Practically Speaking

Let's be honest.  This radio commentator did not use Obama's middle name for the sake of accurate identification or completeness, nor was he driving at humor like Jon Stewart.  If you listen to the whole intro, he came with the clear intent to smear Obama.  The name game is intended to make Obama look foreign, dangerous, not one of us, just like the Muslim rumors.

Still, Kudos to John McCain.  He rapidly denounced this cheap attack for what it was.  No wonder he is in trouble with red meat conservatives (Bill Cunningham's words).  John McCain has far too much class and dignity for them.  Those who will resort to cheap attacks like this do indeed have no candidate in this race, and America is better off for it.

Kyle's reply: I don't expect we will ever agree, but who knows, if we wait long enough we may find common ground somewhere? There are aspects of Sen. Obama's support and affiliations that do make me wonder--they are not main stream (his church for one, Louis Farrakhan for two.)  If Romney's religion was questioned and made an issue of, I think it is fair to analyze other candidate's beliefs and associations too.
 

FWIW, I haven't heard any of the candidates making a big deal out of this.  I'm pleased by the number of dirty-tricks type things that are not turning into circuses this year, despite media attention.

I agree with Contrarian; the remarks were full of innuendo intended to make Obama seem other than one of us.  McCain simply said he wasn't going to partake--admirable and fair.

After what we learned about anti-LDS sentiments, I would think you might agree too Kyle.  It was wrong when it was done to Romney, and it is wrong here--maybe even more wrong here because there are untruths in the mix--prejudice AND falsehoods.

Obama's church is a UCC congregation, which is a mainline Protestant church, a mix of Calvinism and Congregationalism--think Presbyterians, but perhaps with more lay-person voting.  I don't see how their particular ethnic focus is different or worse than an Orthodox or Roman Catholic parish expressing it's ethnicity.  The 'strange' code that I keep hearing about says things like educate your children, support your community businesses, and don't rest on your laurels; sounds like the good ol' Puritan ethic to me and equally as mainstream as Greek Town or Little Italy.

Kyle's reply: I don't think Trinity UCC is like most Congregational or Protestant churches. Have you looked at their website? Trinity UCC does mention in its 10 point vision that they are a congregation committed to Adoration, Salvation, Reconciliation, Commitment to Africa, etc. But when you look at the UTube clip however, it seems there is a lot of emphasis on Africa. If you look at their Black Value System page there is not much about God, God's grace, God's forgiveness, or living a life that glorifies God. Their first point does mention God, in that it states 1. "Commitment to God. 'The God of our weary years' will give us the strength to give up prayerful passivism and become Black Christian Activists, soldiers for Black freedom and the dignity of all humankind." The other points on that webpage have little to do with a Calvinistic or Congregational Church but to me are more political in nature.

What would be the reaction if John McCain or Hillary Clinton attended a church that substituted White for all the times Trinity UCC uses the word Black? Or states a commitment to Italy (I'm Italian), or Ireland, etc?

I think it is important to know the values and beliefs of a candidate as reflected in their voting records and associations. 

Kyle, thanks for the invitation to look closely at one aspect of Barack Obama's background, his church.  I spent 30 minutes or so wandering around the website, and came away completely impressed.

Churches are, of course, a part and a product of their community.  This church combines a strong Christian tradition with the needs of its community.  The message and method of this church is different than that of a white suburb.  Surrounded by crime, drugs, unemployment, single family homes, etc, this church chooses to lift up by first supporting people.  The message is one of hope, responsibility for ones self, and community.  If the message is occasionally political, so be it.  After 8 years of faith based initiatives, no one should be suprized.

This church is in a black community, and has a message by and for blacks.  Fine.  You would not criticize a wealthy white politician for attending a predominantly white church, unless it excluded others.  You have no evidence of that here.  There are, after all, many ethnic churches, and all churches must speak to their community.

There is, in the minds of some theologans, a tension between prayer and works.  Christ was never bothered by such details.  "Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me."  This church chooses to do.  Imagine the turnaround in our country if all churches took such ownership in their community.

This church fits hand in glove with Obama's message of hope.  It is testimony to the depth of his committment.  All Christians, and people of all faiths, should be pleased.  Thanks again for bringing this message of faith and hope to our attention.

Kyle's reply: Glad you liked it. I hope everyone will take the same long, hard look. 

I for one, feel very uneasy about that church's and Barack Obama's association with Louis Ferrakhan.  I hope you will read through this as well.

"In December 2007, the Trinity United Church of Christ (TUCC) bestowed its highest social achievement award upon Louis Farrakhan, the head of the Nation of Islam. This was facilitated through the church's publication Trumpet Magazine and presented at their end of the year awards gala. The award dubbed the Lifetime Achievement "Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. Trumpet" Award is named after the head pastor that married Barack and Michele Obama nee Robinson."

Ferrakhan is an anti-Semite and anti-integration Muslim. I do understand that a candidate cannot help who endorses him. However, when that same candidate attends a church that honors that controversial endorser, then that makes me wonder.

Barack Obama has repeatedly disavowed himself from Louis Farrakhan.

Let's recap:  You started by implying that it was no big deal to smear Obama by highlighting his middle name.  Having lost that argument you dropped it, moving on to the shameful tactic of smearing ones church, arguing that if was okay to smear Romney in such a way, it okay to do it to someone else. I responded, and now it is somehow not about his church, but about a tangential relationship between Obama, his church, and Louis Farrakhan, even though Obama clearly disavows Farrakhan.  Sounds a lot like a Swiftboat to me, and this is exactly what is wrong with American politics.

But back to John McCain.  After his introduction by Bill Cunningham, he clearly stated that he had important philosophical differences with his Democratic rivals, but he would treat them with respect.  Seems that you still need to make a choice:  are you going with your candidate, or are you taking the low road, or are you sitting out this election?

Kyle's reply: Contrarian, you live up to your handle, and clearly, you and I see things very differently. You see, I don't believe pointing out differences and facts and associations is smearing. You know, By their fruits shall you know them. I looked into what Romney stood for (his faith in America speech, etc.) and found having him as a president would not be in conflict with my beliefs.

My point about McCain was that he bends over backwards to compliment his opponents. In another interview he stated that he thought either Sen. Obama or Clinton would make a fine (good?) president. I don't see any need to say that. Did Mayor Speaker or Candidate Kilkenny say that about each other? Did Green say that about Doyle? No, because what they stood for was very different. What McCain stands for is very different from his opponents too. 

At this point (as I earlier blogged) I am voting for McCain, because he is the the closest to issues that are important to me: pro-life, more fiscally conservative, believes in a strong military, better judges, etc.

While I do not like to let comments go un-posted or unanswered, I think it would be best in the future for you to email me directly. Maybe you would like to consider starting your own blog?

I'm satisfied that we have exhausted the topic.

I have no interest in having my own blog.

You blog in public, on a community web site.  You obviously believe that your opinions matter.  If you just wanted to hear yourself talk, you could do that in the shower.  You must intend to have an impact on other people's opinion.  That's where others, including those that disagree with you, come in.

This is about the life of ideas.  I very much appreciate that you never have edited me, or excluded me.  That's fair and proper.  After all, if your ideas are sound, they will survive the testing by fire from others.  If you can't stand such scrutiny, you should choose to not participate in a public exchange.  So while I appreciate you offer to communicate by email, I think I'd rather have my ideas tested against yours in public.  Seems like the right thing in a healthy democracy.

Contrarian, what if we just discuss things without the trial-by-fire component?  I agree with you about Cunningham, McCain, Trinity UCC, and Obama's repudiation of Farrakhan, however, I don't feel the need to make Kyle agree with me.  She has legitimate concerns, and she has stated them squarely.  Her perception is her perception, not a swiftboat, and not an ideal that she must defend ad nauseum.  What's the big deal?

I, too, have no need to make Kyle agree with me.  As I said above, the public nature of these commentaries has much to do with affecting the opinions of others who read along but may never choose to participate.

I do have a very strong internal compass with respect to truth and fairness, and it went off in spades on this one.  I very much appreciate John McCain's attempt to elevate the discouse, and it is a pity that more don't follow his lead.

I am not making this up. Today is Middle Name Pride Day . Some people have very unusual middle names

Pingback from  Ever change churches? - Practically Speaking