If Chris Rock said what Father Pfleger said instead, would anyone care? (not that anyone does now)

[peoli]

"when Hillary was crying, and people said that was put on, I really don't believe it was put on. I really believe that she just always thought, 'This is mine. I'm Bill's wife. I'm white. And this is mine. I just got to get up and step into the plate.'

"And then out of nowhere came, hey, I'm Barack Obama. And she said, 'Oh damn, where did you come from? I'm white. I'm entitled. There's a black man stealing my show.'"

"She wasn't the only one crying. There was a whole lot of white people cryin'."

This is my caring face.
:boring:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. The same thing was said on SNL two weeks ago.

Some very stupid people are very desperate. And they figure since its a preacher, it's sort of like the rev. Wright non-issue. So they figure they'll try it again, not realizing they humiliated themselves last time, and will again this time.

[Bucky]

25. So this minister is getting his scriptural references from the Gospel of Lorne?

Seriously, he's stealing his material from SNL? Good God, now that's a joke!

[Samantha]

82. I almost started a thread on this very subject tonight

I quit in the middle of writing it because it was too controversial a question:

When is a racist statement not a racist state -- when it's made on Saturday Night Live as opposed to in a church or other common public venue. That's total horse shit, of course. A racist statement is always a racist statement.

But the truth of the matter is, we who declare ourselves as color-blind when it comes to race, laughed ourselves silly when we say that brilliant sketch recently with half of an Obama-impersonator face, coupled with half of a Hilliary-impersonator face, speaking in sync as one candidate, until near the end of each sentence. During one of these comments, I believe the Obama half finished his sentence with an ethereal thought while the Clinton half ended with the thought she had the corner on the white votes. And laugh we did at this skit, because it was uproariously funny.

So why does not a priest have a Constitutional right to do a Hillary impersonation at the alter if he or she so chooses? Cannot he interject a little drama, a little acting, a little highly irregular racial remark into that Hillary impersonation if he so chooses? But we recoil in horror at his words and his acting. HOW COULD HE POSSIBLY BE SO POLITICALLY INCORRECT AS TO MAKE THOSE STATEMENTS IN A RELIGIOUS VENUE?

My overall feeling about these so-called preacher scandals as been to retort that the MSM should stay out of Barack Obama's church. That's still my overriding number one feeling about the whole matter. It's disgusting the way the MSM has "invaded" Barack Obama and his family's church for the sake of acquiring an extremely provocative story to play in the news.

But beyond that overview, now that I have given the matter some thought, the literal truth is that a racist statement is offensive whether it's made in a church or during a comedy skit. Perhaps we -- and I include myself in that noun -- are not as "religious" as we should be about monitoring our own contradictory reactions to racial statements if we truly are as color-blind as we present ourselves to be.

Just intended as food for thought -- and not an invitation to flame me (please). I love those political skits on Saturday Night Live, truly I do, and I do realize in everyday reality those actors are doing just that - acting in political skits with a heavy sarcastic accent. These lines are not their true feelings - they are those actors' jobs. I do not personally feel conflicted, seeing myself as a possible hypocrite on this subject, because I think that pastor had every right to conduct that sermon as he saw fit, and I think the MSM, for the benefit of printing a provocative story, totally invaded Barack Obama's right to privacy in his religious venue. Totally over the line....

However, if I thought the SNL skit was totally okay inasmuch as it was a comedic routine, I would be censoring myself as a total hypocrite for condemning the preacher in Barack Obama's pulpit for his words and actions. Why: because a racist statement is ALWAYS a racist statement, regardless of the venue.

It's late and I am tired, so perhaps I did not express these thoughts coherently but perhaps you see the gist of the argument ....

[Heather MC]

95. Some times churches like to have fun too!

The Pastor was doing skit, no different from SNL you are so right.
I attended a very large, my Pastor is not political, but he is certainly funny. Some sundays we get deep in the word, other sundays we spend our time praying for lost souls, and some sunday we just have fun, he cracks a few jokes, quotes some scriptures, and it's all good.

Anyone who is "outraged" by this is either way to religions, like my mother, or simply not use to a lively service.

I saw this clip and laughed no different than if I saw it on SNL, or a Chris Rock skit
IT WAS AND IS FUNNY

I say SNL should hire him as a writer!

[Why Syzygy]

100. youtube

These stories have been breaking on youtube, not really the MSM. The MSM has started picking them up and expanding on the issue. On the one hand, we really want them to pay attention to us; but, they choose the lowest common denominator to amplify.

People like to be shocked. The last thing Obama wants to do is shock people. But they always go back for more. It's the adrenaline rush. Expecting Obama to defend every person who has ever spoken at a church he attended is immature, divisive and absurd.

We are fortunate in that his real speeches give a healthy dose of adrenaline and, as for me, tears of pure joy that there is such a person in the world.

[Waya]

2. Well, I'm outraged..........

......that a Priest would use the word 'DAMN' in a Sermon and in a Church. As for the rest: Who the hell frigging cares......


:sarcasm:

[2rth2pwr]

3. This is why the supers should choose Hillary.

[Shakespeare]

5. Because of something some random priest said? Seriously?

Really, seriously? My, you have odd standards.

[2rth2pwr]

9. random?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5771333

[Shakespeare]

10. So?

Much ado about....pretty much nothing.

[knixphan]

37. seconded.

[BlooInBloo]

4. OMG - I haven't seen the video - is THAT all he said?

HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAAAAA!!!!

[theboss]

6. Here is the other fun fact: He's white

We are bitching about a white man attacking white entitlement.

[Shakespeare]

7. Yeah, that aspect cracks me up.

The whole thing is just absurd.

[BlooInBloo]

8. Of course that's the nub of the issue. White folks have successfully taken away...

the ability of black folks to call out racism, via locutions like "it's only a joke", "oversensitive", "playing the race card", and the two non-racism incidents that every white person knows.

Now, the only threat to white folks' racism is if WHITE folks spill the beans. Hence the backlash.

[Oak2004]

12. But don't you know?

Anytime anyone attacks white entitlement, they're "racist".

Thank god we have people to protect us from white on white racism, like those good men of the south who protected us from the Freedom Riders by relieving several of them of the contents of their skulls with their shotguns, or the brave people of the north who labeled myself and others "n***** lovers" during school desegregation in Chicago and who bravely demonstrated their willingness to protect America from white on white racism by issuing anonymous threats to kill us. Oh, and Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June -- this is just a historical reference, you know.

Yep, it's racism anytime white entitlement is attacked, regardless of the skin color of the attacker. Without the courage demonstrated by disguised, hooded, anonymous thugs, and the encouragement they receive from media figures who loudly express their outrage at even the slightest hint of an attack on white privilege, we might have much less white privilege today.

:sarcasm:

[mrreowwr_kittty]

20. Clearly, attacks on white privilege are the greatest threat our country has ever known.

Those thugs and media pundits are doing the Lord's work.

[genna]

85. what Oak2004 said

:kick:

[RoseMead]

15. But you know that's the worst thing of all!

Race traitor

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

(But on the flip side, we all know there are people who do think that way.)

[Jen-MI]

13. That is not all he said....the other part was quite offensive!

link: http://online.wsj.com/article/best_of_the_web_today.htm...

In his Trinity United oration, Pfleger asserted that white people have a moral obligation to surrender their assets, which, he suggested, properly belong to blacks (the video clip begins in midsentence):

--honest enough to address the one who says, "Well, don't hold me responsible for what my ancestors did." But you have enjoyed the benefits of what your ancestors did and unless you are ready to give up the benefits , throw away your 401 fund, throw away your trust fund, throw away all the money you put into the company you walked into because yo' daddy and yo' granddaddy and yo' greatgranddaddy----unless you're willing to give up the benefits, then you must be responsible for what was done in your generation 'cuz you are the beneficiary of this insurance policy!

[BlooInBloo]

21. That BASTARD!!!

:rofl:

[EFerrari]

28. What an @sshole! Asking people to take responsibility!

lol

[JVS]

98. Asking people to share! How unchristian!

[amandabeech]

92. It's a Swiftboat wet dream!

What a moron!

Those who judge others by the company they keep will have a hard time with this.

I can only imagine the ads.

[JVS]

99. "The last shall be first and the first shall be last" --Jesus

What a fucking asshole, trying to take away the fruits of our labors!

[tokenlib]

11. The rant sounds like a comedian on an HBO special...

And honestly I laughed. Not because of the "white" entitlement language. But because I believe the Clintons feel entitled. They believed this nomination was theirs for the taking--it was their turn. I believe their ambition has led them to resent the success of Obama the upstart. All their allusions to "Obama can't win"--where they leave it to the public to fill in the blank "because he's black." All their talk of "white"working class. For all the screaming--there was truth in what the priest was saying--and I believe it was an attack on the sins of pride and entitlement run amok.


On the other hand--I wish Father Pfleger had not said any of it. Because as he said in his apology, this is not what Barack Obama believes--and it is not what he stands for. It is damaging at a time when we need to come together. And there are larger issues that need to be dealt with other than all these distractions.

[izzybeans]

14. I said the same thing right after she cried.

I think I was right then as he is right now.

[IndianaJones]

16. is Chris Rock the obligatory black comedian for white people now? always a little behind. nt.

[theboss]

17. Ever since Chapelle went nuts, yes

Good times.

[IndianaJones]

18. Richard Pryor, Eddie Murphy, Chris Rock....maybe Martin Lawrence appeared on the list for a while.nt

[ieoeja]

23. No. Chris Rock is the obligatory COMEDIAN for everyone now.

Chris Rock is the #1 comedian in America today. His happening to be Black actually detracts from using him as a comparison in this case since it was a White priest performing this skit. The OP would have been better served using a White comedian which is why I tossed out Jon Stewart or Steven Colbert as a comparison to some people last night.

But when I think comedian, Chris Rock is usually the first to come to mind.

[Bucky]

26. Close. Actually "nt" is the obligatory thing for people with nothing to contribute to post.

nt

[genna]

86. I thought Bernie Mac was the comedian's comedian. Who knew?

Is it Chris Rock's leather pants or what?

[woolldog]

19. I thought Phleger was funny.

And if I had been in the congregation, I would've been laughing too. I don't really agree that what he said was true (I don't think Hillary was thinking that). But his performance and take on the issue was funny.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

22. I'm sorry, but that shit was so funny. Probably not suitable for a place of worship, though n/t

[otohara]

55. Just Heard The Whole Clip on Randi Rhodes Show

at the end he says something like "he's going to get the church in trouble again, and web cams are running. A whole lot of white people are crying with her.

It cracked me up - turn off the video and you have Chris Rock.

Who knew some churches could be so entertaining?

I've been in different type churches and I have to say, I remember the Baptist Black church experience is the most memorable.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

81. It's so common in the black church, especially in Pentecostal churches...

What we used to call "sanctified" churches. I tell you, I was much more shocked that this was a white priest using black church inflection like that. He could easily compete with some of the most charismatic black preachers around. I was shocked because I've never witnessed a Catholic priest such as this; they are generally much more subdued. That is what should have shocked people much more than what he stated.

[genna]

87. It is a perfect thing for a place of worship. You can either laugh or cry when people target you.

That congregation is not running for president but they are being harrassed/hounded by the public. I would think at some point you have to laugh it off or cry about it

and say its because Plegler (sp?) is white like Ferraro is white or
its because you have 2 feet and 2 hands or
its because you go to church or
its because you live on the South Side and must know Obama

OR

fill in the reason --- because you respond to caricatures and ridicule.



I think their best response, when the sick and shut in get calls asking them about Wright or Plegler or whomever the media and the public ask them about, is to have a sense of humor about the unbelievable collective lack of knowledge about this congregation.

[Bake]

24. Fr. Pfleger isn't Chris Rock, first of all, and Rock wouldn't do it from a PULPIT

where the Gospel is supposed to be proclaimed. Pfleger ought to be ashamed, and one day he will be -- when he stands before God on the Judgment Day to explain what he did with the great gift of preaching, and he has to explain why he chose to demean the pulpit with race-baiting, tying-to-be-funny partisan politics.

Bake

[scheming daemons]

27. "from a PULPIT... where the Gospel is supposed to be proclaimed."

Who the FUCK are you to say what should come from the pulpit of somebody ELSE's church?

[EFerrari]

29. A window has been opened into the world of black churches

and it's freaking people up one side and down the other.

[Bake]

35. Damn right it's freaking people out. WHITE PEOPLE. And why not?

When a preacher (and I don't care if whether it's black or white) uses that kind of incendiary crap to demean the pulpit and debase the Gospel, yeah, it makes some of us a little nervous, ESPECIALLY when the congregation is romping and stomping and lapping it up.

Yeah. It makes us a little nervous. Funny, how many African-American preachers came out after the Wright fiasco and made sure to point out that Trinity in no way represented all AA churches.

And for the record, I've preached in AA churches that were lively, vibrant congregations. And they didn't do stuff like this. Maybe it was just because they were being nice to the visiting white guy.

Bake

[EFerrari]

39. Are you saying you are unfamiliar with the term "white privilege", Bake?

That's stunning.

And what these people are doing is not incendiary. It begins a process of healing up and of empowerment.

It's not incendiary to observe the obvious. In fact, imho, it's far more dangerous to ignore a wrong and to let it fester in the dark. Get it out in open. Let people get good and mad. Then, let them process what their next steps must be to change their lives. Wright layed it out in the clearest way. The endgame is reconciliation.

edit: they're/their

[Bake]

50. Nope, not at all.

If he really wanted to be prophetic, he'd be delivering a message about white privilege to a WHITE congregation. What he was doing was just the opposite, using it as the premise to be more divisive.

In fact, I'll go so far as to say that this primary season (when we really could be dealing with things like an illegal war and an economy in the toilet) has ripped the scab off the race issue in America (and both sides are guilty of this). Is that appropriate? Maybe, maybe not. Timing is everything. We may just be handing the White House to McCain.

I'm curious to know if you saw the thread about the other preacher at TUCC, and the comments about a Christ-centered conversation on race.

Bake

[EFerrari]

56. You seem to not understand what is going on at Trinity --

which, btw, is a mixed congregation, mostly black but still mixed.

I'll go see if I can find that thread.

[Bake]

30. Who the FUCK I am is a seminary trained former pastor

That's who. If Trinity or any other church wants to use its pulpit for partisan poitics, FINE -- let's revoke their tax-exempt status and let them pay taxes like any other business.

I have too much respect for the pulpit to see it cheapened with this type of theatrics -- as well as the crap spewed by the Hagees, Parselys, Haggards, and Falwells of this world.

Bake

[Critters2]

32. Exactly. Thank you.

I don't know why I waste all that time on exegesis, when I could just climb into the pulpit and make political rants.

[EFerrari]

34. The man was talking about white privilege. And while you may disagree with him

white privilege is a bi-partisan activity. There is no basis upon which to challenge Trinity's tax status.

And I hope that somewhere in your training you came across the concept "cultural diversity".

[Bake]

38. White privilege was just the excuse for partisan politics and you know it.

No basis to challenge TUCC's tax status? That remains to be seen.

By the way, I wonder how tolerant you'd be if it were a "white" church and the preacher (guest or otherwise) were being similarly disrespectful to Sen. Obama.

Frankly, I'm more disturbed about Pfleger's demeaning of the pulpit. See the thread about the "other preacher at Trinity" and the concept of a Christ-centered conversation on race. Those comments ring far truer than Pfleger's "comic" routine.

Bake

[EFerrari]

43. I have no business telling people what to do in their own places of worship.

It's pretty simple.

And no, I don't believe that priest was pushing Obama. He was using the name of a public figure to make his point. The whole country is thinking and talking about this contest in pretty much the same terms, whether we agree with it or like it or not.

[Bake]

75. Really? And if they want to sacrifice virgins?

You don't have a problem with that?

Bake

[scheming daemons]

40. You still have no right to dictate what is said from OTHER PEOPLE'S pulpits....

it's not your church.

[Bake]

44. I'm not dictating anything.

I'm just offering an educated critique of what was going on in TUCC's pulpit (and it certainly wasn't preaching). I'm both qualified and entitled to do that. Neither they, nor you, have to listen.

Bake

[scheming daemons]

47. We get it. You don't agree with TUCC "style". Nobody's asking you to.

...but the 1st amendment gives them the right to worship however they choose.


You might be "qualified" to critique their religious practices... but you most definitely aren't "entitled".

[Chisox08]

96. There is a big difference between Rev, Wright, Fr. Pflager and the Hagees, Parsleys, Haggards

and Falwells of the world.
Where Hagee preaches that the poor should starve Wright and Pfleger feed the hunger, helped people keep their homes, they even helped people get out from under those Adjustable rate loans that is behind the mortgage crises. They have worked to get guns off of the streets of Chicago and put an end to the gang violence that has plagued areas like the South Side of Chicago.
Has these men said some things that are "controversial"? Yes they has but it is not fair to drag these men through the mud for something that was said at the heat of the moment.
One last thing politics are preached from the pulpits of just about every black church in Chicago. I can't speak for the rest of the country but I can speak from what I have experienced. Bake I would like to invite you to Trinity, St. Sabina and Salem Baptist Church and you will see what I'm talking about. Their message is not about hate it is about uplifting the community. They see the anger and the bitterness of their congregations and they address it instead of pushing it to the backside and letting it fester and soon we will have another generation of angry bitter African Americans.

[Critters2]

31. I'll say it. The preacher's task is to expound scripture.

What text was he expounding, exactly? I'm still trying to find this out. If he was just ranting, he was out of line.

[EFerrari]

33. I love these mote and beam posts.

[Bake]

41. What I love are these threads

in which non-churchgoers, atheists, and political hacks pontificate on what is proper for a Christian pulpit.

Perhaps you're not one of the above, but there have been plenty of them doing so, and this just seemed like an appropriate point to interject that into the conversation. Personally, I agree with mycritters on this one. The pulpit is for proclaiming the Gospel and expounding the Scriptures. That's NOT what was going on here.

Bake

[scheming daemons]

45. Are you a member of TUCC? If not, you have no say in what is "proper" from THEIR pulpit....

In your church, you can have your own boundaries.


Those boundaries end at YOUR church's doors.


TUCC is not bound by YOUR beliefs as to what is "proper".

[Bake]

61. Are YOU a member of TUCC?

If not, then who the FUCK are you to tell me it's none of my business? This is an internet discussion board. Believe me, when I was in the seminary, we had vigorous discussions of what was and was not proper in the pulpit.

One of my professors, by the way was Dr. George Buttrick, who I suspect knew more than a little about what is proper for ANY pulpit.

Bake

[EFerrari]

46. I doubt that Christ would agree with either of you

prescribing for other people.

[Critters2]

53. We have standards. I work lng and hard to abide by them.

I expect my colleagues to do the same.

[EFerrari]

57. Matthew 7:1,2 -

"Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."

[Critters2]

59. This means that I will be held to the same standards as Wright and Pfleger.

I already know this to be true. Which is why I don't take partisan stands in the pulpit.

[EFerrari]

64. No. That means you are inviting the same kind of judgmental attitude

upon yourself and upon your congregation.

Maybe you're fine with that.

[Critters2]

66. I'm very careful to be neither racist nor sexist in the pulpit.

Would that Pfleger would do the same.

[EFerrari]

68. Again, that's your judgment that you're lavishing. n/t

[Bake]

77. Stop defending Pfleger and look at what critters is saying.

Critters is a currently-serving minister, and I think is therefore entitled (more so than I, although I think we agree in substance) to offer an educated critique on this situation. Critters is simply saying the role of the pulpit is the exposition of the Word of God -- and that's Homiletics 101 for anybody who has been to the seminary. I'm willing to bet that Jeremiah Wright would tell you the same thing. Want to take that bet?

And if you HAVEN'T been to the seminary, perhaps you ought to give a bit of deference to those who have.

Bake

[EFerrari]

79. The day that I defer to people who inflict their hidebound judgments

on others instead of taking the compassionate road will be a very sad day.

You don't have to be an competent exegete, which I am, to understand that.

But, I recognize that my responses to both of you are in opposition to what I try to live. Instead of being ornery, I should have tried to understand your concerns regarding divisiveness and discrimination. You seriously got me there, Bake. :)

[scheming daemons]

42. In YOUR church, you can set the boundaries however you wish. This wasn't YOUR church...

...and it wasn't YOUR preacher...


and as such, you have NO FUCKING BUSINESS saying what his task is or isn't. Unless you go to that church, you have no say whatsoever.


Each church has a right to believe and worship in whatever way they choose.... and sanctimonious pricks like you have no business telling them they're "doing it wrong".

[Bake]

48. It wasn't Pfleger's church or his pulpit, either.

Maybe he should have been a little more respectful of TUCC's pulpit, instead of dragging it back into the spotlight with his shameful performance.

Bake

[scheming daemons]

49. Based on the reactions of the congregation, I'd say they considered his style "appropriate" for them

They didn't consider it "shameful".


He gave them what they are accustomed to at that church. One could argue that *IS* being respectful to them and their pulpit.

[Bake]

65. See, that's the scary part ...

And right out of your own fingertips.

That's what they were accustomed to. And yet, you bent over backwards to complain that Rev. Wright's stuff was just cherry-picked from over 20 years of ministry. That Obama probably seldom heard any of that coming from the pulpit.

We get it. That IS what they're accustomed to. That's what they go for there. Maybe Obama too. At least that's why we're even talking about this.

Bake

[EFerrari]

69. The only thing this is proving is your unfamiliarity with that culture. n/t

[Bake]

74. You may be correct.

And if so, it also shows why this issue is far to huge to be solved in a single campaign, and why it may be the issue that rather than uniting us, costs us the White House.

Bake

[EFerrari]

76. It won't cost us the White House because people in this country

are not interested enough to vote on that basis.

This has been and will continue to be a long learning experience for us, though. It's gotten ugly and will again. I think we can handle it, and I hope we move a little bit forward when it's all done.

[2rth2pwr]

94. Rec.

[JVS]

101. Do the UCC and RCC have pulpit fellowship?

If not, then Pfleger was a guest and should not be considered obligated to follow UCC regulations

[Critters2]

51. Actually, I am of the same denomination as Trinity,

and yes, we have standards as a denomination. And yes, I can say that what was done there was wrong. And I will continue to do so.

[EFerrari]

54. Baloney. You don't speak for your denomination.

"Defenders of Wright, including John Thomas, United Church of Christ general minister and president, have noted that these excerpts were taken out of context including the 9/11 comment which referenced statements made by Ambassador Edward Peck who had served as Chief of Mission in Baghdad from 1977-1980. Further defense was given in regard to the preaching style of the black church in America and the influences of black liberation theology which views Jesus as the defender of those who are dominated by the institutional powers in a culture."

http://unitedchurchofchrist.blogspot.com/2008/05/uccs-sacred-conversation-on-race-begins.html

[Critters2]

58. So far, there's been no defense of this particular sermon.

Just this from the President of Chicago Theological Seminary, which points out the blatant sexism of Pfleger's "sermon":

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/susan_brooks_thistlethwaite/2008/05/pfleger_bully_in_the_pulpit.html

There was this muffled "defense" after the NPC speech:

http://www.ucc.org/news/thomas-speaks-to-broad-set-of.html


But John Thomas is being conspicuously silent today.

[EFerrari]

62. Describing Clinton's behavior is now sexist?

That's a very weak argument. If she relies on tears to manipulate the public, she will be called on that tactic. She paved the way for her critics.

[Critters2]

63. Did you read Thistlethwaite?

Right. Women who emote are weak. Women who don't emote are cold. Nothing sexist there.

[EFerrari]

67. The problem is most people can spot emotional blackmail a mile away.

So, whatever generalization you'd like to draw, politicians who weep at a politically convenient moment are manipulators, woman, man or fish.

[Critters2]

70. And what moment wouldn't be politically expedient?

The woman teared up when expressing love of her country, and a bunch of piranhas--some of them in pulpits--continue to pounce on this. How unbelievably hateful.

[EFerrari]

71. Because she has shown herself to be such an idealist?

:rofl:

[Critters2]

72. Or human. nt

[EFerrari]

73. I don't remember seeing anyone question her species.

But many people have questioned her judgment and her behavior and rightly so.

[Bake]

78. Please admit the POSSIBILITY that your political bias

is coloring your "theological" judgment in this instance. Because it's obvious that it is. If not, you're really just another Obot, and I will be extremely disappointed because I've respected you for a long time, and I hope you've respected me.

I can honestly say that I would be every bit as irate about what in my view is a misuse of the pulpit if the candidates' positions were reversed. Can you do the same?

Bake

[EFerrari]

80. What's funny is, for me this isn't about defending Obama at all.

I just don't agree that it's my place to pass judgment on what a congregation decides that it needs. It doesn't really matter what I think of that sermon. It's not up to me, period. That's their space to use as they see fit. It may be inconvenient for politicians and for campaigns. It may be disturbing to some people. That really has no bearing on the right of Trinity to do exactly what they're doing.

That's not my call to make. And it wouldn't be possible for the situation to be reversed because there are few people in this country as privileged as Hillary Clinton has been. Has there been sexism in the media? Sure -- and a lot of us, supporters or no, pushed back against that cr@p.

But, obviously, I disagree with you on the "misuse" of the pulpit. Pulpits do not exist in vacuums. And the congregation at Trinity seems to be thriving on the program they are following. Who in the world am I to tell them they are wrong.

[genna]

88. Working in the church and setting boundaries

First off, I've been following this homiletic discussion on what is proper church etiquette and how/why should a pulpit be used.

Second, I hear some of the following issues repeated but I have not heard some of the unstated assumptions involved:
1. There is a right and a wrong way for every church who declares Christ as Lord and Savior to behave regardless of race, gender, or any other distinguishing characteristic.

2. This standard way of operating is known and you have access to this universal truth which has universal application.

3. Anyone who is not following through with this universal standard, knows and acknowledges its existence and openly defies this universal standard to their own immortal soul's peril.

Third, I wonder in your heart of hearts why you use some textual analysis to convict Pflegar (the spelling is messing me up) and set yourselves up as the better standard.



There is a rich and varied context for the Christian tradition which has grown out of the black church. It has had varied applications in American political history AND it has not always been embraced by America. Our present day is no different than what black church history has been.

I could go and get up on my perch and dissect your arguments on both sides (I can't begin to pass judgement on what is taking place in anyone else's pulpit because I can't quantify/qualify the moral rightness or wrongness of that subjective experience OR I went to seminary, have been formally educated in the thought/exercise/practice of the gospel; thereby have a superior cultured belly for moral outrage and this is it), but I think it is disingenuous to raise yourself on either side to such a superior perch that you don't examine your own palette first (or we could use the log in the eye parable) before you start being dismissing another.


I have been a Sunday school teacher. I'd like to enter seminary soon. From everything I have heard and witnessed, I definitely don't think that process is so perfect that I will no longer have biases at the end of it.

[Critters2]

89. Again, I serve in the denomination of which Trinity is a part.

I know what we are and are not expected to do in the pulpit--and by "we", I mean the United Church of Christ. Trinity is part of a larger organization, and that organization has standards and a code of ethics. I judge myself by these things, and expect others to do the same. These are objective and clear standards--not my opinion. I simply expect congregations and individuals to abide by the standards they've covenanted to. I'm not sure why that's too much to ask.

[EFerrari]

91. You continue to confuse your own judgment with "objective and clear standards".

[Critters2]

102. We have a Minister's Code of ethics,

and a Congregational Code. These are objective and clear standards. Trinity and those who stand at its pulpit are expected to abide by these.

[EFerrari]

90. I think you meant to respond to someone else. n/t

[Critters2]

60. No. In my church, the Church and Ministry Committee

and Minster's Code set the boundaries. Just like at Trinity.

[sakura]

93. But you're not a Catholic...

Are either of you familiar with the Catholic tradition regarding sermons or as we call them, homilies? Are you certain that your seminary experience parallels that of a Catholic seminarian?

[dsomuah]

103. I am a taxpayer

I am someone who pays my taxes that help fund their tax exempt status. Since I am indirrectly funding their ministry, I most certainly get to have a say in what they CAN'T say from the pulpit if they are going to continue to enjoy my financial support.

[NotThisTime]

36. Nope, nobody would care

[ampad]

52. LOL

I just heard it on Randi I was cracking up! It was funny as hell and so damn true. "there's a black man stealing my show!!!!" Then he did the crying :rofl: when he did the crying I was done! :rofl:

[ruby slippers]

83. no one cared when Hagee talked to the Catholics, either.

[ekwhite]

84. I DEMAND THAT OBAMA APOLOGIZE FOR CHRIS ROCK!!!

For whatever he said.

[smalll]

97. If Chris Rock were Number 2 "Spiritual Advisor" to Barack -

or if Chris Rock was the man universally reported to be mediating between Barack and Pastor Wright as of the last time this TUCC train wreck hit the big-time, THERE WOULD BE ISSUES!

Also, you're forgetting the "white people, give up your 401ks" part of this.

[Vinca]

104. If we examined the content of BET, the source of Clinton's close

associate Bob Johnson's fortune, I'm sure the Pfleger comment would be tame. What? Not fair? Guilt by association twice removed isn't fair?