Before we get too far away from the issue — or the Rev. Wright does something to return it to the front burner – I note that TNR’s Noam Scheiber revisited the question of why Barack Obama joined the Trinity United Church of Christ in the first instance.ÂÂ
Having already addressed this question — based in part on a March 19, 2007 TNR profile of Obama — I note that Scheiber’s piece adds a little depth from David Mendell’s Obama biography, which gives Wright’s take on the issue, long before the current controversy erupted. Both accounts fit together, albeit from differing perspectives, reinforcing the conclusion that the Wright’s Leftist ideology and social activism were key factors in Obama choosing TUCC above other churches in Chicago.
(h/t Memeorandum.)
In other words, Obama agreed with Wright.
to get to the other side, of course.
Karl – To me, this has always been one of the more interesting parts of the Obama/Wright relationship. Obama searched for the right church for him to join, and chose Wright and TUCC. It was not a passive process, he did not just go to the nearest church, or the church he grew up in out of habit or obligation. He sought this out.
I wish I could recall where I saw this, but there was some discussion of Obama and his contemporaries at Columbia being in possession of Wright’s sermons on tape and frequently gathering to discuss them. If true, this lends a great deal of credence to the notion that Obama specifically sought Wright out. What led Obama to Chicago in the first place?
I also can’t help but wonder whether Michelle was a Trinity congregant prior to her relationship with Barack.
It’s a totally political church but you still get to write off all the money you give it. M’chelle and Baracky said hey we can give more money to Jeremiah Wright and that way we get to pay less taxes to goddamn America. Sweet deal.
“Wright was a former Muslim”
The parallel must have been appealing.
feets, aren’t the contributions a fairly recent occurrence? They weren’t dropping significant coin on Rev. Jerry, say, ten, fifteen years ago, were they?
Has anyone else noticed that this primary has become less about issues and more about ideology?
I find it ironic that so many liberals were howling at ABC about the first forty minutes of the PA debate and yet are faced with a campaign that seems to be constantly turning on ideological discussions like BLT, racial victimization, peace movements, gender equity and “real change.”
Time Magazine just did a huge cover story on declaring “the good war” on climate change and yet neither candidate has made environmental concerns a centerpiece issue. Barack has one ad about higher MPG’s and “melting the polar ice caps” but that’s about it. (Let’s not overlook the delicious irony of the candidates pimping “!$3.50/Gal. gas!” while ignoring many environmentalists joy at the high price of carbon based fuels.) Perhaps they realise that the sorts of “solutions” being bandied about are going to cost working class families some serious moolah and we can’t have that floating around the “getting rid of the worse president evah!” magic carpet ride.
I suspect that the more uncertain the nomination is as the convention looms the more idealogical the discussion will become. That is the sort of recipe for disaster that keeps Dean up at night. Idealogues don’t have a good track record of listening and compromising when they are infused with the heady rush of TRUTH TO POWER !!11eleventy11!!
Carmen SanDiego wonders: Where in the world are the issues?
Oh. I don’t know. They didn’t release tax returns back that far. Probably not cause it was just recently where they needed tax writeoffs.
could it be the wife factor as well(besides other points you guys are mentioning, true or false, we just guessing)?
Mine picked the orthodox church in the neighboring town, I did not mind , I did not care much.
Make your pick, honey
Waffle eating cryptotian Marxist aliens come out! I see you up there in Obama’s ass, talking in whispers, plotting America’s demise, pretending you really care. Even though you’re in a place all dark and rotten, you’re eventually coming out, at which time I’ll make you believers! Don’t say yes of no or neither, these are the days when men are citizens again! See my lapel pin.
I come from downtown, born for turds like you.
I think Scheiber’s piece has a pretty good sense of why Obama chose the church. It sound a lot like Obama to pick a church with a greater focus on intellectualism and less emphasis on dogmatism in its own sake. I htink the father connection might be stretching it a bit far, because I don’t know anyone personally who picks a church based on a surrogate father scale.
However, I would like to say that I don’t think joining the church was a sign on to everything Wright had to say. Yes they shared similarities in perspective, but to just say “So…. Obama agreed with Wright” is trying to paint them as the same person, which they aren’t.
Obama is the skinny one.
Ultimately, the Wright stuff doesn’t matter to me, because I have plenty of other reasons why I wouldn’t vote for him.
But, I do believe it says something about him. Perhaps ONE thing it says, is that he isn’t the uniter he claims to be. Wright is rather divisive.
Baracky is tearing his church apart. As goes the church so goes the nation I think. He was supposed to be different I thought.
In order to maintain properly New Testament form, it seems that Obama must deny Wright a third time before Wright can be properly crucified.
The cock is refusing to crow.
If I were the sort to invest time and effort to finding a “church home,” I would certainly have a great deal of interest in the pastor — and in fact, the last church I attended with any regularity no longer appeals to me since the pastor I knew there was transferred away and a new one brought in. To be fair, we had gotten out of the habit of going to church by then, and these days my wife has chosen another church in a whole different denomination — though, she chose it because of the pastor.
So, I think for people to whom the “church home” really matters, yes — the pastor is a big part of the attraction because he is the face and voice of that church. At a church where the same pastor can stay for decades, far and away the more so.
The only way to downplay Wright in all this is to ignore Obama’s actions throughout the last 20 years.
Catholic churches tend to move the priest around now-a-days. I never known a priest for more than 4 or 5 years max -I converted 11 years ago. I’ve had priests I didn’t CARE for … and I usually tried to avoid their masses.
I would never criticize anyone for whatever reason they originally had in joining a church. My wife and I joined our Presbyterian church because it looked pretty, the pastor was cool and we thought our kids needed some good morals learnin’. We all experienced a spiritual growth over the course of the years.
I’m less sanguine with the idea of staying at a church for 20 years and not buying into a sizable chunk of Wright’s theology. Having experiened the way people come and go with regards to church membership and the various reasons why they leave (theological doctrine, personality conflicts, use of church money, mission emphasis, etc.) it’s just harder, but not impossible, to accept the Obamas staying at TUCC in spite of Wright’s more radical views rather than because of them.
We’ll never know the truth of that unless Barack and Michelle deign to do a Clintonian “I don’t bake cookies” interview.
Wow, would I ever want to see that if just for Michelle’s participation. I suspect that the cookie dough would FLY!
Social activism? Like chasing bums away from your neighbor’s garage and so forth? How about a shoot on sight order for graffiti artists? That would certainly be active, and would help society immensely.
Or is that one of those dog whistle thingies that I’d need a degree in newspeak to decipher?