All Comments (17)

"He performed the truth that when you tell the truth, as the Bible says, it will set you free."

Is this what it really means? No, the quote means that when you accept the truth of Christ as savior, son of God, then you are set free.

You misuse the Bible.

This is kinda weird. Don't you think?

John 8:32f
31To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

33They answered him, "We are Abraham's descendants[b] and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I wondered where in the Bible I might find, "the truth will set you free" and sure enough. But what about (33) - "We are Abraham's descendants[b] and have never been slaves of anyone." Oh yeah?

Exodus 6:9
Moses reported this to the Israelites, but they did not listen to him because of their discouragement and cruel bondage.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My dictionary says that bondage is slavery so that could read, "cruel slavery" instead of, "cruel bondage."

Somebody's lying. Now who might that be?

Let freedom ring!! http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul

The truth will surely set you free but it's not worth any money. The big money comes to those leading the multitudes to the house of the father of Jesus, hell.

Have people ever congregated to hear the truth and then have the plate passed? Would they put money on that plate if they actually knew the truth?

Folks who are against being slaves need to get out of those churches fast. The lie is the opposite of the truth so we can expect that, "the lie will make you a slave" just like, "the truth will set you free."

But who wants to hear the dull old truth? "Lie to me. Tell me I'm beautiful" said she. And she just loves to hear that preacher man tell the truth that will set her free straight from the Bible. Now lie to me, tell me which supernatural being is the one behind the Bible and Bible preaching?

Quar'an, Book of Mormon any different? Whatever is the truth?

Dear Professor Thistlethwaite

My apologies if this turns out to be a double post. My earlier Easter wishes were withheld for approval. I hope my best wishes for a wonderful Easter gets through to you this time around!

Happy Easter 2008!

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

I think a key distinction here is that Obama makes no claims that his policies will be determined by this preacher.

Frankly, he explained his point of view on this quite well... and other candidates, ones who play the public piety card *as* something that guides their policy actively support some pretty scary views: Huckabee's ties to some pretty radical right-wingers, and actual measures to put them in the Arkansas schools were never even looked at during his candidacy.

Double-standards, here.

I seem to remember hearing a lot just recently from *conservative* Christians how they opposed hate crimes legislation, largely on the (unwarranted) basis that such civil rights protections might *prevent* their preachers from saying inflammatory things against minorities, like myself on a couple of counts.

Senator Obama has addressed this issue, and well.

Which is more than can really be said for the underwhelming response when Falwell and Robertson tried to tell the nation folks like *me* were responsible for the national trauma of 9/11, sentiments, it turns out, McCain's pastor has recently echoed.

Whatever you may think of this pastor's statements, the simple fact is they are *not* reflected in Senator Obama's positions. The fact is he *has* repudiated those statements, on no uncertain terms.

It's not 'liberal wishful thinking' to note there's a major double-standard, here. More swiftboating. First he's a 'Muslim,' now he's a slavish follower of a Christian preacher saying things that all of a sudden the Right doesn't like cause it's a black man saying em.

Personally, I think it's reprehensible, whoever says it, but Obama isn't *claiming* to be a slavish follower. He says exactly what his religion... and his race, means to him.

Wow! A very honest, painful essay. If all people on both sides of the racial divide took your essay to heart we could all do better. Thank you!

Dear Rao Tayi -

Obama wasn't talking about Jesus until video clips of his pastor showed up on TV and the Internet. Before that, people thought he was Muslim, remember?

As for the black vote, at first they were favoring Hillary, because of their fondness for Bill and their thinking that Obama wasn't black enough. It wasn't until Bill Clinton insulted them in SC, that black people threw their support to Obama.

In the future, please try to avoid making assumptions without knowing the facts.

Thanks

There are several issues that are floating in this election, one of the recent being Mr. Wright's fulminations on the pulpit. (I deliberately use the salutation Mr. instead of Rev. in my opinion there is no one out there whom I do not know deserves any veneration just because (s)he is person of cloth, if any thing they are the ones who deserve the least reverence.) The issues that are floating as i mentioned earlier are:

1) Competence of the candidates (given).
2) Anticipated policies the candidates would pursue if elected.
3) Extent of pandering they are engaging in.
4) Ethnic identification
5) How did Mr. Obama handle the Wright incident.

Here are my thoughts on the above:

1) I personally feel that as far as competence goes Mr. Obama has burst into the national scene mere 4 years ago. He had just one state wide run when he got elected to the US senate. Since his coming there his performance has best be termed as above mediocre, nothing stellar like Feingold and others. Even his stance against war has not been as strident as Mr Feingold's or Mr. Murtha's. Does he have potential? Definitely does. Has faced lot of political adversity and come up on the top or just faced adversity, not really. Is he charismatic? Definitely yes, but would do well to learn the ropes. On the other hand Ms. Clinton has faced lot of political adversity - did not always come up on the top. Her career, albeit brief in senate, shows that she is capable of engaging with the opposition, not always stridently as before but can get things done. She has hardened battle scarred subs that will be there when going gets rough.

2) Anticipated policies between Clinton, & Obama will be six of one half a dozen of the other. But I am confident that she will be able to get it done better than him. She is willing to fight and also shown that she has learnt the lessons of 1993 fiasco too. I am not sure of Obama, he comes across as too much of conciliator, rather than a fighter. It is not enough to say I opposed the war from the beginning. What has he done in practice when he could do something about it. Nothing different from Clinton. Why did he not speak out as eloquently about it during the 2004 convention speech?

3) The extent of pandering being engaged here. I think both are about the same in most respects, and it is a necessary part of polity. However, Mr. Obama does not miss an opportunity to remind he populace that he has indeed come to Jesus. My question to him is "Why should I care?". In what way does his coming to Jesus qualify him to be the president. Why is any candidate's belief in bronze age myths be qualification to be the president. This is nothing but pandering additionally his going on a tour with homophobic minister was nothing but to appeal to the subliminal bigotry that prevails amongst some of these religious folks.

4) On this front the Clintons have misplayed the cards badly. Not withstanding the fact that Clintons do not have a prejudicial bone in them the African-American(AA) vote was Mr. Obama's to loose and not theirs to win. This is not to arrogate bigotry or racism to the AAs but is just an reflexive urge to support the first viable AA to the presidency. If Mr. Obama were the 3rd or the 4th viable AA candidate, especially a few had already won it, it would not be a big deal with them either. Just as an illustration, Mr. Jindal of Louisiana is a polar opposite of majority of Americans of Indian origin (mind you not all them) has still garnered more than 90% of the votes on Indian Americans. He is a pioneer amongst the IAs so this is a freebie he got. Likewise Mr. Obama has to with the AA vote. Clinton just needs to accept it and try to beat him with the remaining 88% of the populace. The tactics of south Carolina only will tarnish their image, even though it wasn't racially motivated and only politically motivated. She ought to have been smarter than that. There is no room for self pity , or how can they do it when we have always been in the forefront of the civil rights movement etc, etc. That is Kismet.

5) Now coming to the last issue, how did Mr. Obama handle the Wright situation. I think his speech was well thought out and well delivered. It was a speech long in coming, from any quarter. That being said, it fell far short of the mark. In fact I would venture to say the speech did not address the underlying reasons for the speech, in my view. The speech was necessary because people were wanting to know more about the actions/inactions of Mr. Obama and the rationale behind them. This essential issue was woefully neglected completely by him in his speech. While it was long overdue that the body politics of USA needed to hear it, that was not his imperative task on Tuesday. I wanted to hear the reasoning behind his apparent inaction in correcting Mr. Wright's flamboyant bluster and or his attempts to correct Wright's fulminations. His rationale for staying with the congregation for 20 years, His rationale for appointing Wright to his so call spiritual advisory committee, his rationale for dis-inviting Mr. Wright to his announcement ceremony. Lastly his claim to be the leader of the nation, when he apparently had not taken any leadership to moderate Mr. Wright's rhetoric. This is where Mr. Obama has failed the country and also his staunchest supporters.

Peter Wehner's words:
***********************
The options aren’t particularly good for Senator Obama. He either agreed with the views and core beliefs of Reverend Wright, which would essentially disqualify him as a serious candidate for the presidency; or he didn’t agree with Wright but for decades sat passively by and accepted Wright’s teaching and rants. Didn’t Obama consider, even once, pulling Wright aside and pointing out — as any true friend would, in a civil but forceful way — that hailstones of hate simply have no place in a church and that the “social gospel” is not synonymous with preaching bigotry and anti-Americanism?
*************************

White liberal Guilt? There are one in eight Americans who were born in foreign lands. There are one in six or five americans who were born in foreign lands or born to naturalized American parent like Obama. Do they have to suffer white guilt like Susan? I don't think so. I have a black parent, like Obama, and he served in the US army. I find what Obama says about blacks to be insulting to say the least. Not all blacks agree with Wright and his Anti Americanism. My dad was proud to follow the message of MLK jr. and so am I. Obama with all his fancy words dishonors the rising above of hate with love and non-violence that MLK showed.

Susan, if you have to feel guilty do so, but feel guilty that you cannot hear the dream of Dr. King but you can hear the excuses for hate of Obama.

I like your title, "...the Truth Will Set You Free." Now all we need do to be free is find the truth. Of course the truth can be devastating. So how badly does one wish to be free is a good question and Obama is certainly at-bat in that ball game.

Try this, http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul if it's truth you truly seek. Otherwise just hit them with the fire and brimstone sermon and then pass the plate. The truth is worthless while there's big money in the lie, for a while at least as they are now learning on Wall Street and other significant places. That's known as getting educated at the school of hard knocks from which Obama is trying to graduate.

If Obama had any guts he'd renounce all religion and so would the other two candidates left standing. Of course that would level the playing field, somewhat. Can't have that. Puts "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" out of business.

The number of people on the political left who seem to here only what they want to here no matter what is actually said never ceases to amaze me...

Dear "Time For A Change of a Better DEMOCRAT" -

I hope your eagerness to shame so many prominent people and organizations is not indicative of the attitudes of most Hillary supporters.

Maybe you're really a right-wing Republican trying to make all Democrats look bad?

I hope so.

Thank you Susan, Your speech was beautiful too.

I hope that someday, you can be just as candid and about the resurrection: "Resurrection means to me that we can all rise, that we are not to live by fear of death, but by the conviction that human life is infinitely precious both now and for all time."

I'm sure it does mean that to you. That's beautiful, really. I wish you could just as eloquently acknowledge that you don't think Jesus factually rose physically from the dead or ascended bodily into heaven. When you and respected theologians like you can openly acknowledge that, you'll move an honest discussion of Christianity forward, just as Obama is moving an honest discussion of race forward now.

It seems to me that in spite of Senator Obama's eloquent delivery on race, relationships and the Church many folks continue to miss the point. Yesterday, Obama presented America with a gaze into the complex intricacies of relationships, particularly as it relates to an African American's relationship with their respective church families. The peep inside and subsequent dialogue as presented should not be taken out of its context and reduced to a point for condemnation but more so received as a lens into the social journey and pedagogy of ones experience as an African American. Unfortunately, some desire to continue to harp on the disbelieve and aghast of the pastor/parishioner relationship as oppose to incorporate this insight as a new found intimate understanding of the culture, which in my view should no more be condemn than ones introduction to a foreign country. It’s most unlikely that a first venture into a foreign culture and custom that intelligent persons would later condemn new foreign acquaintances lifestyles on the bases of its distinction from ones personal way of living. My long held thoughts of Americans were that we were bigger than that.

I respect Senator Obama's candor as well as his loyalty to a friend. I believe that aspect is unique in a political culture where individuals readily abandon old friends, acquaintances and past colleagues at the drop of a hat when threaten with the possibility of losing an election. As an African American I know that ones affiliation to a church is not exclusive to ones relationship with the pastor but more broadly with the fellowship of the flock and the works/ministry thereof. Indeed, fellow church members often times become much closer, sometimes more so than family, particularly when family ties are often distant. And as is true with family one never agrees 100% with every positions or perspectives held but you certainly in love allow generously their ability to express freely their views. In my family that's how we grow and analyze issues as well as embrace the wonderful bases of this democracy.

I can never excuse or agree with the words expressed by Reverend Wright but I absolutely respect his right to say them It aids us in thinking critically about issues, advance a deeper dialogue, and guides out introspective examination of America's behavior in the open world. Perhaps it is painful to hear in some cases the flip side of America, because some folks want to applaud/defend America's poor actions in the broader world community without apology, without regard to its implication to the other communities. In the words of my Harvard Professor "it’s the story that makes them feel good about themselves" "it’s the thing that helps them get up in the morning". Moreover, it justifies America's imperia standing and dominance among world leaders, even if it means maligning others. Such justifications over the centuries allowed the perpetuation of slavery, the destruction of Native American civilization, and the Jim Crow policies that Rev. Wright came of age under. Plausibly no other American can best be America's critic more so than Black men of his generation and before. Rev. Wright and his generational cohorts' unique experience and encounters in the heated decades behind us shaped their perspective and contain the ugly truths of the past. Sadly, they are haunted with these bitter stories of old and may carry this baggage for the rest of their lives. However, the true measure of America is --will they allow it his history paint the future of America during this historic moment?

Right Susan. Summed up in a nutshell Obama's speech was elect me and I'll pass socialized health care and all these troublesome race thingies will simply evaporate.

Sorry they won't. They will in fact likely get worse. Why? Because the race baiters at the NAACP and other places will feel more empowered to demand even more things of government which will over the long haul damage the poor and the middle class even more.

As I've already said the only people in America right now that give a tinker's dam about race are the extreme left and the delusional like the grand dragon of the KKK and apparently Rev. Wright.

That's right Susan... it's all about you.

DOWN WITH OBAMA!

Yes! Time For A Change of a Better DEMOCRAT Time For Hillary! YHEA!

Mr. Obama simply pointed out a generational difference in the experience of his grandmother and his pastor. That does not explain to me why he is willing to continue to attend a church and listen to sermons that damn the United States.

Mr. Obama's attempt to place this issue within the broader context of generational change in race relations is political manipulation at its worst. Shame on you, Barack Obama.

Both your grandmother and your pastor deserve better from you. Shame for accepting 'secret' help from the Anti-America "Nation of Islam" , in fact, without your Grandmothers knowledge all this time, until you have been exposed.

Now you are 'Situationally lieing' through you mezmerizing 'Baratone Voice & using slick selection of Words, with intent to trick "THE PEOPLE", is a lame excuse, regardless if Your Polygamous Black Islamic Pappa Abandoned you & your White Momma!

Obama, you stick too much of Islam, an Anti-American System!????

SHAME on OBAMA who recieved support fron the Nation Of (anti-U,S.A.) Islam!

Shame on Oprah Winfrey who hires Nation Of Islam Guards! Shame on Luis Farakahn!

Shame on REV. WRIGHT who's name should be Rev Wrong!

Shame N.A.A.C.P. For secretly working with Nation Of Islam!

Shame on "HYMiE" Hater Jesse Jackson, et al!

Did he truthfully mention that by making excuses for Rev. Wright's public hate speech that he adds legitimacy to public hate speech in the eyes of some folks?

Racism and hate speech are wrong. Politicians should be expected not to associate with racists and haters.