack" rumor is one of the urban legends alive and well in the AA community.

Perhaps we should see the whole "Trinity Sunday" initiative for what "it" is, too. A means of bolstering the ministry of the largest congregation--and perhaps one of its most prominent members--in a time of public criticism.
commented by Anonymous Anonymous, 5:32 PM  
womanist63 said; "Unlike you, President Thomas' actions have caused me to be even more committed to the UCC."

President Thomas' actions, Wright's actions and Obama appearing clueless, have caused my family to be thankful that we left the UCC after we questioned the SSM issue, and the Israel issue ... we were called bigots, homophobes, ignorant for having the gall to question the left-wing political direction of the UCC. Ya ... we experienced first hand the so called tolerance the UCC is so very proud of. ZERO TOLERANCE if you don't go along with the program.

We check in every once in awhile just to see what's going on. It's clear that the UCC elites still "just don't get it" and it seems as though UCC is self-destructing. They will realize the empty pews are a problem to be dealt with (other than pushing their agenda down our throats) when there is not a soul left. What a shame.
commented by Anonymous Anonymous, 5:54 PM  
To Womanist63 and Luke, I am not afraid of having an African-American president if he was similar in opinions to US supreme court justice Clarence Thomas. However, Obama is rated the most left-wing of any US Senator by a rating agency. Race is not the issue with me. Can't you and your left-wing cronies get it? That is the way it is for the majority of people.
commented by Anonymous Anonymous, 6:35 PM  
""government selling crack" rumor is one of the urban legends alive and well in the AA community."

and what does this say about the AA community?

as for being a left-wing cronie, i'll refer you to the ol' addage about assumptions.

as for Obama being the most left-wing.. i don't get that either as he's incredibly bipartisan and is know for that on the hill (working in DC for three years helps to verify this)

all obama talks about is getting over our divides and working together... that's all he said when he visited here in PA two weeks ago. if that's left wing, then sign me up!
commented by Blogger Luke, 1:31 AM  
To Luke, It is inevitable that we will have divides. That is human nature, since we are all sinners. Obama does not really have a record of reconciliation of right and left wing viewpoints. He's quite a talker, but if you study his record and read behind the lines you will see he lacks a record of doing this. I like the fact that he's an African American, and it would be good for our country to have him as president for that reason alone. However, when you analyze his viewpoints he's quite left wing. I will never vote for a left wing president, for the same reason I dropped out of the left wing UCC.
commented by Anonymous Anonymous, 10:09 AM  
to anonymous: i know his record, and have followed it closely through the years and have seen nothing put bipartisan effort by obama. he's equally respected by both parties on the hill. i know this cause i've worked there for the past three years. where do you see this? what lines am i supposed to read between? can you prove some examples please?

as for obama, i think he's incredibly liberal, the traditional sense of the word: a. Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
b. Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.
c. Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.

i see your use of "left-wing" as a critique of a close minded approach. knowing that both left and right can be equally close minded and dogmatic is a large step forward. are you closed to the dogmatic approach or just liberal stuff in general (thus being a dogmatic right-winger)?

we need less of the dogmatic approach and more of an open approach, which i see in obama's history. we have close-mindedness all over the place. hillary and mccain will just further the problem. listen to the variety of voices and go forward. instead of having the answer from the get go and manufacturing consent.
commented by Blogger Luke, 12:22 PM  
Luke says: " as for Obama being the most left-wing.. i don't get that either as he's incredibly bipartisan and is know for that on the hill (working in DC for three years helps to verify this)"

And you know this why? Because he says so? Wow. Three years on the hill. Not voting on many issues? Absent? If you are pro-life Obama is the #1 most liberal, believing that a woman about to go into labor can abort her baby! He voted against the live baby act in Illinois! His comments about "punishing his daughter with a baby if she becomes pregnant"???

Let me tell you about Obama. He was an Illinois senator first, and not a good one at that. I know, personally, a prominent retired senator who was in a meeting during Obama's first days as a freshman senator in Illinois. Obama was proposing requiring all businesses to provide health care to their employees, and adding yet another tax to businesses. The committee he was talking to (retired, current senators and business representatives) told him that that would make even MORE businesses leave Illinois, and it would put some small businesses out of business. This is opposed to the American dream and free enterprise. Obama raised his hand and said this: "Gentlemen - you don't understand. I don't share your enthusiasm for the American dream or free enterprise. It hasn't been good for my people."

That, my friends, should scare the hell out of any red blooded American no matter what party you are affiliated with.

I knew about this conversation/meeting before hearing Jeremiah Wright and his hateful sermons. Funny -- it all made sense why Obama said that in that meeting when he started his political career. He was listening to his pastor. His wife, Michele listens to Wright - how else would a woman who has lived the American dream say ... 'for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country.' ??

another anonymous. There are several it seems. I'm not anonymous to be hiding, I just don't have a google, id or url.
commented by Anonymous Anonymous, 12:49 PM  
As to what the persistent belief in unsubstantiated rumors says about the AA community, I can only speculate. Some of it comes from the memory of previous injustices which last to this day. As for others, I don't know. I do know that it perpetuates the mindset of victimization, which isn't good, though.

As for Sen. Obama being a transcedent, unifying candidate, his talk is more consistent than his walk his. In some regards, his economic policies are borderline socialist, and if you read between the lines of address in SF a week ago, it seems he harbors some elitist tendencies, as well.
commented by Anonymous Anonymous, 2:44 PM  

Ralph Nader would be a left wing president. Obama is more moderate what has he supported thats so left wing?
commented by Blogger truthToPower, 3:41 PM  
Hearsay from one meeting?
And a statement that is true?
Nope. Doesn't scare me at all. What scares me is another war-party president and continued divisiveness in this country.
I'm getting a yard sign! :-)
commented by Blogger Don Niederfrank, 7:54 PM  
I am the anonymous from 5 posts ago, and I thank the other ones who have supported my opinions in opposition to Obama. I agree 100% with you. Obama recently made a statement about small town Pennsylvanians suffering financially, so they are turning to guns or religion. That shows his mindset is totally out-of-touch with reality, and he doesn't understand common American people. People do not use religion as a crutch because they are poor. I assume he is referring to conservative, right-wing religion. To Luke, I am the one who uses the term "left wing" instead of liberal, and I do it because I am personally progressive and liberal, but I am not left wing. Liberal, as used in the term "liberal arts" is a good term having to do with the study of humanities and philosphy with an open mind. I find left wingers to be the opposite, and to have closed minds. If you want to see an example, why doesn't the left wing blogsite, truth to power, or truth to action, or something like that, allow free and open discourse? They are definitely not liberal or progressive in the good, real sense of the word. I am listed as anonymous because I haven't made an effort to be listed otherwise, but I will disclose that I am now a member of the Greek Orthodox Church in the St. Louis area, although I was raised in the UCC. I am a veterinarian, although in college I studied arts and sciences, humanities, history, foreign languages, etc, and liked them very much. My goal is to be truly liberal and progressive in the finest sense of the word.
commented by Anonymous Anonymous, 8:41 PM  
I just posted, and the left-wing blogspot I mentioned is actually talk2action.org. In response to truthtopower, who I confused with the website just listed, Obama supported killing living babies, or infanticide. That is not only left wing, that is a crime and akin to fascism.
commented by Anonymous Anonymous, 9:08 PM  
Luke...Join the force! Vote against Obama!
commented by Anonymous Anonymous, 9:26 PM  
Kum Bay Ya Luke...wake up and smell reality! As for your defense of Wright and the Smallpox comparison...So mistakes of the past condem all future decendents? So all Germans are guilty of the Nazi's actions? Sounds pretty Roman Catholic of you...original sin and all!

Former UCC'er
commented by Anonymous Anonymous, 9:30 PM  
Mr Don Neiderfrank says: "Hearsay from one meeting?
And a statement that is true?
Nope. Doesn't scare me at all. What scares me is another war-party president and continued divisiveness in this country.
I'm getting a yard sign! :-)"

Choose to believe that was hearsay. Choose to believe it was one meeting. I am assuming that you 1) do not live in Illinois; 2) are not friends with many politicians who have seen Obama in "action".
You can choose to believe what I say or not. It IS TRUE -- and those who know Obama, know it is true as well. the swooners need to quit swooning and start smellin' the coffee.

Do you think it is a joke, or do you choose to stick your head in the sand, about Obama not believing in the American dream or free enterprise? GOD HELP US if you do!
commented by Anonymous Anonymous, 11:38 PM  
Look up the definition of hearsay.
commented by Blogger Don Niederfrank, 1:22 AM  
I empathize with the poster "from 5 posts ago" who was reared in the UCC and then left it. Like him, I grew up in a mainline Protestant church. Although historically different from the UCC, it is now in communion with the UCC.

These days the leadership of my former denomination is not content to meddle merely in US politics. It has extended its interference to the politics of other countries such as Israel, as the UCC apparently has done.

So, like the other poster, I've found a new church home that avoids involvement in secular politics and political causes.

There are alternatives.

.. Joe Sixpack
commented by Anonymous Anonymous, 2:20 AM  

What part of the democratic party primaries has led you to believe that the dem's are the party of unity?

Just watching them........has given me a whole new perspective..........the democratic party has left its roots.......as has the UCC.
commented by Anonymous Anonymous, 8:53 AM  
I know what hearsay means, and I hesitated posting, because of that reason, someone may say, "how do you know this is true? were you there?" After all, I could have made that up, but I didn't . I could post the senator's name, dates, etc. but I do not have his permission and would not violate his trust. (I haven't asked) But I have no doubt that this is true, it all makes sense as the days go on, pieces of the puzzle coming together about Obama: Wright, Obama's statements in San Francisco, his wife's statements. I know others who have witnessed Obama's statements, actions, etc. when an Illinois senator, and they are not good.

This is what I can give you on Obama's record, observed by Jill Stanek, RN who used to work at Christ Hospital owned by the UCC,
aborting babies alive close to birth, and leaving them in a closet to die. The article is: Obama's Top 10 Reasons for supporting Infanticide" Following are 10 excuses Obama has given through the years for voting "present" and "no" on the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act, or BAIPA. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59702

Obama was the sole opponent to speak against Born Alive Infant Protection Act. In liberal Illinois he was the only senator opposed to this act? Even if you are pro-choice, this is unacceptable, and unreasonable not to mention despicable.
commented by Anonymous Anonymous, 11:10 AM  
well i'm glad we're talking about abortion cause that really matters in the running of the country. not talking about the rammifications the us agriculture bill would have on our economic sytem, the value of post-partisainship, or what a 100 years of war in Iraq would look like.

the context of Obama's message was "When it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include -- which should include abstinence education and teaching the children -- teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual. But it should also include -- it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old, I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby." that speech?

and for the infanticide part, where aborted fetus' would be killed if they survive? that's a bad thing? killing a maimed baby? correcting a failed murder? I'm pro-life but fail to see how this impacts trade tarrifs or diplomacy. murder is bad no matter what, but how do you correct this? thru multiple messages of abstinance only PLUS how to be protected, as we will always have those who won't follow the abstinance only... this hasn't worked in the 1950s and won't work now. it's more of a statement of moral character than anything else. Plus Obama has not made abortion rights the shouted refrain of his campaign, as other Democrats have done. He seems to realize that pro-choice enthusiasm is inconsistent with a reputation for post-partisanship.

@former UCC'er: you want a mindset of victimization, look no farther than the Gospel of John. John sets for a love that is directed first within the group, within the community itself. John's jesus does not say love your neighbors, it says love yourselves (the diciples) as i have loved you. very different. Contemporary members of oppressed communities understand John's social predicament and the narrative way he sought to address it.

whether this perpetuates the victimization mentality or seeks to liberate it is an argument that will not be settled in our lifetime. nor does it matter to a person's political campaign, as what is politics but an incomplete vision seeking to get elected over other incomplete visions. there's a lot of heresay being thrown around with no sources cited nor the underlying implications examined. we're seeing two ol' political dogs who are funded by corporations and not american people try to keep their interests away from this new comer.

notice how we have no viable third party candidate. notice how we never truly had one since teddy roosevelt. notice how the elite are trying to keep that power away from the embittered underclasses. does america truly have free enterprise? i would argue that we don't. who is going to get bailed out in bush's new mortgage emergency bill? not joe-homeowner but the banks! why the banks? cause they have the lobbists. their interests are served first with is the opposite of Competition law, as "antitrust law." How? This law has three main elements:

prohibiting agreements or practices that restrict free trading and competition between business entities. This includes in particular the repression of cartels.

banning abusive behaviour by a firm dominating a market, or anti-competitive practices that tend to lead to such a dominant position. Practices controlled in this way may include predatory pricing, tying, price gouging, refusal to deal and many others.

supervising the mergers and acquisitions of large corporations, including some joint ventures. Transactions that are considered to threaten the competitive process can be prohibited altogether, or approved subject to "remedies" such as an obligation to divest part of the merged business or to offer licences or access to facilities to enable other businesses to continue competing.

the banks violated this as they were engaged in "predatory pricing, tying, price gouging" of ppl who couldn't afford loans in the first place.. and now they want bailed out for it? give me a break people.
commented by Blogger Luke, 3:50 PM  

What part of the democratic party primaries has led you to believe that the dem's are the party of unity?

Just watching them........has given me a whole new perspective..........the democratic party has left its roots.......as has the UCC."

I'm not sure it was even a party of unity. I will freely admit to not knowing the voting records of the candidates. And I promise to stop pulling any body's chain any more. I will admit what many will not--I like what Obama says. I have since the Dem. convention. And I'm gonna get a yard sign. And I'm gonna vote. :-)
commented by Blogger Don Niederfrank, 5:08 PM  
I am the Greek Orthodox former UCCer, and Luke, I am impressed by your knowledge. You apparently know more about what's going on than I thought. The problem is politics is very complex and the average person doesn't really understand why they should vote for or against a certain candidate. All candidates have their pros and cons. I am for McCain, not because I like war, but because continued American presence in Iraq is the better of two poor choices. If we prematurely leave Iraq, of course, either Iran or Al Quaeda, or both, will take over the territory. That will leave us worse off than before we invaded. And, of course, Bush was stupid to invade; I'm sure Bin Laden and the leaders of Iran wanted us to be suckered into invading Iraq. Actually, I am the one who said I am a true liberal, but not a left-winger. I give credit to my UCC upbringing for the moderating influence, even though I went to church and Sunday school in the UCC in the 1950's and 1960's, when the UCC was more conservative than today, although still among the more liberal of churches. I call myself a moderate because I strongly support the environment, I am anti-guns, as much as is practical, I believe in global warming as well as evolution, although I still believe in creationism. I am pro-life. In otherwords, I am for life, all around, which includes being prolife, anti-gun, and pro-environment. The conservative Greek Orthodox church, as well as the Roman Catholic church, are somewhat accepting of the theory of evolution. Being a veterinarian, I have taken a lot of biology and zoology courses. I have also studied geology, and am aware of the earth's layers, with evidence of evolution. Man has definitely walked this planet for much longer than the Bible seems to say to fundamentalist churches. Also, I am a small businessman, and I know that if the changes the left-wingers want are put in force, the small businesses will suffer much more than the large corporations, because we cannot afford a large, powerful legal team or powerful lobbyists. The left-wingers, most of who are not small businesspeople, have no idea how their regulations and taxes hurt small businesses, many of which are hanging on just barely surviving. I am for McCain, but he does not reflect everything I believe. He would be the best of two poor choices for me.
commented by Anonymous Anonymous, 8:43 PM  

i like obama and i've supported why. you like mccain and you've supported that. that's all we can ask for.

rawk out!
commented by Blogger Luke, 1:52 PM  
Don N. ... you like what Obama says? I liked him at first too. But now it is very clear that, like he said in a meeting during his freshman Senator years in Illinois, "I don't share your enthusiasm for the American Dream or free enterprise" is what he believes. If one can get past the delirious swooning, Obama is frightening. You like what he says? What about this? http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=61735
What about his voting? Or NON voting, as "present" or "absent"? Obama is very very scary, and Obama the Reality --- the REAL OBAMA is starting to show. Loud and clear.
commented by Anonymous Anonymous, 9:39 AM  
Well, I probably don't share your enthusiasm for the American Dream or free enterprise and I probably don't give as much wait as you do to fear-monger pundits. Especially since the one I follow says, "Fear not."

So, influenced? Sure. Swayed. Nah. You be fearful; I'll stay hopeful. I still like =most= of what he says. :-)
commented by Blogger Don Niederfrank, 2:16 PM  
Don and Luke,

We all put our two cents worth in about Obama. We all want to have the last say, and say we won the debate. However, Obama is very scary, I agree, as the previous anonymous says. I'll vote for McCain, but I would prefer Clarence Thomas, if he was running, since I would prefer an African-American, if his viewpoints agreed with mine.
commented by Anonymous Anonymous, 10:25 PM  
Oh, I'm not even debating. Hardly even dialogging. Which has to do with me, not you.

I listen to talk radio and I read some of the liberal blogs and I hear fear. If we google "stupid (or scary) things Hillary said" or "stupid (or scary) things McCain said" we can find pundits like the one you point to who will reaffirm our fears.

It is not our president that we need to worry about. It is our own sinful (pick your sin) culture and, I think, in particular the divisiveness that pervades our world, nation and denomination.
To wit:http://www.streetprophets.com/storyonly/2007/2/23/8210/07275
commented by Blogger Don Niederfrank, 7:43 AM  
Rev. Weiss,

I see you posted a link to an MSNBC article about an African-American prosecutor who is happy with the legal system. That must have taken a bit of searching to find that! I'm glad we can now comfortably discount 150 years of American legal scholarship and a mountain of social science research which continues to demonstrate the disparities between ethnic groups in their treatment by the judicial system. It is SO much easier to simply ignore an issue than deal with it. Congratulations!!
commented by Anonymous Anonymous, 1:45 PM  

Add a comment